Slashdot Mirror


How The Postman Almost Owned E-Mail

Thrawn writes "'Imagine that the U.S. Postal Service was in charge of e-mail. Sound absurd? It does to most people until they realize that it almost happened.' " I think the chance of it actually happening are massively overstated in this article, but it's still an interesting "What If". But about as likely, as say, The Confederacy ? winning the US Civil War ? .

428 comments

  1. Scary... by Rellik66 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Great, just what I wanted, a disgrunteled postal worker handling all my E-Mail

    --

    Too many zeros, not enough ones

    1. Re:Scary... by KrancHammer · · Score: 1

      ...a disgrunteled postal worker handling all my E-Mail

      Well, the threat of disgruntling has alway been exaggerated.. my dad is 1.)a former career US Marine 2.) a Vietnam veteran and 3.) a current USPS employee, and as far as I know, he's never been gruntled, much less disgruntled.

      --
      Trolls: The high-tech version of those morons that scrawl obscenities in public bathrooms.
    2. Re:Scary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Semper Fi

      I leave for bootcamp Sept 9th

    3. Re:Scary... by Ironica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hm, yes, so scary. What on earth would it be like if the USPS had offered the first e-mail service?

      - USPS has very strict government regulations regarding privacy. Less distribution of your email address.

      - USPS is non-profit. Less *motivation* to sell your email address. We wouldn't get more spam... instead, we'd be reasonably sure that if we never gave out our email addresses, we'd never get *any* spam. Not so with many (most?) of today's ISPs.

      - Post offices are literally everywhere in the country. People who currently find email inacessible because they're in the boondocks might not be in this situation.

      Fact is, if the post office had gone ahead with development of electronic mail, it probably would have been a lot like the proprietary services (i.e. AOL, CompuServe) before the internet boom. ARPA still would have seen a need for the internet, they still would have gone to university research (TCP/IP was invented at a public institution, with government money... and look how horrible it turned out), and USPS along with everyone else would have been scrambling to make themselves compatible with it.

      The worst possible thing I can think of is that maybe those millions of AOL subscribers who currently have no concept of what the internet is, but manage to rampage across it anyway, would instead be USPS subscribers. Would that really be worse?

      government != evil.

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    4. Re:Scary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now THAT is ::scary::

      Another young innocent American brainwashed. They're going to make sure you die, you know.

    5. Re:Scary... by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      check your snail mail sometime... bulk rate mail, letters to "occupant" and "our neighbor at..." The USPS does in fact sell mailing lists. Keep in mind that snail-mail spam subsidizes your $0.37 letter though.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    6. Re:Scary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah thats right. I forgot. All of those people dying in the US Military right now. Maybe I should reconsider?

      Dumbass...

      "Another stupid geek talking out of his/her ass. They're going to make sure you sit in front of a cubicle for the rest of your life, you know."

    7. Re:Scary... by Ironica · · Score: 1

      The post office does in fact *Refer people to Direct Mail Marketers (http://www.usps.com/directmail/).* If you take a look at your Thomas Guide, you can get an idea of how they might generate those "Occupant" lists, too.

      Can you support the assumption that USPS is the source of junk mail?

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    8. Re:Scary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to all the slashdotters who are brainwashed to believe that Microsoft is the evil empire while 1,000's of people are losing their pensions thanks to the "accounting discrepancies" of their former companies and even other companies that their mutual funds invested in?

      Or the brainwashing that tells them that Apple is good now because they use a UNIX base even though for over a decade they put out consistenly deficient products - even worse than the ones distributed by Microsoft.

      Or the brainwashing that Linux is a satisfactory desktop operating system even though it is widely acknowledged that KDE and GNOME are usability nightmares.

      Should I go on?

    9. Re:Scary... by Carnivorous+Carrot · · Score: 1

      ...and that $0.37 cents gets you mail that spans a continent, which really isn't a bad deal. Expect to pay three times that just to mail a letter inside the Netherlands, which is basically the size of a large metropolitan area.

      --
      "Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
    10. Re:Scary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not to mention you get several pounds of junk mail every month. least email is easy to get rid of. with REAL junk mail you have to do something with it.

      Junk mail could go away tommorow if the USPS wanted it to. 90% of what I get is just junk. Coupons, advertisments, notices, beggings, etc. The rest are bills. I would say less than 1% of what I get is from people I actually know. I can never figure out why my price on a few mailings every few months goes up while BULK mail stays relitivly low. If most of the mail going through the system is junk why not charge more for the junk? Bulk mail gets rates at 7 cents to 25 cents per letter. Some are even cheaper if they have an account and 'presorted'. But I guess it pays the bills....

    11. Re:Scary... by Uncle+Gropey · · Score: 1

      Less distribution of your email address? The USPS sells your real address to any spammer that wants to buy it.

    12. Re:Scary... by GuanoBoy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You wrote:

      > - USPS has very strict government regulations regarding privacy. Less distribution of your email address.

      Well, let's stop at "strict regulations regarding privacy". Just read your AT&T/AOL/WhateverISP user agreement. Things that boil down to "thou shall not trade MP3s or movies", "thou shall not send anything offensive to anybody", etc, etc, etc. Plus, they retain the "right" to check.

      The Postal Service has very strict regulations on who, when, and where your mail may be opened and inspected...maybe watered down a little since 11 Sep, but still very strong.

      Fedex, UPS, and the other commercial carriers have no such restrictions on limiting and checking the contents of packages and are not consistent in how they apply rules, anyway. Some time ago there was the story of a package of Playboy magazines that got intercepted during transit by one of the commercial carriers and was destroyed (or maybe returned) for being "obscene" material.

      > - USPS is non-profit. Less *motivation* to sell your email address...

      Well, they DO sell your home address to commercial interests, but they do so because of the results of competition with electronic services: email and online ordering and bill-paying. Once they came along, there was very little incentive to send a letter to someone...just email 'em. You can even send 'em an electronic greeting card. Why buy a stamp to mail a bill when you can do it online conveniently?

      The Post Office's revenue sank, so they had to make up for some of it by selling your address to marketers. They're bastards for doing it, but had sound business reasons to do so.

      Most online marketers sell your personal info merely to inflate profits. ...and because they can...

      An email system run by the Post Office with competition from the private sector as well would have made everybody better off.

      --
      WWW
    13. Re:Scary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without junk mail your .37 letter would cost you $2.37. Also, in order for bulk mail to receive a discount they have to follow many rules that make sorting easier than it is with your sloppily hand written envelope.

    14. Re:Scary... by Governerd · · Score: 1

      Best of luck, recruit. Remember, Windex works wonders on both brass and patent leather.

    15. Re:Scary... by Degrees · · Score: 2, Interesting
      USPS has very strict government regulations regarding privacy.
      That, and $1.65, will get you a cup of coffee at Denny's.

      My dad was active in politics in his younger days, and someone at the USPS opened read every letter that came from party headquarters. The local postmaster could not have cared less, being from the other party....

      Would you like spam with that?

      Government is business, backwards: they aren't customers, they're cases. They aren't opportunities, they're burdens. To properly fight spam, we'll have to raise your taxes....

      --
      "The most sensible request of government we make is not, "Do something!" But "Quit it!"
    16. Re:Scary... by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      The Postal Service is Unionized. We would be prohibited from using 'Scab' email servers. There would be email clients approved for use (the way mailboxes have to be approved).

      The rate for email messages would go up every few years and it would be impossible to get to the USPS website to buy the extra 3 cent 'e-stamps' each time.

    17. Re:Scary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The Postal Service is Unionized. We would be prohibited from using 'Scab' email servers. There would be email clients approved for use (the way mailboxes have to be approved)."

      No, *they* would be prohibited from using scab workers, *we* would not be prohibited from using "scab" companies. How many people do grocery shopping at WalMart now (where available)? The established grocery companies are up in arms, because they are in union contracts and WalMart is not.

      Yes, to use the USPS mail system, you would probably have to use certain software. As I mentioned, it would probably be a lot like AOL is now. You cannot use AOL without using their proprietary software or their web interface. Most ISPs may have standard mail servers that let you use any POP3 or IMAP program, but they'll only "support" certain programs. How is what you propose would be the case different from how it is now?

      "The rate for email messages would go up every few years and it would be impossible to get to the USPS website to buy the extra 3 cent 'e-stamps' each time."

      Yes, and your ISP has never raised their rates? Taking as the example the "World's biggest Online Provider and Stock Devaluator," AOL is up to $23.95 a month, and has more advertising than ever. Prices go up. At least, the Post Office raises prices with Congressional approval to fit explicitly defined budget gaps, and it's all a matter of public record. They won't increase their prices just because they're trendy and they *can*.

    18. Re:Scary... by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

      Post offices are literally everywhere in the country. People who currently find email inaccessable because they're in the boondocks might not be in this situation

      Yeah. All those locations with a post office but without any form of email access.

    19. Re:Scary... by pod · · Score: 1
      USPS is non-profit. Less *motivation* to sell your email address. We wouldn't get more spam... instead, we'd be reasonably sure that if we never gave out our email addresses, we'd never get *any* spam. Not so with many (most?) of today's ISPs.

      [snort] yeah, so all the SPAM in my Real Life mailbox must be teleported in by evil aliens?

      --
      "Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
    20. Re:Scary... by balthan · · Score: 1

      with REAL junk mail you have to do something with it.

      Thankfully my apartment complex keeps a trash can right next to the mail boxes. It's perpetually full of junk mail.

    21. Re:Scary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sucker. You should have joined the Air Force. You get to pretend you're in the military without having to do any actual work.

    22. Re:Scary... by Kharny · · Score: 1

      Actually, sending a letter across netherland, or even europe will cost you about the same.
      Last time I send normal mail, about a year ago it was still a normal f1,- stamp, which is about 45 dollarcents. Ofcourse, we have got this nice mailbox stickers that you don't want to receive spam, which work quite well, I never receive any trash.

      --
      Make a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life
    23. Re:Scary... by $rtbl_this · · Score: 3, Funny

      Great, just what I wanted, a disgrunteled postal worker handling all my E-Mail

      As opposed to one of us happy, well-balanced sysadmins? :)

      --
      "Are you being weird, or sarcastic?" said Emma. I said I didn't know because I get the two feelings mixed up.
    24. Re:Scary... by SerpentMage · · Score: 2

      But imagine if all of your spam mail were addressed "Occupant". LIFE WOULD ME MUCHO EASIER in terms of filtering spam. Right now we have a battle of the SPAMMERS vs SPAM busters... Just like virus writers.

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    25. Re:Scary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know the economy is bad, but is selling yourself into slavery the best option you could come up with?

    26. Re:Scary... by nehril · · Score: 2

      you assume that if the usps had taken over electronic messaging, that we'd have anything that looks like what we have today.

      the usps might have killed email *as we know it*, by putting massive investment behind things like the ECOM system described in the article--a special hookup for big companies to transmit documents to the usps, which would then print out the document on the far end and deliver it "within two days."

      If that had been deemed "good enough," email via smtp for "free" might never have gained the critical mass necessary to become a killer app of the Internet. Like it or not, the utility of the Internet was greatly improved when AOL's 20 million signed up and saw that messages could be delivered to friends within seconds, for no additional charge.

      (if you don't believe that the "Internet is Everywhere" phenomenon that AOL et al created helps geeks and oldtimers alot, consider how hard it was to get any kind of software patch in 1993.)

      So now we may have to deal with spam, but there are ways to fight that legislatively. and I REALLY like the internet the way it is, without a giant, antiquated Government agency holding it back.

    27. Re:Scary... by toddhisattva · · Score: 1
      - USPS has very strict government regulations regarding privacy. Less distribution of your email address.

      - USPS is non-profit. Less *motivation* to sell your email address. We wouldn't get more spam... instead, we'd be reasonably sure that if we never gave out our email addresses, we'd never get *any* spam. Not so with many (most?) of today's ISPs.

      You have got to be kidding. USPS delivers kilotons of JUNK MAIL (yes I'm yelling) each and every day. Worse than spam, much, much, much worse.

    28. Re:Scary... by IXI · · Score: 1

      Huh? What makes M$ better about than Worldcom? Only that nobody cares about their "accounting discrepancies" because they still seem to make profit.

      --
      He saw some dirty arabs and fired. Too bad it was just some friendly kurds, BBC reporters and his fellow cowboys.
    29. Re:Scary... by joshsisk · · Score: 1

      I work at a place that has an arrangement with the postal service to deliver a mailer to _every_ household in our county, over 300,000 homes. It is very expensive, we do it once a year I believe.

    30. Re:Scary... by joshsisk · · Score: 1

      There are post offices almost everywhere, but they are usually smaller. My grandmother lives in a town (in the US) with no local internet service (and thus no email access), but they do have a Post Office. It's in the same (small) building as the town hall, church and general store, I believe. Of course, only about 300 people live there, and I really doubt any of them have a great urge to have email...

    31. Re:Scary... by eam · · Score: 1

      My father-in-law was a USPS employee, and although he made it clear that certain nonsense was strictly prohibited, there was still plenty of nonsense going on: water gun battles, rubber band battles, etc. I would occasionally get magazines with notes from my future father-in-law slipped into them.

      It didn't sound like a particularly stressful existence.

    32. Re:Scary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when has Microsoft had "accounting discrepancies"???
      People would be _all_ _over_ _that_!!!

    33. Re:Scary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're confusing the Army for the Marine Corps. The Army is the one you "sell yourself to" -- Multi-million dollar "Recruiting Tool" computer game.... all you see on Army commercials is advertisements for signing bonuses and college money. All army recruiting t-shirts say "$50,000 for college on the back" The t-shirt you get from the Marine Corps when you enlist says "MARINES" and "SEMPER FIDELIS" below it, with the eagle, globe, and anchor in between. The Marine Corps has many intangibles to offer. I always think it's funny how the people who speak loudest are the people who have no idea what they're talking about...

    34. Re:Scary... by Robert+The+Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes but then the Spamer would have to pay for sending that spam. Don't get me wrong I am glad that USPS didn't get ahold of EMail but Atleast if everyone Email was metered then spam wouldn't be a bad because the additional cost to send a million letter would be much higher.

    35. Re:Scary... by IXI · · Score: 1
      People would be _all_ _over_ _that_!!!

      Only if they had gone broke.

      --
      He saw some dirty arabs and fired. Too bad it was just some friendly kurds, BBC reporters and his fellow cowboys.
  2. If USPS did email... by theCat · · Score: 1

    I'd get printouts in my mail slot, and pay $.35 for them. Groovy.

    --
    =^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
    1. Re:If USPS did email... by FredMcGriff · · Score: 2, Funny

      And I'd get all of my neighbor's printouts... and all of the printouts for the previous owners.

  3. I've read this already by martyn+s · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've seen this already, and personally, I think it's a lot of crap. What is he suggesting? That any other systems of E-mail aside from ones controlled by the USPS would be *illegal*? Frankly, I think if the USPS had their own E-mail service, things wouldn't be so different, because there's no way any court would ever hold up an order to prevent other people from running other E-mail services. Sensationalism sucks.

    1. Re:I've read this already by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 5, Informative

      What is he suggesting? That any other systems of E-mail aside from ones controlled by the USPS would be *illegal*?

      Yep. It's already illegal to compete with the U.S. Postal Service for non-expedited personal mail.

    2. Re:I've read this already by Bob+McCown · · Score: 1

      Got a pointer for this? This smacks of either urban legend, or something not backed by law, just threats...

    3. Re:I've read this already by martyn+s · · Score: 1

      I fully understand that. Regardless, I don't think the courts would *ever* back the same thing for electronic mail.

    4. Re:I've read this already by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      They're called the "Private Express Statutes."

      USPS.gov PDF File (Google cache)

      "The Private Express Statutes are a group of laws under which the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) has the exclusive right, with certain limited exceptions and suspensions, to carry letters for compensation."

    5. Re:I've read this already by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

      Nowadays, they wouldn't, but if the USPS had come out with E-mail in 1970, they probably would. And it would probably have been a good thing.

    6. Re:I've read this already by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

      Also, in the US Code, here.

    7. Re:I've read this already by taernim · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. So if my friend gives me a package to deliver to his girlfriend... and I'm going there myself anyhow... and I get it there faster than the USPS would... I'm going to jail?

      --
      "PC Load Letter? What the $@#% does that mean?!"
    8. Re:I've read this already by Ironica · · Score: 1

      "It's already illegal to compete with the U.S. Postal Service for non-expedited personal mail."

      Um, you'd better mention that to UPS Ground service.

      Can you actually point us toward the regulation that says this?

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    9. Re:I've read this already by Ironica · · Score: 1

      Ok, I read the whole 2-page document, and it's clear that Federal Express, Airborne Express, UPS, DHL, and um, every other carrier violate it thousands of times per day. It has either been modified, reinterpreted, or abandoned more recently.

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    10. Re:I've read this already by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

      Only if you're paid for it.

      This chapter shall not prohibit the conveyance or transmission of letters or packets by private hands without compensation, or by special messenger employed for the particular occasion only. Whenever more than twenty-five such letters or packets are conveyed or transmitted by such special messenger, the requirements of section 601 of title 39, shall be observed as to each piece
    11. Re:I've read this already by martyn+s · · Score: 1

      Why would it be a good thing?

      So if they came out with e-mail in 1970, it would be illegal today to write software based on TCP/IP to send text messages? Or would TCP/IP be illegal altogether.

    12. Re:I've read this already by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

      Can you actually point us toward the regulation that says this?

      No problem.

    13. Re:I've read this already by zapfie · · Score: 2
      --
      slashdot!=valid HTML
    14. Re:I've read this already by Helter · · Score: 1

      Yes, read above. There have been numerous links to sources.
      The differences are that UPS is a)mainly a package service, and b)they are considered to be "expedited" (as in "rush"). There have been attempts in the past to set up competitive letter carrier services (for one they even found a way to make it a completely free service), and they have always been shut down by the courts. Do some research on it, it's an interesting subject.

    15. Re:I've read this already by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

      So if they came out with e-mail in 1970, it would be illegal today to write software based on TCP/IP to send text messages? Or would TCP/IP be illegal altogether.

      Not necessarily, but if the US Government provided us all with TCP/IP connections, instead of WorldCom and AOL, why would that be a bad thing?

    16. Re:I've read this already by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      Nope, they don't violate it.

      This exception is the key:
      Carried by special messenger on an infrequent, irregular basis for the sender or addressee

      FedEX/UPS/UHL/Airborne Express don't stop regularly - they only stop at your house when there are packages to be delivered, thus it's on an irregular basis.

    17. Re:I've read this already by Rader · · Score: 2

      They're not pulling your leg.

      Here's another truth:
      It's illegal for anyone else to put something in your mail box. Ever wonder why you see a separate box for newspapers to go in?

      (Since this is slashdot, i must clarify even further... newspapers that get "mailed" to you can go in your mail box, but papers that distributed by the paper boy on his bike can't go in)

    18. Re:I've read this already by Rader · · Score: 2
      Other interesting topic is how the USPS is suppose to be non-profit, but it really isn't.

      They're even branching out to other markets. They are trying to lock in on card board boxes, tape, protectives (Peanuts, bubble-wrap)

      Sure it might seem innocent now, but all it takes is for them to be subsidized by the government, and then they can offer these products for next to nothing, running other businesses.

    19. Re:I've read this already by Uncle+Gropey · · Score: 1

      If FedEx or UPS decided to just start delivering 1st class mail and make a national case of it, they would win. The fact is that there's no way they could deliver a letter from Dallas to Sacremento for 37 cents, and not lose a ton of money.

    20. Re:I've read this already by martyn+s · · Score: 1

      Actually, now that you put it that way, I think it would be really great. In fact I've been advocating that for a while. I think like roads, it would be more efficient if the government paid for the initial laying of cable, so that there is no restricting the amount of bandwidth used just to make a profit. Not only that, I think it would be a great statement about freedom of speech. Also there'd be lot more people serving websites, because they wouldn't have to worry about paying for bandwidth (most people are willing to devote time and energy for stuff they care about, but less willing to actually *pay* to do a service for other people).

      And if the government didn't provide internet service, it would be really great if they at least laid down dark fiber, which would drastically cut the cost of getting ultra high speed broadband (see seoul korea).

      But this is just government in general. I would *not* want the US government in control of the internet, because they would certainly abuse their power. It seems the country that invented freedom (fine maybe they didn't invent it) doesn't understand it anymore.

      see this thread, and you'll notice that we share a lot of the same views.

      But I still believe it's wrong for the government to prevent OTHER people/businesses from offering e-mail if they wanted to.

    21. Re:I've read this already by Mark+Bainter · · Score: 2
      Um, you'd better mention that to UPS Ground service.

      What is illegal is delivering to a post office box. UPS doesn't do that, so they're fine. If they started putting letters in your mailbox though, they'd be screwed.

      --
      "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
      --James Madison
    22. Re:I've read this already by Mark+Bainter · · Score: 1

      Hey, I learned something today. ;-) Turns out it is even worse than that, anytime you make regular stops it is illegal. Though it is also illegal to put things in someone's mailbox it's not the only limitation.

      --
      "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
      --James Madison
    23. Re:I've read this already by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

      But this is just government in general. I would *not* want the US government in control of the internet, because they would certainly abuse their power.

      Ideally, no one would be in control of the internet. But as it is now, big corporations are in control of the internet, and they don't have to obey nearly as many laws as the federal government. Corporations don't have to follow the First Amendment, for example. They're free to shut down anyone whose speech they don't like without due process or anything. At least with government control of the infrastructure, we each have an equal vote for our representatives.

      So, yeah, I'm against government control of the internet, but I don't have a problem with government control of the infrastructure.

      But I still believe it's wrong for the government to prevent OTHER people/businesses from offering e-mail if they wanted to.

      I agree. I think it'd be better than what we currently have, but ideally the government would merely provide an alternative, and others would be free to compete as long as they don't engage in predatory pricing or anything.

    24. Re:I've read this already by martyn+s · · Score: 1

      The trouble is that even though the government isn't allowed to infringe on your speech, if they offered internet access, they can say "we're not infringing upon your speech, we're just denying you service. internet service is not a universal right". This would certainly be held up in court. I think the best thing is dark fiber, because then we'd all have insanely cheap broadband.

      The thing is, you would NEVER see this from the US, not in todays climate. The best we can hope for is neutrality. We don't even have that. The US government divides up the spectrum as if it were still 1930. If they applied the right research we could all have ultra wide band, ultra broadband wireless internet access. No one would own any fiber, so you'd only have to pay for your own wireless router, and that's all you'd have to worry about. But the US government has so much money to be made from selling spectrum, why would they offer it to the public?

      Take a look at this story that's up today. It says the US government is forcing TVs to have digital receivers. Why do you think they're doing that? I'll tell you why. If everyone has a digital receiver, then everyone can receive signals from the hdtv spectrum. So if everyone has it, this part of the spectrum is much more valuable than if only 25% of people have access to it. This is to increase the value of the spectrum and make the government more money.

      So citizens are being forced to spend an extra 200 dollars on televisions, in order to increase the value of the spectrum that the government is stealing from us and selling it.

      In this environment, don't you think maybe government sponsored net access is a little bit beyond the realm of possibility.

    25. Re:I've read this already by glwtta · · Score: 2
      Yep. It's already illegal to compete with the U.S. Postal Service for non-expedited personal mail.

      isn't that whole W.A.S.T.E. thing doing pretty well, though?

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    26. Re:I've read this already by balthan · · Score: 1

      The fact is that there's no way they could deliver a letter from Dallas to Sacremento for 37 cents, and not lose a ton of money.

      And neither can the USPO.

    27. Re:I've read this already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One problem with your argument.

      No body is forcing you to buy anything. Just don't buy a new TV right now. Wait a few years and the price will have dropped drastically.

      What's that? Can't keep it in your pants because you need it now? Too bad for you then.

    28. Re:I've read this already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IMHO if the network were directly designed, built, and administered by a single entity -- which includes even the case of a group of corporations acting together with the US government -- it would have wound up being much more centralized and inflexible. At best it would be like the French Minitel. Minitel was quite advanced and well designed, when compared with Compuserve, AOL, or Prodigy. But it was nowhere near as adaptable as the internet has proved to be.

      It is not so much that there is anything magical about TCP/IP in particular (although it is very nice)... it is more that there are no rules preventing one host from talking directly to another. Someone designing a network for general use would have limited this due to security concerns.

      I personally think something like the internet was bound to turn up eventually, but I think that we were lucky in the way that the federal govt actually supported it -- first by designing it for in-house use, then by funding universities to work with it.

    29. Re:I've read this already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct. The private companies could not profitably deliver personal mail for 37 cents. But they could definitely deliver presorted junk mail and rake in a healthy profit. The expensive part about mail is not the fact that it is moved across the country -- I can buy a half gallon of orange juice from Florida in the supermarket for $2.99, and it weighs more than a thousand postcards. The expensive part is routing and special handling, neither of which are required for large business mailings.

      Also, please realize FedEx and UPS are actually very very good at what they do. In the one area where the postal service is trying to compete with them ("Priority Mail") they are failing miserably, in spite of the advantage of a massive infrastructure and mailboxes everywhere. Of course the postal service also has the huge handicap of having to deliver first class mail. But they can still stand to learn a lot about service and efficiency from FedEx and UPS.

    30. Re:I've read this already by martyn+s · · Score: 1

      I don't need a TV now. Let me put it this way. The government is making it *illegal* to manufacture and sell televisions that receive and display analog signals.

      And there is plenty of government regulation is there for good reason, but as I said, I believe the government is doing this to increase the value of what they think is THEIR property. Yes, we are not forced to buy a TV, but the fact is, more money will be spent on TVs as a result of the price increase. Money from taxpayers is going to raise the price of spectrum, which is being stolen from them, and they're not going to see any of it.

      Taxes are taxes, and if that's what this is, then call it that. They do that in England. But the fact is, they're not calling it that, and therefore no one will really be held accountable for where the spectrum profits will go.

    31. Re:I've read this already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the AT&T cable guy came by and I wasn't home, he placed a slip in my mailbox. Can I sue AT&T for wrongly using my mailbox?

    32. Re:I've read this already by Uncle+Gropey · · Score: 1

      Priority Mail is a moneymaker for USPS. They even give away the boxes for free because of this, although it's name is kind of misleading since there is no guarantee of any certain delivery date. I wouldn't disagree with anything else u said.

  4. may have been a good idea? by jeffy124 · · Score: 2, Funny

    would keep my inbox spam free if they charged 37 cents per email

    --
    The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
    1. Re:may have been a good idea? by martyn+s · · Score: 1

      Really? That's so weird, so why is my snail mail box filled with spam too?

    2. Re:may have been a good idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's so weird, so why is my snail mail box filled with spam too?

      Maybe because they charge a lot less than $.37?

    3. Re:may have been a good idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, at 37 cents per e-mail I would have spent over $20 this week already just on work related e-mail. That would suck!

    4. Re:may have been a good idea? by martyn+s · · Score: 1

      What do you mean?

    5. Re:may have been a good idea? by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      The upside, though, is that they have to pay to put that in your snail-mail box. That's why snail mail "spam" is usually legitimate businesses whilst e-mail spam often consists of scams and ads that get very low response rates.

    6. Re:may have been a good idea? by MadAhab · · Score: 2

      I don't know, martyn27015@yahoo.com, I can't imagine why you get so much spam.

      --
      Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
    7. Re:may have been a good idea? by martyn+s · · Score: 1

      I didn't say I get spam, retard. But anyway, I do get spam at that address. That is my spambox.

    8. Re:may have been a good idea? by farfolen · · Score: 1

      you get reduced rate for bulk mailings. X pieces of mail get delievered for 37 cents minus Y amount of discount depending on how much X is. I used to know what the discounts were (my dad worked for the USPS) but not since they changed teh price.

      --
      werd to yo motha, muh nizzle.
    9. Re:may have been a good idea? by yasth · · Score: 1

      Bulk mail is about $.20 or less postage if you use all the automation features. http://savepostage.com/ratessda.html

      Still I have yet to get penis enlargement mailings in my mailbox.

      --
      I'd do something interesting, but my server can't handle a slashdotting.
    10. Re:may have been a good idea? by nege · · Score: 1

      How much junk mail do you get at home? Bulk rates would probably come in to play too.

    11. Re:may have been a good idea? by jeffy124 · · Score: 1

      a *LOT* less than I do spam

      also, all the spam is clearly scammer stuff and/or things that are just plain too good to be true. at least snail spam is legit and the coupons from pizza place round the corner come in handy.

      --
      The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
    12. Re:may have been a good idea? by flanagan · · Score: 1

      Still I have yet to get penis enlargement mailings in my mailbox.

      Apart from the Playboy magazines, you mean?

      --
      If you want to get rid of the bathwater, you've got to throw out a few babies.
  5. WHA!!! by clinko · · Score: 0, Troll

    Oh you think you're baddass, but the south shall rise again!!!!

    (what is the point of karma if it's "good" "excellent" whatever. I'm a computer guy, I want numbers. What's the url to that ass-wide-open guy?)

    1. Re:WHA!!! by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 2
      but the south shall rise again!!!!

      And, once again, get beat down. Maybe this time, we won't let them back in. If they kiss the presidential ring and beg for forgiveness, we'll let them become provinces. If they're lucky.

    2. Re:WHA!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      When Lincoln issued his "pardon" for the South's "treason", his reasoning was that the Confederate states didn't need to be re-admitted to the Union because you can't quit the Union once you're in.

      But this is counter to the fundamental right of self-government, which gives authority to our own Declaration of Independence. It's a right that exists in spite of, not because of, any legislation or executive fiat.

      The Southern states did secede from the Union. And since they've never formally been re-admitted to the Union in accordance with Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution, they are not legitimately part of the Union even to this day.

      So fuck 'em, and their dirty Presidents, too.

    3. Re:WHA!!! by farfolen · · Score: 1

      i live in the south...im not a redneck...

      --
      werd to yo motha, muh nizzle.
    4. Re:WHA!!! by Uncle+Gropey · · Score: 1

      I dunno, the South does control space...

    5. Re:WHA!!! by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      No, No, No! The correct quote should be: The Moon will rise again!

      And don't let me catch you foolin' around with my fem-bots, got it?
    6. Re:WHA!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe this time, we won't let them back in.

      Then, by definition, the South wins.

      If you are fighting to secceed from something, and the other side does not let you back in, you have achieved your objective.

  6. No e-mail when it snows? by rtnz · · Score: 2, Funny

    So does this mean we wouldn't get e-mail if it snowed?

    Doh.

    1. Re:No e-mail when it snows? by DEBEDb · · Score: 1
      So does this mean we wouldn't get e-mail if it snowed?

      Neither rain nor sleet nor snow nor DoS...
      Well, maybe DoS...

      --

      Considered harmful.
    2. Re:No e-mail when it snows? by Mobster75 · · Score: 0

      We still get mail when it snows.....

  7. Owned Email? No. First Hotmail. by peterdaly · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From this information, the post office never even came close to "owning" email. They considered offering it as a service.

    A much better analogy is:
    "What if the Postman owned the first hotmail"
    Tons of variations which are closer to reality exist, but hotmail sums it all up in a sentence everyone would understand.

    The word "owned" is very misleading, and not supported in the article. They almost owned email as much as they own package delivery today. (Think UPS and FedEx)

    -Pete

  8. Communications as a Public Service by mkarpinski · · Score: 1

    I agree that the Post Office has no buisness becoming involved in "Terminal to Terminal" communication.

    However, it does raise an interesting point. How soon until the goverment deems various telecomunication services "essential" and assumes control of those services?

    --
    As below, so above and beyond, I imagine drawn beyond the lines of reason. Push the envelope. Watch it bend.
    1. Re:Communications as a Public Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since it's never happened (in the U.S.) for the good old telephone, I think it's safe to say that the answer to your question is "never", as well. Mind you, I'm one of those who take the opposite view; I think they both ought to be public services.

  9. think for 2 seconds though... by edrugtrader · · Score: 1, Funny

    government somehow implements the $.05/email they have been trying to pass for years.

    very little spam: cost = $.50 a day

    if the service could guarantee it, it might be worth it.

    obviously this would be an AOL type deal where everyone has to use the goverments mail servers, and nothing would be stopping anyone else from setting up their own mail servers... but it is a pretty good 'what if' in that sense

    --
    MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
    1. Re:think for 2 seconds though... by Taloon · · Score: 1

      The email tax bill was a hoax:

      http://www.urbanlegends.com/ulz/emailtax.html

    2. Re:think for 2 seconds though... by hyoo · · Score: 2

      This would also mean that macro viruses that send emails to your entire address list will affect the average user much more than it does now.

      Aside from macro viruses, people will surely find other ways to run up someones email bill, and this is probably the reason why there are no common pay-per use services over the internet.

    3. Re:think for 2 seconds though... by capologist · · Score: 1
      government somehow implements the $.05/email they have been trying to pass for years.

      very little spam: cost = $.50 a day

      if the service could guarantee it, it might be worth it.

      Hmm. Here's an idea, though I don't know how we'd get there from here:

      Suppose there is a nominal fee (a few cents) for each e-mail, payable to the recipient.

      You can generate tokens to provide to friends, legitimate mailing lists, etc., that would allow them to e-mail you without paying the fee. The tokens are revokable, in case they fall into the hands of spammers. You can also generate one-shot tokens, limited-use tokens, time-limited tokens, etc.

      When a legitimate sender does end up having to pay you the fee-- say, an acquaintance to who doesn't have a token, or somebody responding to your public request for information-- it is expected that, as a courtesy, you will refund the fee. There is, however, no technical or legal compulsion to do so.

      The intent of this idea is that legitimate e-mail would rarely result in an unrefunded charge, but a spammer who sends unsolicited ads to a million addresses would have to pay tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars to get through. That should discourage all unsolicited but the most exceptionally well-targeted. Even if they're not discouraged, at least you'll be compensated for your time.

    4. Re:think for 2 seconds though... by BitHive · · Score: 1

      This very idea was in Bill Gates' book The Road Ahead. I'm not saying you stole it from him, he may even have stolen it from somewhere else. The idea isn't new, that's all.

    5. Re:think for 2 seconds though... by capologist · · Score: 1

      Oh, yikes. I'm starting to think like Gates? Somebody kill me.

    6. Re:think for 2 seconds though... by fire-eyes · · Score: 1

      ...And the US government wouldn't sniff/monitor.

      Of course not, we trust them.

      Don't we.

      Eschelon.

      --
      -- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
    7. Re:think for 2 seconds though... by BitHive · · Score: 1

      It could be worse! You could be starting to look like Gates!

    8. Re:think for 2 seconds though... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is hardly a new idea and I am sure that Gates wasn't the first one to come up with it. Read the O'Reilly P2P book and you will see lots of examples of using micropayments.

  10. There's just no way by pheph · · Score: 3, Interesting
    There are so many methods of communication that differ so slightly (ie~ ICQ, AIM, Jabber, etc) from eMail that the Postal Service wouldn't have had a chance at controlling anything. eMail is just a client server communication. Very few people, much less the USPS can stop that. The USPS would have to have a legal mandate that says no personal information can travel from one person to another on the internet.

    It also seems that the USPS wasn't trying to control eMail, but add a service to their physical handling of mail to speed up delivery.

    1. Re:There's just no way by koa · · Score: 1

      The USPS would have to have a legal mandate that says no personal information can travel from one person to another on the internet.

      Lets hope that very scenario doesn't happen with the RIAA, then the USPS might just join forces.. Everyones just out to make a buck. Not a pretty truth.

      --
      ....move along....nothing to see here....
  11. British Telecom by T-Kir · · Score: 1

    Slighty offtopic I know, but just imagine if BT owned HyperLinks? Even scarier I think... especially considering their love of technology (esp. DSL lines).

    Just my $0.02 (or £, but to get the sterling sign means going into character map... boy do I love US keyboards ;-) )

    --
    Are you local? There's nothing for you here!
  12. Here in the south... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...we call it the "War of Northern Aggression."

  13. Postman by Wrexen · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sorry, I find it highly unlikely that Costner could have "owned" anything

    1. Re:Postman by DEBEDb · · Score: 5, Funny

      The Postman always pings twice...

      --

      Considered harmful.
    2. Re:Postman by Fastball · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is actually one of Costner's better movies. Yeah, I know, he's put forth some real stinkers, but The Postman was thought provoking despite being too long. The point that the post office and the postman help people communicate with each other & thus bring us together is not something that comes out of Hollywood often.

    3. Re:Postman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's your opinion and I respect it, but I found that movie to be one of the worst pieces of filth I've ever seen. I think it deserves to be up there with The Island of Doctor Moreau in terms of all star trash.

    4. Re:Postman by will_die · · Score: 1

      That movie was terrible. However the book it was based on was really good. Just don't get the book based on the movie, get the original version.

    5. Re:Postman by MrResistor · · Score: 2

      Wow! There's another person on the earth who liked The Postman! But, hey, I liked Waterworld, too, so what do I know...

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    6. Re:Postman by markalot · · Score: 1

      I heard somewhere that Al Gore wanted to charge for email. That bastard.

      yes, it's a joke

    7. Re:Postman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about? I thought the four-assed monkey was funny!

    8. Re:Postman by hawk · · Score: 2
      >This is actually one of Costner's better movies.

      This was one of AMC's better models.
      This was one of microsoft's better operating systems.
      This is a more pleasant terminal disease.
      That was one of England's better meals.

      hey, this is fun . . .

      That was some of Merly Streep's better acting.

      Uh, oh. Went too far . . .

      hawk

    9. Re:Postman by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 1
      This is actually one of Costner's better movies.

      Except that he missed his one chance for a clever line.

      When he's all beaten down by the barbarian tough guy in single combat, the barbarian is perplexed that he won't stop fighting and remarks:

      You just won't give up will you? What do you believe in?

      A bloodied Kevin Costner looks up from the ground into the face of death, and fails to respond:

      I believe ... in the United States Postal Service.

      Instead, he said he believed in the USA. What a lame copout. Kevin Costner could have made one of the few truly existential American films (especially if the postal carriers were defeated; the only reasonable outcome). Instead, he opted for a lame expression of sentimental patriotism. Oh, well.

      --
      Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
    10. Re:Postman by LionMage · · Score: 1

      Ugh, I have to disagree. David Brin's original novel, The Postman, was much better. The movie erased most of the Sci Fi elements from the book, and Costner re-wrote a bunch of dialog in the portions of the story that the script retained. I think Kevin Costner believed that the Sci Fi angle is what killed Waterworld, and didn't want a debacle, but he wound up destroying everything that made The Postman a good story -- and in the process, severely dumbed down every aspect of the film to the point where it appealed to almost nobody.

      Then again, Costner has proven that he can't do high-brow concept film. Pretty cinematography in some cases (e.g., Dances With Wolves), but nothing else to recommend his movies.

      Someone else pointed out that there was a novelization of the film version of The Postman, which is different from the original book. That sickens me.

    11. Re:Postman by Fastball · · Score: 1
      I agree. And I didn't mean to sing such high praises for Costner or The Postman movie really. The novel is better. No doubt about it. I just like the story's message.

      As for Costner, his best movie was Fandango (see it if you haven't). Bull Durham was good. Dances With Wolves was good. Everything else drops off quickly.

  14. Slavery is bad, mmkay? by wackybrit · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    as say, The Confederacy winning the US Civil War.

    Yeah, that would have been awful. If it'd happened, slavery and racism would have continued to exist until well into the 1900s, and even now, blacks would suffer bad treatment at the hands of whites.

    Thank God they lost and that all blacks were equal to whites in every way from 1870 onwards. Oh, hang on...

    1. Re:Slavery is bad, mmkay? by KrancHammer · · Score: 1


      this is ot, but this reminds me of an excellent book I read a few years ago, The Guns of the South by Harry Turtledove.. very interesting "what if" type alternate history in which the South does win... and the results of such that Turtledove postulates are fairly surprising.

      --
      Trolls: The high-tech version of those morons that scrawl obscenities in public bathrooms.
    2. Re:Slavery is bad, mmkay? by cduffy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Eh? The Civil War wasn't about slavery. Slavery was abolished more as a punitive measure against the Southern states than as a goal of the war. Lincoln stated flatly that his goal was to preserve the Union -- whether with such preservation every slave was freed, some slaves were freed, or no slaves were freed.

      Doesn't do so well for the view of the Northerners as the heroes in white, fighting to save the oppressed minority, but then neither side's motives could be called entirely pure.

    3. Re:Slavery is bad, mmkay? by Pinball+Wizard · · Score: 1
      oh come on, it could have been much worse than that. Think about it. We didn't become a world power until the Spanish-American war in 1898. If the South would have won the Civil War, the U.S. would have been a much weaker country - since the North would have been the side undergoing Reconstruction instead of being the economic powerhouse that got electricity, oil, and automobiles into mass production. The South winning would have meant the U.S. as a whole would have been primarily an agrarian state with human rather than mechanical labor. Not entirely, of course, but certainly enough to cause us not to be the world leaders we became in the 20th century.

      And had we not become world leaders, who knows if there would have been someone strong enough to stop communism, the nazi party, fascism, etc.

      The U.S. Civil War was truly a turning point, not just for the freedom of blacks, but for all human history.

      --

      No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?

    4. Re:Slavery is bad, mmkay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      while your post was both provocative and reactionary, it would best be categorized it as absolutely f*cking retarted.
      after any change as major as abolition there is going to be a transitional period. just be glad it began in 1870 and not 1970.
      i'm a little embarassed to bite since i get the feeling you were obviously just fishing for flames, but any one who takes the time to type something that stupid deserves a reply...

    5. Re:Slavery is bad, mmkay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, what side do you think an independent Confederacy would have taken in WWII?

      Imagine Hitler's Luftwaffe being allowed to park themselves right across the Potomac.

      A Confederate nation based on enslaving an "inferior race" would have been very friendly with the Nazis.

    6. Re:Slavery is bad, mmkay? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2

      Yawn. The states that seceded did so because they thought (rightly or wrongly) that Lincoln would be an abolitionist President. The purpose of the fighting for the North may have been to preserve the Union, but the cause of the war was Southern secession over the issue of slavery. Generations of Confederate apologists have managed to introduce some doubt on this issue into people's minds, but a reading of the letters and speeches of the time makes it clear that if not for slavery (and abolitionism, to be sure) the secession, and thus the war, would not have happened.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    7. Re:Slavery is bad, mmkay? by Nightpaw · · Score: 1

      But they needed those Negros! Because, ummm, the economy depended on them! Yeah, that's the ticket!

    8. Re:Slavery is bad, mmkay? by rmohr02 · · Score: 2

      The South seceded because they thought Lincoln would destroy their whole way of life, not just abolish slavery, so the war started over states' rights. But, many (but not all) Northerners did think the war was about slavery, and that's why many of them signed up--I'm sure at least some of us remember Col. Chamberlain's speech to the men of the 2nd Maine in The Killer Angels or Gettysburg.

    9. Re:Slavery is bad, mmkay? by gilroy · · Score: 2
      Blockquoth the poster:
      Doesn't do so well for the view of the Northerners as the heroes in white, fighting to save the oppressed minority, but then neither side's motives could be called entirely pure.
      Well, I guess I'm just a dyed-in-the-wool Northerner, but I happen to think "the preservation of the Union" is a pure motive.
    10. Re:Slavery is bad, mmkay? by larry+bagina · · Score: 1, Interesting
      what the fuck are you smoking?

      Look at per capita income, education level, literacy rates, etc. The deep south is a 2nd world country.

      What would it mean if the south had won? It means they would have been allowed to split off into their own country. They weren't the aggressors in the civil war you know...

      At the time, the north was industrialized, the south was an agricultural society. I'm betting you don't relize it was economic factors (ie -tarriffs on imports to protect northern industries, resulting in foreign countries having tarriffs on our export - Southern cotton) that led to the civil war.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    11. Re:Slavery is bad, mmkay? by Amiga+Trombone · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that would have been awful. If it'd happened, slavery and racism would have continued to exist until well into the 1900s, and even now, blacks would suffer bad treatment at the hands of whites.

      Here's an alternate construction of what would have happened, first put forth by Winston Churchill:

      The Confederacy, being highly dependent on trade with Britain, would have eventually been forced to end slavery to retain favor of the British.

      The United States, as such, would not have entered the WWI, and Britain and Germany would have eventually declared armistace on essentially equal terms. Germany would have not been forced into the repairations which economically devistated them, and would have had no incentive to aid Lenin in the overthrow of the Czar. Wilhelm would have remained on the throne of Germany, precluding Hitler's rise to power. There would have been no WWII, no holocaust, and no incentive to establish Israel as a Jewish state. And obviously, that would have altered the current situation in the mid-east considerably.

    12. Re:Slavery is bad, mmkay? by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Yes, that was the Southern cause -- but not the Northern one.

    13. Re:Slavery is bad, mmkay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not sure what the yawn means because there is sooo much more to it than that. Lincoln was the first Republican president (formerly a whig) who one because of a split amongst the Democrats. His opponents (Douglas, Breckenridge, and Bell) far outweighed him in the popular vote. The very Democrat heavy South basically decided that he wasn't a legitimate President and seceded from the Union. Sure part of that was slavery but early on Lincoln said that he had no interest in abolishing slavery. He said he favored a hands-off approach from the government. It was only when things started looking grim for the Union and there were hints of involvement by the British that he gave the Emanicipation Proclamation.

    14. Re:Slavery is bad, mmkay? by jvj24601 · · Score: 1

      The Guns of the South [barnesandnoble.com] by Harry Turtledove

      Harry Turtledove is one of my favorite authors. In Guns of the South, the Confederacy wins by virtue of a science fiction device. If you're interested in Turtledove's vision of a Confederate victory potrayed more believably (no science fiction, simply "alternate history"), check out his series of novels.

      How Few Remain
      The Great War: An American Front
      The Great War: A Walk in Hell
      American Empire: Blood and Iron
      American Empire: The Center Cannot Hold

      It's good reading, even if you don't have a strong background in US history.

    15. Re:Slavery is bad, mmkay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't believe I said one instead of won. Also outweighed was probably not the best word. I also forgot mention that the greatest irony of all - the Republicans (so reviled in the minority community now) were the ones to free the slaves.

    16. Re:Slavery is bad, mmkay? by KrancHammer · · Score: 1

      I have, actually, read these books. I liked them greatly, but How Few Remain actually skipped over the part of the alternate history I was most interested in, the immediate aftermath of the war. I particularly, as I mentioned elsewhere, found Turtledove's interpretations of General Lee as postwar leader utterly fascinating. (minor book spoilers ahead)
      As to the science fiction plot device, I didn't find it any less believable than the device in How Few Remain. I mean, fiction is fiction and time traveling fascists is just as plausible a plot device (if not as plausible from a historical perspective) to have the South win as that courier not losing Lee's battle plans.

      --
      Trolls: The high-tech version of those morons that scrawl obscenities in public bathrooms.
    17. Re:Slavery is bad, mmkay? by Cirvam · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I'm confused as to how the south wasn't the agressors even though they attacked first? Or am I mistaken and there was some small battle before that which the north attacked first?

    18. Re:Slavery is bad, mmkay? by Scaba · · Score: 1
      The South winning would have meant the U.S. as a whole would have been primarily an agrarian state with human rather than mechanical labor.
      Prove it.
    19. Re:Slavery is bad, mmkay? by good+soldier+svejk · · Score: 1
      while your post was both provocative and reactionary, it would best be categorized it as absolutely f*cking retarted. after any change as major as abolition there is going to be a transitional period. just be glad it began in 1870 and not 1970.
      I think you missed his point. He is not espousing the Confederate cause, merely pointing out that it took a mere 11 years for the forces of reaction and racism to completely undermine the 13th and 14th amendments. Then it took nearly another century for Congress to provide statutory means of enforcing them. The gap between the 1878 withdrawal of the last Federal troops (part of the deal the Republicans struck to secure the presidency for Rutherford B. Hayes) from the south and the 1964/65 civil/voting rights acts is not even remotely an acceptable "transitional period." And make no mistake about it, after the demise of the reconstruction governments, slavery returned to the south full force, albeit in the guise of debt peonage.

      His comment is a criticism of the US and the Republican party, not a commendation of the Confederacy and the Democratic party.

      BTW, I once visited the Laura plantation in Louisiana. It is one of the few to provide any history of slavery. The guide told us that the slave quarters, open bare wood shacks slightly larger than my veal pen at work, housed field workers continuously until 1977. She also read excerts from the owner's diary describing how debt peonage was functionally slavery. Interesting place.
      --
      It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man

      -James Baldwin
    20. Re:Slavery is bad, mmkay? by CamMac · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess I'm just a dyed-in-the-wool Northerner, but I happen to think "the preservation of the Union" is a pure motive.

      As a soldier, I agree. However, as an American, and I'm sure you can look at history and in todays newspapers for examples to support me, I am more than willing to fight for what I think of as my way of life.

      I do not support slavery based upon race, gender, religion, birth, or shape of ones nose. However, at the time, the southern economy required the cheap labor provided by slavery. And at the time, the South was the economic powerhouse of America. The North, in order to build an economic base, imposed import taxes upon the South, forcing the South to buy inferior American products at a higher cost. So when the North threatened to remove the Souths means making money, they where slightly upset.

      The War of Northern Agression didn't come about in order to save slavery, nor was it because we had to perserve the Union. It happened because the North was a dick to the South. And the South had enough. Personally, I am glad that the North won, just as I'm glad the South had the balls to stand up for themselfs fight it. The only thing I regret about the War is that we couldn't find a way to achive the same results without the economic damage or loss of life caused by the War. And I can't stand the holier than thou attitude of Northerners.

      --Cam
      Southern, and Damn proud of it.

      --
      All jocks think about is sports. All nerds think about is sex.
    21. Re:Slavery is bad, mmkay? by good+soldier+svejk · · Score: 1
      Eh? The Civil War wasn't about slavery. Slavery was abolished more as a punitive measure against the Southern states than as a goal of the war. Lincoln stated flatly that his goal was to preserve the Union -- whether with such preservation every slave was freed, some slaves were freed, or no slaves were freed.
      The war most certainly was about slavery. Exactly why do you think the southern states seceeded from the union? Luckily we don't have to guess about this, as the South Carolina legislature made is abundantly clear in the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina From the Federal Union.. After a long list of precedents supporting the right of secession, the only reason they give for such an act is Federal interference in slavery.

      Likewise, the Confederate constitution stipulates "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."

      "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired."

      and, "No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due."

      In total, this seven article document refers to slavery ten times. The idea that the Civil War was not about slavery is a reactionary construct of the post reconstruction racist backlash. Nice of you to parrot it for us though.
      --
      It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man

      -James Baldwin
    22. Re:Slavery is bad, mmkay? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2
      To sum things up, the South, like many other places, practices slavery for centuries. Then as technology progresses, most civilized societies eliminate slavery, except for the South, who continue to "require" it for "cheap labor".

      Then the South fights in a war costing hundreds of thousands of lives over the issue of "high taxes".

      Then for almost 100 years further, it continues to ensure cheap labor by continuing with the biggest subset of the condition slavery it can get away with.

      Sounds mainly like avoiding hard moral choices in favor of grabbing a few bucks. That's not setting a very high "holy" bar to beat.

    23. Re:Slavery is bad, mmkay? by Art+Tatum · · Score: 2

      To say that any particular thing caused any war would be simplistic. People fight in wars for their own reasons, which can be quite varied. Often, soldiers on opposing sides have completely different ideas about what a war is about. Read this.

    24. Re:Slavery is bad, mmkay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It never have gotten to that point if the US wasn't there to get involved in the first World War. Without Germany losing the war there would be no Nazi Germany.

    25. Re:Slavery is bad, mmkay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but early on Lincoln said that he had no interest in abolishing slavery

      More than that. He thought he had no legal right to do so:
      "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

    26. Re:Slavery is bad, mmkay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slavery and racism survive to this day...IN AFRICA! In Sudan the slave trade is still thriving and Mugabe is doing his best to prove that blacks can be racists too.

    27. Re:Slavery is bad, mmkay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yikes you are naive. The South that Lincoln wasn't going to abolish slavery. Most Northerners had a no-opinion stance on slavery. The South was pissed off because the Democrats lost to the newly formed Republican party only because they couldn't decided on one person to represent their party. If you think that Bush stole the presidency than you should really look into how Lincoln won the White House. Democrats far outnumbered Republicans (and Whigs) back then.

    28. Re:Slavery is bad, mmkay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Churchill was a raging alchohlic who was routinely made fun of by his fellow politicians. If he hadn't correctly predicted the danger of Hitler and the Nazi party he probably would have retired a raving lunatic.

    29. Re:Slavery is bad, mmkay? by cduffy · · Score: 1
      Slavery was absolutely a dividing issue between North and South, and it was doubtless involved in the decision to secede -- but many, if not most, Northers fought not to free the slaves but rather to reintegrate the Union. Only very few Northerners believed that full integration was even possible (thankfully, time's shown them wrong); indeed, Lincoln wasn't among them.

      The South had no reasonable immediate fears of slavery being abolished (though Lincoln was painted as an abolishonist, he believed that only a much slower process than immediate and complete emancipation would be succesfull); rather, their most immediate concern was a complete loss of political power. Lincoln's election was one example of this; the short-sighted passage of the Kansas-Nebrasca Act by Douglas (resulting in the massacre that was Bleeding Kansas and the elimination of the Missouri Compromise, which had hitherto kept the peace between the states) was another.

      From the first Lincoln-Douglas Debate:
      What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment, is not the sole question, if, indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, cannot be safely disregarded. We cannot, then, make them equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the South.
      I have a great deal of respect for Lincoln -- but neither he, nor many of his contemporaries, believed in immediate and complete freedom for all men. Pretending they fought the bloodiest war in American history for that cause is simply foolish.
    30. Re:Slavery is bad, mmkay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know if that would have happened... Had the South been able to hold it's own and win at Gettysburg, it's possible France and Britain would have intervened. Since the cost of such an alliance would have been abolishment of slavery, it's possible that slavery would gone away on its own. Mechanized farming and manufacturing would have eased the transition, in the long run.

      The North would have been forced to find other allies (Germany, Russia) to counter the French and British.

  15. It seems to have slipped the /. editor's notice... by hlh_nospam · · Score: 2

    ...that in many other countries outside of the US, the government postal services do indeed, if only indirectly, run the email systems. In many countries, the phone system is run by the postal service.

    So the idea isn't really all that far-fetched. I would consider it a narrow miss. Things could have be even worse than they are now.

  16. You've got mail by superpeach · · Score: 1

    ... kept our Smith Coronas and waited for our friendly postal carrier to knock on the door and announce, "You've got mail.".

    I dont know why exactly, but if Mr or Misses postperson came up to me and said that, I would want to shoot them.

    1. Re:You've got mail by achaudhary · · Score: 1

      Typical response from a US citizen, I presume? I am annoyed, therefore I shall shoot the source of annoyance :) Just kidding.

    2. Re:You've got mail by superpeach · · Score: 1

      Actually, I am English (from England ;) ) and find that hearing "You've got mail" is very annoying after hearing it a few times on TV/Films in an American accent.
      Isn't it also an AOL thing?

    3. Re:You've got mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're post annoys me...

  17. Off Base by jchawk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The article talks about an electronic service where you could transmit electronic messages between roughly 25 post offices. The messages would be printed out and then hand delivered like normal mail.

    Honestly I don't see how this is anything like email, which is 100% electronic.

    - Why I like email? Because there's no mail man for my dog to bite.

    1. Re:Off Base by Nightpaw · · Score: 2

      Sounds a lot like the "telegram" to me.

    2. Re:Off Base by devnullkac · · Score: 2

      The 25 post office electronic/hardcopy hybrid was just the last thing that actually happened. The Postmaster General determined that "Generation III" delivery systems of the kind we're familiar with today should not be a part of the mission of the Postal Service.

      The point of the article was that he could as easily have decided to go the other way

      --
      What do you mean they cut the power? How can they cut the power, man? They're animals!
    3. Re:Off Base by Trekologer · · Score: 2

      Prodigy tried something like this in the early 90s. For recipients that didn't have a computer with internet access, they would print out your letter and mail it to the recipient. It died rather quickly.

      Back to the article... the Postmaster General in 1972 decided that the USPS should NOT be involved in terminal to terminal electronic mail. Otherwise, they probablly would have gone into that field.

    4. Re:Off Base by BitHive · · Score: 1
      - Why I like email? Because there's no mail man for my dog to bite.

      Funny, that's whi I don't like email...

    5. Re:Off Base by guttentag · · Score: 2
      The article talks about an electronic service where you could transmit electronic messages between roughly 25 post offices. The messages would be printed out and then hand delivered like normal mail.
      They're doing this now with "NetPost"(only you don't have to go to the Post Office to send your letter):
      Prepare and send hardcopy mail from the convenience of your computer. Create, print, and send resumes, newsletters, and everything in between. No more printing, stuffing, or trips to the post office. Upload a document. Pay online. We do the rest!
    6. Re:Off Base by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why I like email?
      me like email too. spel and grammer checker make life easy and better for all.

    7. Re:Off Base by jpostel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The difference is that the plan was created in 1982, when the only people that had even *heard* about email were geeks working for the government, large universities, or large corps.

      It also provides the opportunity to have legally binding email. Todays email can be forged on either end without digital signatures (I won't get in to crypto here), but the penalties for doing so are relatively meek if they are even enforced. Whereas, messing with the USPS is mail fraud, which is what they sent Al Capone to jail for.

      --
      Ummm, Jon, aren't you supposed to be dead...? - Otter(3800)
    8. Re:Off Base by fishbowl · · Score: 2

      You make it sound like "large universities" were some sort of
      obscure, secret places. Lots of people go to college, and guess
      what? Most of them go to large universities.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    9. Re:Off Base by UranusReallyHertz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They sent him away for income tax evasion.

      --
      Smoking is an expensive, slow, and unreliable method of suicide.
    10. Re:Off Base by LatJoor · · Score: 2

      Even at those large universities, the only people who had access to email were computer science students or those in some related scientific discipline. Hey, there are STILL professors in the humanities that refuse to use email. (Well, the one that I know for sure does it not because he's afraid of the technology, but because he dislikes students' way of using it to avoid face-to-face communication.) In any case, the fact remains that in 1982 most people had not heard of email. My dad teaches at a large university, and I'm quite sure he hadn't heard of email until the early 90s. What the previous poster should've said, actually, is "a select few large universities, and even then only among more technical disciplines."

  18. Seinfeld by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hello Jerry. Hello Newman..

    "I always get the feeling that when lesbians are looking at me they're thinking 'That's why I'm not a heterosexual'." - George Costanza

    1. Re:Seinfeld by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These postage stamps are making me thirsty.

    2. Re:Seinfeld by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "When you control the mail, you control ... information"

      -Newman

  19. Canada Post by SClitheroe · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm not sure if the USPS does anything like this, but Canada Post runs epost.ca, which is like their version of Hotmail. It's free, and the upshot is that you can configure your account so that the various companies that you interact with, such as the phone company, the cable company, your bank, etc, send emails via epost.ca rather than printed bills or notices.

    I guess it works because in some sense email from epost.ca is "official", since it's run by the Post Office. Sort of a neat concept, I guess.

    1. Re:Canada Post by linuxlover · · Score: 2

      Ditto.
      I think there is *still* a huge potential for a USPS run website, despite the Yahoos and hotmails.
      It can become like a universal one-stop corrspondance. like myname@usmail.com.

    2. Re:Canada Post by sweet+reason · · Score: 2

      Canada Post runs epost.ca

      yes indeed, and it is just as clumsy and unreliable as you would expect from government bureaucrats. i've been trying to log in to my account for two days now.

      --
      Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. -- A.E.
    3. Re:Canada Post by Dr+Caleb · · Score: 2
      i've been trying to log in to my account for two days now.
      Check your [Caps Lock]

      /humour. It's been one of those days.

      --
      "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
    4. Re:Canada Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      heh
      how about the one unique things we american citizens have?

      snn@usmail.gov
      password: dob

      now that would be secure, unique, and private
      =p

    5. Re:Canada Post by reflexreaction · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I heard a proposal about this about a year ago on NPR. Make some (U.S.) governmental agency, presumably the post office, responsible for creating an e-mail for everyone or at least available for everyone. As proposed, it would be a FREE (beer) and free (from spam) service. Tax payer dollars would be paying for it in the end. But I thought it was a very interesting idea, this way important notices from the government directed to you would could sent via snail mail and/or through e-mail. It would be a way for the government (good or bad) to get in touch with you if you had moved often or just prefer doing things online. License renewal coming up? They would send you a reminder. Male and 18, they would let you know that you have to register for selective service. Links to the IRS 'round tax time. Speeding ticket? It would "remind" you of the location of where to send the check, or the address of the courthouse. When you should be getting your tax refund. List of candidates for local, state and national offices during election. I'm sure that it will certainly speed up the government end of communication, instead of having to rely on snail mail. It would certainly make the government more friendly (and perhaps more intrusive). I think the key part to this though is that this mail must be able to be forwarded to another e-mail account. People wouldn't check their government account about back taxes they owe or about local elections. Most people don't care and aren't interested but if sent to an already existing account it would be useful. I think the big question however is that would only the government have use of this e-mail account? I'm not sure how spam could be prevented otherwise. I have given none of my friends my hotmail e-mail address and yet I am spammed all day. In the end I don't think that it would "work" but an interesting thought.

      --

      We had to destroy the sig to save the sig.
    6. Re:Canada Post by Fastball · · Score: 1
      Tax payer dollars would be paying for it in the end.

      So that would come to what, $5000 per person per year?

      Seriously, you make some good points though. I already handle my student loan online. Very nice. But it doesn't require e-mail. E-mail is at its best when 1) corresponding with family & close friends across large distances, 2) open source software mailing lists, & 3) requesting basic things from co-workers without having to crash their office/cubicle. Anything else is waste.

    7. Re:Canada Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> It would certainly make the government more friendly ...because the government is your friend. And don't you forget it.

    8. Re:Canada Post by ccwaterz · · Score: 1

      I always thought the USPS running email off of the under-used locality name space (ex... myname@mytown.va.us) would be a interesting service.

    9. Re:Canada Post by Ian+Bicking · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I think the big question however is that would only the government have use of this e-mail account? I'm not sure how spam could be prevented otherwise.
      Easy, charge for sending mail to those mailboxes. It could be done cheaper than snail mail, so it'd be competetive, and the post office could still back it up with paper delivery for non-email-using patrons.

      This would put it out of the hands of most peer communication (unless you wanted to be official about something), but it would still be very useful. Maybe they'd have accounts associated with a public key, you'd put money in the account, and then sign your messages that you sent to post office emails (which would also increase overall security when doing official business). You could provide a PDF attachment to compliment the plaintext, and they could print and deliver that if you didn't read the email within a certain amount of time (perhaps that you yourself specify in the email).

      It could be a pretty slick system, really. And when I think about it, I'd trust the post office as a PK certification authority much more than any other institution (public or private) that I can think of. Verisign is evil, and they're what comes out of private authorities. From the FBI I'd expect Clipper chip, Echelon, or other security-compromising malicious activity. But the post office is pretty damned good at security (massive, mundane security, like not opening letters). And they are politically neutral, while most other government agencies are not. And they don't gouge the market, whether or not they are a monopoly, unlike private industry. And they are democratic, creating a real infrastructure even in areas where there isn't profit to be made.

    10. Re:Canada Post by wsapplegate · · Score: 1

      France has tried to move into the electronic realm, but the Governmental Idiots botched it. The LaPoste.Net service has no clear advantages over any other e-mail provider, except maybe that you can access your mailbox from a Minitel terminal. But this is no big deal, since (1) France Telecom has ceased distributing free terminals, you're forced to rent one, (2) the service isn't free (a shame), and (3) would you like reading your e-mail on a 40-column VT100 with a 1200bps line ? Oh, and to top that great picture, the morons outsourced the service to a bunch of idiots who made an unsecure site. Fantastic!

      Oh, well, this just confirms that a lot of people in the Governements still cannot understand they should try to *think* for at least a minute before spending taxpayers' money in such moronic stunts. And whatever the government you elect, they make the *very same* mistakes... Depressing :-(

      --
      Xenu brings order!
  20. Harry Turtledove by colmore · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Speaking of alternate history and the confederacy, anyone interested in such things should check out Harry Turtledove's excellent alternate history series.

    And since I can anticipate the off-topic discussion, as an educated southerner, I feel I should say that, yes while the South was fighting to preserve slavery, (it was, after all, the basis of their economy) the North was *not* fighting to abolish it(*). And if you read the constitution literally, the south had the right to secession. Having said that, it would have really sucked if the nation had been split in two, and I'm certainly glad President Lincoln was able to later use the war as an excuse to abolish slavery.

    (*) in fact, two full regiments of union soldiers disbanded in protest after the emancipation proclimation, refusing to fight a war for slaves.

    --
    In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    1. Re:Harry Turtledove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And if you read the constitution literally, the south had the right to secession.

      What, are you one of those dangerous right-wing radicals we are always being warned about on TV? Everyone knows that the Constitution means whatever we want it to mean! And by "we", of course, I mean "them".

    2. Re:Harry Turtledove by ceejayoz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      yeah - it was mainly an economic war, the Emancipation Proclimation was made late in the war and didn't even free slaves in the Northern states so as not to lose the border states' support :)

    3. Re:Harry Turtledove by KrancHammer · · Score: 1

      I like the Great War series, but I think The Guns of the South is more entertaining. And, in particular, the detail paid to Lee and his reactions to slavery.

      --
      Trolls: The high-tech version of those morons that scrawl obscenities in public bathrooms.
    4. Re:Harry Turtledove by good+soldier+svejk · · Score: 2, Informative
      yeah - it was mainly an economic war, the Emancipation Proclimation was made late in the war and didn't even free slaves in the Northern states so as not to lose the border states' support :)
      The Army had been officially freeing slaves for two years by that time (since August 1861). Our articles of war forbade returning slaves to owners. Slavery had been abolished in DC and all territories. Lincoln (conservative on the subject) had promised aid/compensation to all loyal slave states which undertook emancipation voluntarily.In July 1862, Lincoln told them that if they did not undertake voluntary emancipation it would "be extinguished by mere friction and abrasion--by the mere incidents of the war." On the southern side, slavery was the only issue. Read the documents of secession.
      --
      It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man

      -James Baldwin
    5. Re:Harry Turtledove by good+soldier+svejk · · Score: 1
      And since I can anticipate the off-topic discussion, as an educated southerner, I feel I should say that, yes while the South was fighting to preserve slavery, (it was, after all, the basis of their economy) the North was *not* fighting to abolish it(*). And if you read the constitution literally, the south had the right to secession. Having said that, it would have really sucked if the nation had been split in two, and I'm certainly glad President Lincoln was able to later use the war as an excuse to abolish slavery.

      (*) in fact, two full regiments of union soldiers disbanded in protest after the emancipation proclimation, refusing to fight a war for slaves.
      I'd like to see documentation on that. I've never heard it and it makes no sense, since the Army had been officially freeing slaves for two years by that time (since August 1861). Our articles of war forbade returning slaves to owners. Slavery had been abolished in DC and all territories. Lincoln (conservative on the subject) had promised aid/compensation to all loyal slave states which undertook emancipation voluntarily. In July 1862, Lincoln told them that if they did not undertake voluntary emancipation it would "be extinguished by mere friction and abrasion--by the mere incidents of the war." If a soldier didn't know he was fighting a war against slavery by 1863, he was a moron.

      Furthermore, exactly what do think the 200,000 black US soldiers, fully 10% of our armed forces, were fighting for?
      --
      It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man

      -James Baldwin
  21. tommorows news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    go here to read future slashdot stories while they're still news.

  22. Are you kidding? by MongooseCN · · Score: 2

    There's no way anyone could control email now adays. Some company could easily setup a server on the internet that allowed email. They would probably call it something else like the Virtual Note Sending System, something that didn't sound like "mail". People would send messages through it just like email now. What could the post office do about it? If you can getting putting swings past the government patent office, you can bs a business like this past the government postal service.

  23. My favorite postal conspiracy novel by Bobtree · · Score: 1

    is The Crying of Lot 49, by Thomas Pynchon.

    We Await Silent Tristero's Empire

  24. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He may not own e-mail...
    ...but 1 0wn j00! Mwahahahahahahahaha!

  25. too bad by glen · · Score: 1

    maybe they would have done a better job than worldcomm

  26. Ok, couple things by legLess · · Score: 2

    First, more or less on-topic, and to clear up a common misconception: yes, the USPS has a monopoly on first-class mail. No, we shouldn't consider allowing competition. What most people don't know is that the USPS is mandated (by the same government that gave it the monopoly in the first place) to pick and and deliver at every address in the country every day. Think of the mind-boggling logistics behind that statement. Then realize that FedEx and UPS sometimes give their own deliveries to the USPS because they can't be bothered to go Smallville.

    Second, on the Civil War remark, check out Harry Turtledove's The Guns of the South , which is based on just that premise: how could the South win the Civil War, and what would happen afterwords? Very nicely done.

    --
    This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
    1. Re:Ok, couple things by gilroy · · Score: 2
      Blockquoth the poster:
      Second, on the Civil War remark, check out Harry Turtledove's The Guns of the South [powells.com], which is based on just that premise: how could the South win the Civil War, and what would happen afterwords? Very nicely done
      I'm not sure I accept as a serious "What if?" solution a premise that, well, time travelers drop off a carton of AK-47s. Yes, he did a nice job after the deus ex machina but it was unsatisfying, IMHO. How Few Remain, on the other hand, was truly excellent and much more believable.
    2. Re:Ok, couple things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, where I live, Breckenridge CO, the it's the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you are describing.

      USPS does not deliver mail, but FedEX, UPS and school busses manage to make daily deliveries everywhere up here. They make us buy a post office box if we want mail, and then only if a box is available.

      USPS is utter crap.

    3. Re:Ok, couple things by balthan · · Score: 1

      the USPS is mandated

      Completely wrong. Yes, the govt has power to establish post offices, but it is not compelled to. And nowhere does it say the federal government has exclusive power to do so.

  27. US Postal Email.... by MosesJones · · Score: 3, Funny


    Process..

    Email addresses are in the form

    Name@Address@Town@State@Country

    Printers are "conveniently located" throughout the country. Postal service works include email delivery as part of their standard round.

    Could be worse though, they could have had accountants run it. Then we'd all be told how the value of the network was huge as millions of dollars of Nigerian money was being offered on a daily basis.

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
    1. Re:US Postal Email.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Printers are "conveniently located" throughout the country. Postal service works include email delivery as part of their standard round.
      And if the amount of email I get per day is anything to go by, only professional powerlifters are employed as postal workers.

  28. Sing-Song... by D-Cypell · · Score: 1

    "She typed upon it....

    Return to sender, domain unknown
    No such IP number, No such Demiliterized zone"


    =o)

  29. Harry turledove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be rather plausible, if some friendly white supremacists used their time machine to give the post office ak-47s when the union only had black powder rifles.

  30. Re:Owned Email? No. First Hotmail. by derubergeek · · Score: 1

    I think a better title would've been How I and my Smith Corona Saved The World From USPS.mail.

    --
    Trust me. This is an inactive account. Regardless of what the /. bean counters might report.
  31. I would gladly pay for an USPS email account. by Kaboom13 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Naturally, free and independent email services would operate alongside it, but imagine if, for a reasonable fee, you could have a postal service mail account in which all e-mails it sends or recieves have all the same protections and legal bearing of snail mail. I think this service would be invaluable for businesses or independent professionals. Many things can not be done over e-mail because the messages do not bear the same legal weight as snail mail. Consider how many times the postal service's datestamp has been used as evidence in court.

    1. Re:I would gladly pay for an USPS email account. by charon_on_acheron · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah. Back in November, 2000, the democrats used the lack of the postmark to disenfranchise thousands of military personnel. Oh, but surely those votes were evenly split between Gore and Bush, they were just making sure the letter of the law outweighed the spirit of the law this time.

    2. Re:I would gladly pay for an USPS email account. by zenyu · · Score: 2

      Naturally, free and independent email services would operate alongside it, but imagine if, for a reasonable fee, you could have a postal service mail account in which all e-mails it sends or recieves have all the same protections and legal bearing of snail mail.

      I would gladly pay 50c for a service that worked like registered mail. Or even 5c on occasion for an e-mail that I knew would reach it's intended recipient. They could charge extra to e-mail snail mail addresses too. It might cost them less to just print it out at the destination and carry it to someone's home than to actually ship letters, they could print it out on thin paper too to save weight. Even if it wasn't it would be faster & more convenient...

      Real snail mail could be reserved for post cards and love letters.

    3. Re:I would gladly pay for an USPS email account. by mrbrown1602 · · Score: 1

      You know, readnotify.com does something like this already. When you send an email through their servers, it adds hidden scripts & other non-script tracking stuff to your message so that no matter what, you know exactly when (and where) the person read the message.

      Freaky, eh?

  32. What? by rmohr02 · · Score: 3, Funny
    But about as likely, as say, The Confederacy winning the US Civil War.
    The, ahem, War of Northern Aggression hasn't been lost yet. The South shall rise again!
    1. Re:What? by Nightpaw · · Score: 2
    2. Re:What? by Accipiter · · Score: 2

      The South shall rise again!

      Yeah. Right.

      --

      -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
      (If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't. :P)

    3. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 Funny
      -1 Offtopic
      +1 Insightful

      Now where's the -1 Hick?

    4. Re:What? by ZxCv · · Score: 1, Troll

      The, ahem, War of Northern Aggression hasn't been lost yet. The South shall rise again!

      Only to get their sorry hick asses beat down again!

      --

      Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
    5. Re:What? by alizard · · Score: 5, Funny
      The South shall rise again!

      Try Viagra.

    6. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, like WWII was the War of English Agression?

    7. Re:What? by Erwos · · Score: 2, Funny

      Didn't it already? Bill is from Arkansas, Dubya is from Texas. Those damn southerners are running the country! NOOOOOOOOOOOO! *cries in a corner*

      -Erwos

      --
      Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
    8. Re:What? by ignavus · · Score: 1

      I heard the Southern States just let the yankees win, because they felt sorry for them. All that cold weather, and the yankees would have nowhere in the South to go to get away from it all. Miami would be in a foreign country to all them New Yorkers.

      Always knew that Robert E Lee was a gentleman.

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
    9. Re:What? by jdubois79 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But about as likely, as say, The Confederacy winning the US Civil War.

      The, ahem, War of Northern Aggression hasn't been lost yet. The South shall rise again!


      Anyone who thinks this is funny doesn't live in the south. ;)

      --
      --------
      Nothing can be done before the tremendous power!
      RabidComics
    10. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You signed a treaty. You lost.

      If you don't like that you should break the treaty.

    11. Re:What? by Art+Tatum · · Score: 1
      North: 1

      South: 0

      Halftime

    12. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's OVER, unlike when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.

    13. Re:What? by chanceH · · Score: 1

      Yall can secede whenever you want.

      We won't invade and start burning.

    14. Re:What? by Rupert · · Score: 1

      I forget where I was (but it wasn't as far north as I am now) when I saw this bumper sticker:

      Jefferson Davis might have quit but I ain't!

      --

      --
      E_NOSIG
  33. Not quite by cheezedawg · · Score: 2

    This tells how the postman almost offered a service that had similarities with modern day e-mail.

    --
    "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
  34. not a bad idea, IMHO by esarjeant · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Given the volatility of the ISP market, a national email infrastructure would have been a wonderful thing. You could maintain a permanent email with the US Post Office and not have to worry about what might happen to your address if your service provider should change.

    Imagine not having to worry about @mediaone.com suddenly not working for you. Just about every major provider has undergone a substantial shift in how they process emails, resulting in everything from new domain names to new mail accounts. I can't tell you how many people I can no longer find @compuserve.com.

    --

    Eric Sarjeant
    eric[@]sarjeant.com

    1. Re:not a bad idea, IMHO by Greedo · · Score: 1

      Bah ... you register your own domain name and set up you@yourdomain.com.

      easyDNS has been doing this for me for years. Through 3 ISP changes. Flawlessly.

      And way cheaper than $.05 an email.

      --
      Tuus crepidae innexilis sunt.
    2. Re:not a bad idea, IMHO by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2
      You could maintain a permanent email with the US Post Office

      That'd be terrific. Once one jackass from South Korea sent me a penis enlargement spam that didn't bounce, I'd be stuck with a verified-spammable email account for the rest of my life, regardless of how often I change ISPs. :)

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    3. Re:not a bad idea, IMHO by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      You are imposing one of the problems with the total mess we current suffer with: a wide-open 'consensus' based email system, to something that would be administered very differently. The spammer wouldn't be able to 'sneak' into the system. It would be the equivalent of breaking into a post office at night to shuffle fake junk mail into the bags without paying for it.

  35. Missed it by that much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It does to most people until they realize that it almost happened.

    Almost First Post :)

  36. If the USPS owned the email infrastructure... by guttentag · · Score: 3, Interesting
    We would still get spam
    The USPS delivers junk mail to my house every day because corporations pay the USPS to deliver it. My mail carrier hides my real mail in the newspaper-like junk mail so I have to flip through it to avoid throwing out real mail. He does this because the postal service makes a large chunk of its revenue this way, yet it still loses money regularly.

    Spam would be easier to filter out
    The fact that it would no longer be free would cut down on the volume of spam and the variation, making it much easier to detect and filter out.

    Email would be more closely monitored
    for subversive/threatening content, copyrighted content, etc. And unlike traditional mail, anonymity would be impossible because the mail would be sent from an account connected directly to your name, home address and social security number.

    It would cost us money per email
    Right now we can send all the emails we want (more or less) without fear of a huge bill. But if the USPS controlled email, you'd probably have the option of buying "stamps" on a per-email basis or having your account billed monthly. You would pay perhaps 3 cents for up to 100k, 5 cents for 200k and so on.

    1. Re:If the USPS owned the email infrastructure... by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

      We would still get spam

      Spam would be easier to filter out.

      Probably, yes.

      Email would be more closely monitored.

      That's what encryption is for. Plus, the fact that people only have a single email address linked to their name, address, and social security number would be a good thing, as this could be used to stop people from creating multiple accounts.

      It would cost us money per email

      I highly doubt it. But even if so, the price would be absolutely miniscule. I'd much rather have the U.S. government charging me for email and not making a profit off it than a private corpoation making a profit off it.

    2. Re:If the USPS owned the email infrastructure... by glebfrank · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Email would be more closely monitored.

      That's what encryption is for. Plus, the fact that people only have a single email address linked to their name, address, and social security number would be a good thing, as this could be used to stop people from creating multiple accounts.

      And why are multiple accounts a bad thing? Having a single email account will just facilitate tracing your online presense.
      It would cost us money per email

      I highly doubt it. But even if so, the price would be absolutely miniscule. I'd much rather have the U.S. government charging me for email and not making a profit off it than a private corpoation making a profit off it.

      And why is that? Don't you know that private corporations making profit is what makes the economy work? While the government will just cheerfully piss away your money along with all the
      kajillions dollars of taxes it gets every year?

      This kind of attitude makes me sick. It's like you don't mind being screwed as long as someone doesn't do better. That's the king of mediocre egalitarianism that brought about communism.
    3. Re:If the USPS owned the email infrastructure... by guttentag · · Score: 2
      The Postal Service hasn't really been part of the government since Nixon was president. What was then known as the Post Office Department became an independent corporation called the United States Postal Service. Technically, it's owned by the government (like AMTRAK, the government bails it out when it can't pay its bills each year in the interest of keeping the country's infrastructure running smoothly) and because it has been granted a monopoly it has to meet certain requirements set forth by Congress>

      However, unlike a government agency, if the Post Office makes a profit, that money doesn't go to the federal government. The USPS keeps it to help it fulfill its charter in the future.

    4. Re:If the USPS owned the email infrastructure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " And why is that? Don't you know that private corporations making profit is what makes the economy work? While the government will just cheerfully piss away your money along with all the
      kajillions dollars of taxes it gets every year?

      This kind of attitude makes me sick. It's like you don't mind being screwed as long as someone doesn't do better. That's the king of mediocre egalitarianism that brought about communism."

      So *thats* why the privatisation has worked so many wonders for the consumer. Idiot.

  37. Ah, axe-grinding time... by gilroy · · Score: 2
    Blockquoth the editor:
    But about as likely, as say, The Confederacy? winning the US Civil War?
    Blockquoth the poster:
    Yeah, that would have been awful. If it'd happened, slavery and racism would have continued to exist until well into the 1900s,
    NB: The editor didn't say a Confederate victory would have been awful, just that it was unlikely. You can argue with that assessment, though I think the evidence -- by its nature inconclusive -- is that the South had no realistic chance, except through demoralization of the North (which could conceivably happened if a less iron man than Lincoln had been President). But anyhow, the editor wasn't talking desirability.
    1. Re:Ah, axe-grinding time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      the South had no realistic chance

      They came within a single battle of winning.

    2. Re:Ah, axe-grinding time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They would never have conquered the North. They only would have suceeded in seceding from the Union. There is a difference between winning and not losing.

    3. Re:Ah, axe-grinding time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who Cares about the Civil War?
      by Harry Browne

      I believe an understanding of the Civil War has great relevance to the future of liberty in America.

      It may be the most misunderstood of all American wars. And so much of what we lament today -- government intrusions on civil liberties, unlimited taxation, corporate welfare, disregarding of the Constitution, funny money -- date back to programs started during the Civil War.

      Although slavery was an ever-present political issue in the early 1800s, it wasn't the immediate cause of the war. In fact, Abraham Lincoln in his first inaugural address vowed that he wouldn't interfere with slavery. You can read his speech at http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/sp eeches/1inaug.htm

      He also said the North wouldn't invade the South unless necessary to collect taxes.

      Before the war, the main concern about slavery was whether new states and territories would come into the Union as free states or slave states. This affected the balance of power in Congress, and both Northerners and Southerners worried that the other region might dominate Congress.

      Taxes

      Why then was the Civil War fought?

      As with most wars, there's no single answer. But the predominant cause was taxation.

      Before his election, Lincoln had promoted very high tariffs (federal taxes on foreign imports), using the receipts to build railroads, canals, roads, and other federal pork-barrel projects.

      The tariffs protected Northern manufacturers from foreign competition, and were paid mostly by the non-manufacturing South, while most of the proposed boondoggles were to be built in the North. Thus the South was being forced to subsidize Northern corporate welfare.

      Secession

      When Lincoln was elected, South Carolina saw a grim future ahead and seceded. Other Southern states quickly followed suit. No declaration of secession gave slavery as the reason.

      Lincoln asserted that no state had a right to secede from the Union -- even though several geographical regions had considered secession before. Few people thought the Union couldn't survive if some states decided to leave.

      Upon seceding, the Confederates took over all federal forts and other facilities in the South, with no opposition from Lincoln. The last remaining federal facilities were Fort Pickens in Florida and Fort Sumter in South Carolina. Lincoln at first promised to let the South have Fort Sumter, but then tried to reinforce it. The South moved to confiscate it -- shelling the Fort for many hours. (No one was killed or even seriously injured.)

      Why was Fort Sumter important? Because it was a major tariff-collecting facility in the harbor at Charleston. So long as the Union controlled it, the South would still have to pay Lincoln's oppressive tariffs.

      Although there had been only scattered Northern opposition to the secessions, the shelling of Fort Sumter (like the bombing of Pearl Harbor almost a century later) incited many Northerners to call for war against the South. The South's seizure of Fort Sumter caused many Northerners to notice that the South would no longer be subsidizing Northern manufacturing.

      As the war began, the sole issue was restoration of the Union -- not ending slavery. Only in 1863 did the Emancipation Proclamation go into effect, and it didn't actually free a single slave -- just like so many laws today that don't actually perform the purpose for which they were promoted. (The Proclamation is at http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/sp eeches/emancipate.htm

      The Damage

      The Lincoln Presidency imposed a police state upon America -- North and South. He shut down newspapers that disagreed with him, suspended habeas corpus, imprisoned civilians without trials, and went to war -- all without Congressional authority.

      Using war as an excuse, he increased government dramatically -- just as future Presidents would do. He rewarded his political friends with pork-barrel projects, flooded the country with paper money, established a national banking system to finance a large federal debt, and imposed the first income tax. He also destroyed the balance between the executive and Congressional branches, and between the federal government and the states.

      He set in motion many precedents we suffer from today. That's why it's important to understand the Civil War for what it was, not what the mythmakers want it to be.

      Alternatives

      Was slavery an evil? Of course.

      Is it a blessing that it ended? Of course.

      Was it necessary for 140,414 people to die in order to end slavery? Definitely not. The U.S. was the only western country that ended slavery through violence -- outside of Haiti (where it ended through a slave revolt). During the 19th century dozens of nations ended slavery peaceably.

      What Was Lincoln?

      Was Lincoln opposed to slavery? Yes, he became an abolitionist in the mid-1850s, although he said he didn't know how slavery could be ended.

      Lincoln's fans have portrayed him as the Great Emancipator, Honest Abe, who with great courage and single-minded determination fought a Civil War to free the slaves. Many of his detractors have tried to show that he was actually a racist.

      I think it's important to understand that, more than anything else, he was a politician.Throughout his career he shaded the truth for political advantage, he played both sides against the middle, he lied about his opponents, and he used government force to get what he wanted. Like so many politicians, he continually uttered platitudes about liberty while doing everything in his power to curtail it.

      His idolaters applaud him for being a dictatorial politician, saying this was precisely what America needed in 1861. No historian believes he acted within the Constitution.

      Importance of Studying the Civil War

      I believe the study of the origins and conduct of the Civil War is an important part of a libertarian education.

      Although the Progressive era, the New Deal, and the Great Society each caused government growth to accelerate, only the Civil War caused a complete break with the past. It transformed a federation of states into a national government. It introduced the elements of big government that later movements would build on. And it set in motion the disregard for the Constitution that's taken for granted today.

    4. Re:Ah, axe-grinding time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And since when does a "War of Secession" become Winner Take All?

    5. Re:Ah, axe-grinding time... by NeoNormal · · Score: 1

      > They only would have suceeded in seceding from the Union.

      Er, I do believe that was their intent.

  38. Let's go OT by gilroy · · Score: 2
    Blockquoth the poster:
    And if you read the constitution literally, the south had the right to secession.
    Umm, why?
    1. Re:Let's go OT by mkarpinski · · Score: 1

      Not the Constitution, try the Decleration of Independence:

      "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it"

      --
      As below, so above and beyond, I imagine drawn beyond the lines of reason. Push the envelope. Watch it bend.
    2. Re:Let's go OT by Arker · · Score: 2

      Check out the ninth amendment. That's the spot for the literal minded. Since the Constitution doesn't give the federal government any authority to prevent the states from leaving the union, they clearly retain all authority over the matter.

      There's also no lack of evidence that at the time of Constitutional ratification the union was understood by all to be a consensual and not necessarily perpetual one (in fact the words 'perpetual union' found in the Articles of Confederation were conspicuously dropped in the Constitution) and, indeed, that had it not been understood that way not a single state would have ever ratified. Virginia, for one, was paranoid enough to state that clearly in the instrument by which she ratified the Constitution. On at least two major occasions prior to the one in question, it had been the New England states that had experienced oppression and had been not at all shy about threatening to secede and reform the old New England Confederation if their demands were not met. Somehow when New England wanted to secede, everyone agreed they could do it and the effort to stop them was one of pursuasion, not force. Only when South Carolina finally seceded (she had been threatening to for decades, because of her outrageous treatment in terms of federal tax burdens) under Lincolns administration did the north suddenly 'discover' that states didn't have the right to secede.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    3. Re:Let's go OT by gilroy · · Score: 2
      Blockquoth the poster:
      Not the Constitution, try the Decleration of Independence:
      Leaving aside the fact that the Declaration of Independence was a propaganda piece with no force of law (as opposed to the Constitution, the supreme law of the law), one needs to bear in mind that "these ends" were the legitimate purpose of government ("That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"), and that the rights were
      certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
      and that a government designed explicitly to preserve human slavery has -- at the least -- a credibility gap wrapping itself in the mantle of Liberty.
  39. What do we have instead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    1) Large behemouth companies controlling the MTAs,
    restricting home users from running their own.

    2) Large companies pushing proprietary protocols for
    communications, and pushing these protocols into
    e-mail messages, and suing anyone who attempts to
    reverse engineer them.

    3) Large companies adding macro execution code to
    e-mail readers, so that a virus suddenly becomes
    world-wide in a matter of an hour.

    I say, let the government have e-mail service. Let
    them compete with companies. I'd like to see a
    U.S. Postal add claiming "Virus Free Plain Text
    Messaging from the USPS. $5.00/month, 25MB accounts.
    Log on today."

    Further, I'd like US Postal inspectors to have some
    authority over scams and unsolicited e-mails. It's
    gotten so that 30% of my monthy bill (judged by
    bandwith usage on the backbones, roughly) goes to fund
    the 300 or so companies that run mass e-mail
    advertising. I'd LOVE for the USPS to have regulatory
    authority over commercial unsolicited advts, just like
    they have over printed materials.

    1. Re:What do we have instead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure I agree with all of the conclusions, but this gets a point of mod or so, I'd say.

    2. Re:What do we have instead? by John+Miles · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Before the whole WorldCom shitstorm went down, I would have violently argued against the idea of treating email as a centrally-administered national resource.

      Now, it looks like my pop.net email address -- for which I've been paying $20/month for the last several years on the grounds that I didn't think UUNet would ever go away -- might well become worthless before long.

      I'm pissed and disillusioned at the same time. It really does appear that any sufficiently-large corporation is indistinguishable from an incompetent government. Perhaps there actually would be some value in a USPS-administered email option in the marketplace. One address, guaranteed for life, immune to the slings and arrows of corporate greed and idiocy, where spammers would have to answer to Federal postal inspectors.

      Honestly, I'd probably sign up. Email may turn out to be one of those things the private sector just doesn't handle very well.

      --
      Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
    3. Re:What do we have instead? by capologist · · Score: 1

      If that "guaranteed for life" e-mail address is sufficiently important that you're willing to pay for it, why not just register a domain name?

    4. Re:What do we have instead? by Uncle+Gropey · · Score: 1

      The USPS's lifeblood is unsolicited commercial advertising mail. I'm sure you should reconsider your position.

    5. Re:What do we have instead? by John+Miles · · Score: 1

      Because then I have to futz around running my own email server, or paying my ISP-du-jour to host one for me. I don't want to be in the email business.

      The other main reason I've kept my UUNet account is that they're probably second only to AOL (and maybe Earthlink) in worldwide dialup availability. Very handy when travelling.

      --
      Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
    6. Re:What do we have instead? by John+Miles · · Score: 2

      The USPS's lifeblood is unsolicited commercial advertising mail.

      That's certainly true, but they damned sure don't deliver it for free, do they? Imagine what would happen to a bulk mailer who misappropriated USPS resources to bury millions of people in junk mail without paying a dime of postage.

      If there were a way to make spammers pay for the resources they use, the volume of unsolicited commercial email would drop by at least 95% overnight.

      --
      Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
    7. Re:What do we have instead? by Speed+Racer · · Score: 1

      Not really. Using this guide, you can set up e-mail with your own domain name being fowarded to the e-mail service of your choice. If that service goes away, simply change your fowarding to a different account.

      As far as e-mail services go, I'd recommend FastMail. The free service is better than Yahoo, Hotmail or any other service I've seen and the paid accounts start as low as a $14.95 one-time fee and move up from there. I guess you can say I'm a satisfied customer.

      --
      Free Mac Mini. Yes, I'm
    8. Re:What do we have instead? by octalgirl · · Score: 1

      I never understood why the USPS didn't get involved in email from the get-go. It is mail, after all, and that's what they do. It seemed to me that they should have been at the forefront of this idea, instead of lagging behind as they are now. The USPS is the only federal division that has been self sufficient and does not use tax payer money. They maintained their own budget and had been profitable from stamp sales up until a couple of years ago. Email and electronic bill paying is a serious threat to them (as was fax machines at one time). It just seems you should know who your competition is, before they pull they rug out.

    9. Re:What do we have instead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      John Miles wrote: It really does appear that any sufficiently-large corporation is indistinguishable from an incompetent government.

      While this is demonstrably true, what Adam Smith found centuries ago is that ALL corporations acting in competition work FAR BETTER than any centralized authority. Please note, this includes itty-bitty, "Mom and Pop" companies that live in the niches between the large corporations.

      For example, I've been using my current ISP for years, and I have no complaints. If I *do* get sufficiently annoyed, I can transfer to some other ISP, join a co-op, or go into business for myself.

      As such, I agree with the Libertarians, and would oppose "assigning" email (or just about any other service) to the USPS (or just about any other government agency).

      In fact (and quite off-topic), I tend to agree with them that the Federal government has taken too much responsibility, from the Interstate Highway System, to education, to health coverage. That, however, is an argument for a different time.

  40. Technology Review Again! by fm6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Who is it at Technology Review that keeps churning out these historically-illiterate might-have-been stories? Last time it was somebody arguing that we could have had cell phones in the 1930s if it hadn't been for the KGB, or something equally absurd.

  41. Guns of the South - WRONG! by unicorn · · Score: 2

    Guns of the South, is a pure fiction novel. Neo-racists use a time machine to supply the Confederates with AK-47's. Not a very reasonable premise of how they could have won.

    A MUCH more realistic portrayal of how the Confederacy could have won the war, is in the pre-history to his book How Few Remain, which is a novel of the Second War Between the States, set approximately 20 years after Lincoln was forced to sign a peace treaty with the Confederacy.

    The basic premise, is that early on, the South was spanking the North pretty badly. This was prior to the Emancipation Proclamation. At the time, the other countries of the world, would have viewed Lincoln issuing it, as coming from a position of weakness. And the goal would have been thought to be insurrection. In 1862, a Confedearte courier was killed and the troop deployment information he carried fell into the hands of the Union. Using this information, the Union won a solid victory at last, at Antietam. Now Lincoln could issue the Emancipation Proclamation. Once the emancipation proclamation was issued, there was a moral difference between the 2 parts of the US, and the European powers could in no way support the Confederacy.

    In Turtledoves world, the couriers information was never captured by the Union. The Confederates continued to hold strong positions. Because neither of the parties in the battle was morally different, France and England then force Lincoln to negotiate a peace treaty, rather than having them join forces with the Confederates, in "punishing" the Union, and reducing the power of a growing competitor.

    The book How Few Remain is actually set 20 years later, when a Second Civil War flares up. This time France and England are full allies of the CSA, and join in the party. The Union gets soundly smacked around a second time. And in an interesting twist, by the end the Union starts forging ties to the Austro-Hungarian empire. 3 years later, the "Great War" series of his kicks in. WW-I has broken out in Europe, and the Confederates, and the Union try going at each other a third time, this time, without the assistance of the Europeans who are busy with their own fight. And you have Tank, and trench warfare raging across the middle of North America.

    Turtledove has built a VERY rich world. Populated by lots of names that are recognizable. All in all his fiction is VERY highly regarded.

    --
    "Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
    1. Re:Guns of the South - WRONG! by Frisky070802 · · Score: 1

      I second the comment that Turtledove's alternate history about how the Confederacy might have fought to a standstill (and nearly won) is extremely well done. He's alternated books with another series, in which World War II is interrupted by an alien invasion and the Earth mostly unites to combat it but is still bothered by petty bickering among the major powers. Both series are excellent, but the one about the Civil War (and continuing to the early 1900's) is a truly believable "what if" scenario. Finally, fans of Turtledove should note that he's written some other books, placed in the far distant past, under the name "H.N. Turteltaub" -- and equally enjoyable.

      --
      Mencken had it right. So glad that's old news.
    2. Re:Guns of the South - WRONG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He has also written under the pen name "Eric Iverson".

  42. Yes: All but the USPS ILLEGAL. Read some history by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've seen this already, and personally, I think it's a lot of crap. What is he suggesting? That any other systems of E-mail aside from ones controlled by the USPS would be *illegal*?

    Exactly.

    The USPS has a long history of using federal law to stamp out competing mail services.

    The usual excuse is that it undermines fixed-rate universal service by "cherry-picking" the inespensive job of delivering mail in and between cities or their business-office cores, which subsidizes the mail in rural areas. Federal law gives them a monopoly on first class mail and its equivalents (sealed point-to-point message) and they have enforced it jealously in the past.

    - Against many private competing mail carriers.
    - Against bicycle couriers. (Sometimes they'd let them carry and deliver IF you also bought a stamp.)
    - Against (shutting down) a pneumatic-tube package-deleivery system in Manhattan.

    and so on.

    I think they tried against Fax but the Bell system slapped them down. (They're a regulated monopoly.) Fedex initially got away with it because they promise overnight delivery (not available from USPS at the time) for a much HIGHER price than first-class mail.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  43. Civil War by mtthws · · Score: 1

    Hey, I know it is a moot point now, but there was a real possiblity of the south winning the civil war at the time. General Lee actualy had several chances to end it in the souths favor, most notible right after the battle of bull run he could have contiuned straight into washington and force the north to conced at gun point (the army had already been routed so there was no one to stop him). The south had the generals, the north had the supplies. They could not win a long drawn out war, but had they capatlized on a couple of key opertunities they where presented, they could have ended it very quickly in their favor. Buty hey, it turned our right in the end. And yes, I know I am over analizing but how many posts would there realy be on /. if people only posted well thought out intelegent on the topic things?

    --
    "Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform." -- Mark Twain
    1. Re:Civil War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if people only posted well thought out intelegent on the topic things?.
      if people only posted well thought out intelegent on the topic things?..
      if people only posted well thought out intelegent on the topic things?
      if people only posted well thought out intelegent on the topic things?..
      if people only posted well thought out intelegent on the topic things?...
      if people only posted well thought out intelegent on the topic things?....

    2. Re:Civil War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have next to no knowledge of the American Civil War but it was my understanding that both sides were worn down towards the end, and it could have gone either way?

      Thats what i learnt from TV anyway.. and how could that possibly be wrong!!!! ;-)

    3. Re:Civil War by iamblades · · Score: 1

      They were both worn down somewhat, as the war was won mainly through attrition. The North had much more resources (manufacturing and manpower) though, so they could survive the losses much better than the south.

      The south had the upper hand for the first part of the war, but ran out of resources fairly quickly..

      --
      Shit adds up at the bottom...
  44. USPS is excellent by rossz · · Score: 2, Flamebait

    Seriously. Have you ever dealt with the postal service in another country? For the most part, it sucks. All too often, packages disapear. If something does arrive, it took bloody forever.

    I stopped complaining about the USPS after having extensive dealings with European postal services.

    --
    -- Will program for bandwidth
    1. Re:USPS is excellent by fockewulf · · Score: 1

      I sure people from any country with a decent postal service will still quibble about how bad it is !! For my part, I've always observed that when mail goes from one country to another there are always delays even if the postal system in both countries is excellent. Some quirk of the postal system I suppose.

    2. Re:USPS is excellent by jpmorgan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I disagree. Royal Mail (the UK postal service) is very good. Twice daily deliveries in most places, six days a week. I put a letter in the mail, it shows up the next day, and I've never seen anything get lost. Of course it's a much smaller country, so it's easier to be good and fast. :)

      Still, though the UK does have a long tradition of an excellent postal service.

    3. Re:USPS is excellent by rossz · · Score: 2

      I didn't say ALL European mail was bad, just a lot of it. The UK seems to have excellent service, too, at least in my experience.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    4. Re:USPS is excellent by Tadu · · Score: 1

      Which is probably also true for the German, the French and the Swiss postal service.The same is probably true for nearly every postal service in Europe. The only packages gone missing or returned after months have happened with the US postal office, so "of course" it has to be only their fault (actually, it was the US' stupid custom). If you want to look where stuff gets missing, go blame e.g. Russia or some underdeveloped countries.

    5. Re:USPS is excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lemme guess, you are one of thoose paid actors that USPS uses to get good PR.. =)

    6. Re:USPS is excellent by rossz · · Score: 2

      Flamebait!? You've got to be kidding!? Whomever modded it down is an idiot.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
  45. Benefits of US Email/Net by starX · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This one is porbably going to get way moded down, but has anytone stopped to consider what the benefits of a federally owned and operated internet/email system might be? We always gripe about how are rights online are rapidly vanishing, but stop to consider that since the Internet is (at least in the US) owned by private institutions, you really have no rights. Think of it this way; your ISP's EULA generally lets them disconnect you for just about any reason under the sun, which allows them to exercise whatever "discretion" they wish in removing you for doing something that they consider bad. What one isp allows, another forbids. One of the chief benefits of a government internet is that such a system would necessitate granting the user clearly documented rights and restrictions. The wonderful world of "due process" might even be within our grasp.

    As it stands, unless you do something that violates some law, anything relating specifically to Internet and ISPs is a civil matter. Think about it; what part of the EULA says that the sysadmin won't decide to read your email? Who says that they won't be watching your traffic?

    The difference between the real world and the net is that in the real world, there is a buffer between the common citizen and exploitation by corporations. It is sad that that buffer thins every day, it really is, but the Internet is a world where industry dominates. This has allowed it to grow extremely fast, and also unchecked.
    Consider the negatives of a Federal Internet, and I don't think you'll find they would require anything of you that law doesn't allow them to do now.

    Frightening as it may be, federalizing the Internet may be the first step to securing our rights online. Then again, the beauty of voting for Nader knowing that he is not going to win is that you don't have to consider that he might not be the best person for the job.

    1. Re:Benefits of US Email/Net by jcam2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Federalizing the internet (espcially if there
      was a monopoly government ISP) would be the
      first step towards eliminating your rights
      online.

      Sure, commercial ISPs can disconnect you for
      whatever reason they want, or block certain
      traffic .. but there are plenty of ISPs out
      there, so if you don't like one then you can
      always switch.

      If the government owned the internet, systems
      like carnivore or regulations like the CDA
      could be put in place without any need to
      pass laws to force commercial ISPs to
      participate. Private ISPs on the other hand
      hate implementing those kind of things,
      because it costs them time and money ..

  46. How the USPS Almost Owned First Class Mail by jazman_777 · · Score: 1

    Was there ever an article on "How the USPS almost owned a government-enforced monopoly on first class mail"? Oh, wait, they do!

    --
    Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    1. Re:How the USPS Almost Owned First Class Mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, it's in the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Don't
      like it? Vote to have the constitution amended.

    2. Re:How the USPS Almost Owned First Class Mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, a postal monopoly is not in the constitution.

  47. slightly ot, internet wont kill conventional post by pneuma_66 · · Score: 2

    Ok, I know this is slightly offtopic, but i'll say it anyway. I have read all the various news stories about how email is/will kill conventional means of post. But, i feel the internet has created a huge increase in shipping. Why? because, before the net, not many people catalog shopped, however, since the net, so many more people are ordering online, and guess what, what they order gets shipped to them. Also, dont forget eBay, lots of sellers dont accept electronic payments, so how do you get the money to them, regular snail mail.
    Also, in the past, how many people actually sent letters to people, I remember the last time i mailed a letter, i was in grade school and writing to my assigned penpal.

  48. Poor Slashdot Analogy by chazzf · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't like to accuse people of out hand, but the Confederacy winning the Civil War was a fairly likely thing for the first few years. Most Union generals (McClellan, Banks, Burnside) measured up very poorly against their Confederate counterparts (Lee, Jackson, Johnston).

    Had the south won the Battle of Antietam in 1862, as it almost did, the war would have likely ended. Even as late as 1864 Lincoln was in serious electoral trouble until Grant finally delivered. Had McClellan won, he would have pursued peace.

    I can excuse spelling mistakes, but as a historian I am appalled at the ignorance of the editors.

    ~Chazzf

    --
    No statement is true, not even this one.
    1. Re:Poor Slashdot Analogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Agreed. Most people just know that the South were the "bad guys" and the North were the "good guys" so of course they won! How could those hicks ever win against the North?

      Well, they almost did, several times. And while almost isn't enough, it's a mistake to say they never had a chance.

      They had plenty, they just blew them.

      In a related story, Robert E. Lee recently had his citizenship restored to him. No shit.

    2. Re:Poor Slashdot Analogy by Mark+Bainter · · Score: 2
      They had plenty, they just blew them.

      Huh? Try not being able to handle a long drawn out war. The north had all the manufacturing/etc. The south had trouble keep supplies. No uniforms, shoes, ammunition, guns, etc. They started out ok, but quickly started running out.

      On top of that, the south was still more sparsely populated than the north was, so they couldn't compete in sheer numbers either.

      Add to that the brutal ravaging of the lands south of the border by northern soldiers and you have a country that really couldn't hope to win a drawn out war. Their only hope was to win quickly, and that just couldn't happen. Worse, their refusal to carry the war to the north prevented it.

      Maybe that was blowing it, from a certain point of view, but to me it just exemplifies what was good about the south. Gives lie to those who would rewrite history and paint the south as evil warmongers and the north as angels who only wanted what was best.

      In a related story, Robert E. Lee recently had his citizenship restored to him. No shit.

      Yikes. Were he alive today I'm sure he'd rather die than accept it.

      --
      "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
      --James Madison
    3. Re:Poor Slashdot Analogy by mjh · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I'm not a historian, but I think you might be missing the point. I don't think the analogy that Mr H made was meant to suggest that the south could not possibly have won the war. I think that it was meant to suggest that claiming that the south won the civil war, is as far off as claiming that the USPS could have owned email. But that's just my read of it.

      ... the south lost the civil war, right? Hey, I said I wasn't a historian!

      --
      Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
    4. Re:Poor Slashdot Analogy by Moofie · · Score: 2
      In a related story, Robert E. Lee recently had his citizenship restored to him. No shit.

      Yikes. Were he alive today I'm sure he'd rather die than accept it.
      Bet you a dollar you are wrong. General Lee was torn about whether he should serve his state, Virginia, or his country, the United States of America. I think that his country's recognition of his integrity, despite the fact that he "betrayed" the Union, would have warmed his heart.

      The man agonized about his decision, but he followed his conscience. I don't agree with the decision he made, but I admire his fortitude in making the call and sticking to it.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    5. Re:Poor Slashdot Analogy by Mark+Bainter · · Score: 2
      Bet you a dollar you are wrong. General Lee was torn about whether he should serve his state, Virginia, or his country, the United States of America. I think that his country's recognition of his integrity, despite the fact that he "betrayed" the Union, would have warmed his heart.

      Unfortunately, we'll likely never know who'd win that bet. However, while he certainly did not want to see the nation split, he also would want nothing to do with the US as it stood then, let alone the atrocity it has become today. If he thought states rights were being trampled then....wow.

      I think he'd probably see it as the empty guesture it was. Some bizzare act of "forgiveness" for as you said "betraying" the US. But that's hogwash. He didn't betray anyone. The right to secede was and is right there in our founding documents. They should've been able to do so peacefully as they desired instead of having to fight a war to save lincoln's pride and chances for re-election.

      --
      "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
      --James Madison
    6. Re:Poor Slashdot Analogy by brulman · · Score: 1

      "They should've been able to do so peacefully as they desired instead of having to fight a war to save lincoln's pride and chances for re-election."

      Respectfully, I disagree with you concerning Lincoln's motivations in the matter. I think the following quote reveals the greater truth.

      "Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation: conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
      Now we are engaged in a great civil war. . .testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated. . . can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war.

      We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

      But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate. . .we cannot consecrate. . . we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.

      It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us. . .that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion. . . that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain. . . that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. . . and that government of the people. . .by the people. . .for the people. . . shall not perish from the earth. "

      --
      "the best safety of the frontier...will be secured by total annihilation of the few remaining indians" L Frank Baum 1890
    7. Re:Poor Slashdot Analogy by hawk · · Score: 2
      >Their only hope was to win quickly, and that just couldn't happen.

      Exactly. There were three ways it could have worked:

      1) No war; Lincoln lets them go. I dunno, but there might have been a long shot if they'd helf back from attacking federal property. I seriously doubt it, though.

      2) British military intervention. But given that the northern threat to drop all trade would clearly come, this was never a real option.

      3) North gets bored and goes home. *shrug* It worked in Viet Nam, which was a success by any military measure, right until we packed up and left. For crying out loud, we hadn't bombed them in years to avoid annoying them (yes, seriously!), and then they wouldn't let us leave unmenanced, so we bombed them into submission. However, you have to stay in the war long enough for this to happen, and the south didn't.

      hawk

    8. Re:Poor Slashdot Analogy by Mark+Bainter · · Score: 2
      1) No war; Lincoln lets them go. I dunno, but there might have been a long shot if they'd helf back from attacking federal property. I seriously doubt it, though.

      Heh. They tried. They didn't /want/ to attack. They were going to wait, and let them leave on their own terms. Lincoln used that to his advantage and sent reinforcements for the fort. The south had no choice to attack or they would /never/ leave.

      One way or another, Lincoln was going to have that war. He just wanted the south to at least appear to start it, thus gaining the upper hand in the public relations game.

      2) British military intervention. But given that the northern threat to drop all trade would clearly come, this was never a real option.

      They were on the verge of recognizing the Confederacy. That's the whole reason Lincoln made the emancipation proclamation. Once he had done that, the British govt withdrew support because of the image that attached to the Confederacy and to the war.

      However, you have to stay in the war long enough for this to happen, and the south didn't.

      The south /couldn't/. No food, no men, no clothes, no shoes, no ammunition, no weapons. How do you fight a war like that?

      --
      "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
      --James Madison
  49. Eliminate the "public" mail service by ratamacue · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The post office is nothing but another example of failed socialism, and should be phased out and replaced with market solutions which offer an incentive to deliver (pardon the pun ;). The answer is to allow the market to supply the demand by voluntary means, instead of by coercion (the tool of government).

    1. Re:Eliminate the "public" mail service by Ironica · · Score: 1

      How has it failed, tell me?

      - USPS is the cheapest way to send anything.

      - USPS delivers on Saturday at no extra charge.

      - USPS is legally obligated to deliver to all US addresses. My mom lives in the middle of Los Angeles, and private carriers look at her house and write up the little "sorry we missed you" slip in the truck. They don't even try to find out if anyone's home, because 30 stairs scare them.

      What's failed is the concept that basic communication should only be available to those who have the money to pay for it.

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    2. Re:Eliminate the "public" mail service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Oh man are you on crack. The US Postal Service is by far the greatest decision our goverment has ever made. If they had made the same decision with telephone service and AT&T instead of breaking them up maybe we would have high-speed internet access in rural areas, better cellphone service, and lower regulated calling rates.

      Do you think that some guy out in nowhere, Montana would receive mail if he had to rely on market conditions to bring a postal carrier to his area? Postal service along with Public Highway programs helped paved the way for suburbia and moved people out of the inner city.

      The problem with this country is that everybody thinks that socialism is something bad but they fail to realize that sometimes a controlled monopoly is better than allowing market conditions create a real or virtual monopoly.

    3. Re:Eliminate the "public" mail service by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

      The post office is nothing but another example of failed socialism [cato.org], and should be phased out and replaced with market solutions which offer an incentive to deliver (pardon the pun ;).

      While I do agree that the USPS monopoly has outlived its usefulness, I think that back when the USPS was formed, it was a natural monopoly, and I believe that natural monopolies should be run as nonprofit charities, such as the USPS.

    4. Re:Eliminate the "public" mail service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And to add to my own post. If you broke up the post office you would end up with a situation similar to the one in the cable industry. Right now, where I live, Cablevision has an absolute monopoly. If I want cable service and cannot get a satellite then I must use Cablevision. There is no competitor. That means that cablevision will charge me $45 to plug in a second cable box in my house if I want to watch TV in another room. Without that cable box I get no channels even with a "cable-ready" tv.

    5. Re:Eliminate the "public" mail service by ratamacue · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here is one argument that addresses the costs of sustaining the post office monopoly. Also see this one.

    6. Re:Eliminate the "public" mail service by pinny20 · · Score: 1

      In the UK the Royal Mail was recently privatised. It's been a total and utter disaster.

      Consignia (which is the new name for the Royal Mail) currently have a monopoly until the market is fully opened in 2006. They are losing money at the rate of £1,000,000 per day. Plus they're talking about having only one delivery a day and cutting about 30,000 posties. Also people in rural communities may lose their daily delivery and only get a few per week.

      When the Royal Mail was in public ownership it made a healthy profit for the British taxpayer, which in turn contributed to our public services. It also guarantees that people get a minimum level of service.

      I would imagine the USPO works on a similar basis and probably produces revenue for the government. This is a *good thing*.

    7. Re:Eliminate the "public" mail service by Uncle+Gropey · · Score: 1

      That's probably true, but it would require an amendment to the Constitution, which as is guarantees a postal service provided by the government. In addition, whatever private company decided to take this baton would have to deliver universal service (not a very lucrative prospect; witness fiber optics or even cable), and lastly, without the "no profit" rule which the USPS lives by, I don't see how a private company would be able to make a profit while keeping their prices comparable.

    8. Re:Eliminate the "public" mail service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of the arguments in that statement are really awful. He compares delivering mail to the airline industry. When last I checked, there are people who have to travel hours to get to an airport. Even though I only travel 5 miles to my airport it usually takes 30 minutes and I am guaranteed to wait on the tarmac for an hour. That is hardly the model of (in)efficiency to compare to.

    9. Re:Eliminate the "public" mail service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah.. Market forces...
      Enron.. Arthur Anderson.. Microsoft.. Worldcom.. Quest..

      Hmmm.

      Somehow I think I don't want my mail in the shreder...

    10. Re:Eliminate the "public" mail service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the way - do you have any arguments of your own or do you let other people do all your thinking for you?

    11. Re:Eliminate the "public" mail service by gessel · · Score: 1

      On the other hand - the post office is common carriage and they carry, without peeking, porn, political screeds of all sorts, whatever goes into an envelope. The common carriage protection would be well served extended to electronic carriers rather than the reverse. Perhaps it wouldn't have been a disaster to have the post office carry mail and set the standard for content agnosticism.

      Not that I don't appreciate choice, but once AOL/Time/worldcom etc is owned by one company, how do I have any more choice? In fact worldcom is my region's only high speed access provider. Is it better that a corporation accountable only to profits and greed handle my data, or a goverment accountable to politics and (in theory, anyway) votes be?

      The public mail system works well, has for hundreds of years. They might have reasonably played in the electronic space as well. Though as left leaning as this sounds, the law blocking competition to the post office seems ill-concieved to me.

    12. Re:Eliminate the "public" mail service by he-sk · · Score: 2
      Do you think that some guy out in nowhere, Montana would receive mail if he had to rely on market conditions to bring a postal carrier to his area? Postal service along with Public Highway programs helped paved the way for suburbia and moved people out of the inner city.

      And this is good?

      --
      Free Manning, jail Obama.
    13. Re:Eliminate the "public" mail service by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      Yes. It's good. Unless you've got issues of resentment with the fact that you can't herd everybody into highrises and tell them how to live.

      Then it probably irks you to no end.

    14. Re:Eliminate the "public" mail service by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2
      The post office is nothing but another example of failed socialism [cato.org], and should be phased out and replaced with market solutions which offer an incentive to deliver (pardon the pun ;). The answer is to allow the market to supply the demand by voluntary means, instead of by coercion (the tool of government).

      We need to get to the root of this socialist plot:

      U.S. Constitution, section 8:

      Congress shall have th power ...
      Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

      AHA!!! It was those commie pinko Founding Fathers! Washington, Jefferson, Adams... All scheming leftist pinko scumbags, bent on stealing money from FedEx and UPS and using it to subsidize post cards to welfare mothers from their bastard children!

      Just goes to show again, that every single thing that the government does is completely worthless and wasteful, even if it takes 220 years to find it out!

    15. Re:Eliminate the "public" mail service by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      Oh yea the cato institute, now there is a rational unbiased bunch of individuals with no axe to grind.

      If you believe that bunch of bozos I got a bridge to sell you. Let me clue you in. The cato institute is nothing but a fund raising arm of the republican party. To them feeding your family and not charging for it is socialism.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    16. Re:Eliminate the "public" mail service by Fyndlorn · · Score: 1

      I must disagree. It is a virtual impossibility that the Royal Mail was able to deliver mail more efficiently than a private company could. The RM has no incentive to provide a good or efficient service so there is no reason to expect that it will. I can almost guarantee it wasn't MAKING any money (though i have not done any research into this, I'm basing my conclusion on eveyr single other government service)

      While Consignia may be losing money now I guantee it was less than the Rm mail did when it was in oporation.

      If some small cutbacks need to be made to the service to make it profitable then so be it. One delivery a day from the USPS (united states postal service) is just fine for buisnesses (and especially residences) in the US so there is no reason to suspect the UK is any different in that regard.

      I agree that some basic level of national service is needed for all, but the private sector has proven that it can provide such a service in the modern day to all parts of even VERY large countries like the US which have remote rural regions.

    17. Re:Eliminate the "public" mail service by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      Hey wait a minute now. You were not expecting the cato institute of bothering with the facts were you?

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    18. Re:Eliminate the "public" mail service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm...where's the part where the US Govt gets exclusive power over all postal services?

    19. Re:Eliminate the "public" mail service by TC+(WC) · · Score: 1

      I must disagree. It is a virtual impossibility that the Royal Mail was able to deliver mail more efficiently than a private company could. The RM has no incentive to provide a good or efficient service so there is no reason to expect that it will.

      I very much enjoy how you just went and denied what someone with experience and knowledge on the subject just said without doing any research on it...

      (though i have not done any research into this, I'm basing my conclusion on eveyr single other government service)

      Eh, you obviously just don't have very well managed governmental services... The first example of, for me, a local governmental service that makes money is BC Hydro, British Columbia's (Canada) government owned power company.

      While Consignia may be losing money now I guantee it was less than the Rm mail did when it was in oporation.

      Once again, you say this without doing any research at all. Here's a link to a BBC article that places the 1999 profits of Royal Mail at £608m before taxes. This article, from March of this year, places Consignia's losses at £1.5m a day.

      If some small cutbacks need to be made to the service to make it profitable then so be it.

      Except it was profitable before, when it was a publicly owned company...

    20. Re:Eliminate the "public" mail service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which as is guarantees a postal service provided by the government.

      Wrong. The Constitution gives the government power to set up a post office, but not exclusive power over every piece of mail. Besides, because the Constitution gives the govt power doesn't mean the govt has to use said power.

    21. Re:Eliminate the "public" mail service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah.. Governments...
      Nazi Germany.. Soviet Union.. Roman Empire..

      Hmmmm.

      Somehow I think I don't want a government...

    22. Re:Eliminate the "public" mail service by AnimeFreak · · Score: 2

      It's a shame that there is a smell of privatisation in some parts of BC Hydro coming sometime in the near future.

    23. Re:Eliminate the "public" mail service by P-Nuts · · Score: 1

      If the Royal Mail controlled email, would I have to pay to receive it in the morning?

    24. Re:Eliminate the "public" mail service by ratamacue · · Score: 1

      The founders were some of the most recognized Libertarian thinkers in history (back then it was called "liberal") but they were not perfectly consistent in their philosophy. The postal service is one example. Slavery, which is probably the single biggest mistake ever made by the USA, was tolerated and even endorsed by authority. Strange for a government which proposed, as it's foremost responsibility, to protect against coercion.

      If you read the links I posted you will see that there is simply no good reason to keep the postal service around, and many reasons to eliminate it. The postal service is a drain on the economy, and the costs (measured in civil rights) don't even begin to justify its existence.

    25. Re:Eliminate the "public" mail service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is good?

      And where do you live right now? I personally live in the Bronx and I am moving to outer suburbia in less than a month. I can't wait to get away from the stench and decay of the inner city. Without highways, telephones, and Metro-North I would never be able to live there and work in Manhattan.

    26. Re:Eliminate the "public" mail service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit did you just break the whole Slashdot ethos. You basically are saying that in order to be a good service/product it has to have the incentive of making a hefty profit. That just goes completely in the face of the entire open-source and free-software movements.

    27. Re:Eliminate the "public" mail service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. You are really bright. Yeah all governments are evil because of the deeds of a few. Also, what was wrong with the Roman Empire? I'm not sure you realize how much our society owes to the Roman Empire in its hayday.

    28. Re:Eliminate the "public" mail service by ratamacue · · Score: 1
      You basically are saying that in order to be a good service/product it has to have the incentive of making a hefty profit.

      Hard cash isn't the only incentive that human beings respond to. What you haven't considered is that open source programmers work out of incentive too -- incentive to learn, incentive to acquire skills that can be put on a resume, incentive to make a name for themselves in the programming community, or incentive to simply enjoy themselves in their spare time. The programmers' time and effort is valuable, and therefore they must invest wisely in order to obtain the profit (in whatever form it takes). In the socialist solution, there simply is no profit incentive, because the market is forced into a solution, and not convinced through voluntary means. Look at Amtrak: if Amtrak was a private enterprise, it would have failed a long time ago because of its failure to turn a profit (which, again, is measured in more ways than just hard cash). Since Amtrak is a forced solution, instead of reflecting the true state of the market (and failing as a solution) it is rewarded with more tax funding which only worsens the problem.

      Now, a defining characteristic of a market solution is voluntary association. Open source programming is a perfect example of voluntary association. For this reason, open source programming is in fact a free market solution, and is 100% compatible with free market economics. A government solution (for example the postal service) represents the exact opposite: an involuntary, coercive solution, which is decidedly incompatible with free market economics. The program's existence simply does not depend on its ability to reflect the state of the market. On the contrary -- it's existence depends on the government's ability to collect and disperse revenue through coercion. Hence, socialist solutions almost always represent a net loss. The investment, measured in civil rights (particularly the right to maintain control over your assets and earnings), simply does not justify the outcome.

      If I only had a nickel for every time I had to explain why coercion is poor economic policy... ;)

    29. Re:Eliminate the "public" mail service by ratamacue · · Score: 1
      what was wrong with the Roman Empire

      How about the fact that many innocent lives had to be sacrificed in order to achieve Empire status (this is true of any empire)? You may also be surprised to know that the USA represents the largest and most powerful empire since the Romans.

    30. Re:Eliminate the "public" mail service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the US, postal service is only once per day, and it's been that way for all my life. Long ago it was twice daily, but I only know that due to having read the excellent novel The Postman Always Rings Twice... but this book was written in the 1930's IIRC. Presumably this is because of the telephone.

    31. Re:Eliminate the "public" mail service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah all corporations are evil because of the deeds of a few.

  50. No it won't. by charon_on_acheron · · Score: 1

    Didn't you read the article a few months ago? The Lonegunmen are dead. There is no more hope. ;^)

  51. Imagine Microsoft Controlled Snail Mail by ksplatter · · Score: 1

    All the trees in all the world would be gone. We would all get about 50 letters a day from x-rated web sites. THen another 20 for credit cards. And about 30 more for making my penis larger. My point is that the world is like a sea of oysters. You never know where you'll find a pearl!

    1. Re:Imagine Microsoft Controlled Snail Mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not True...

      They would use Exchange 200?, and because it's
      a piece of $hit, it would never work correctly!

    2. Re:Imagine Microsoft Controlled Snail Mail by Uncle+Gropey · · Score: 1

      Nah, we'd just swipe a free Eudora mailbox.

  52. Why is this so bad? by DeepEyes78 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Really, I'd rather have a small amount of my tax dollars put towards a e-mail account that I know will be there for the rest of my life. (As opposed to getting a "free" account with a .com that might not be there tomorrow.) Not only that, but since it's paid for by taxes, you won't have to worry about the gov't selling your e-mail for extra $$$ (In an ideal world anyway.) I'm not saying that the USPS should be the only one providing e-mail, but I don't think it would be the horrible thing that everyone is making it out to be.

    1. Re:Why is this so bad? by Peyna · · Score: 1

      Of course, then the government can just type "vi /var/mail/user" to read your mail instead of having to actually open it over steam and then reseal the envelope.

      --
      What?
    2. Re:Why is this so bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you won't have to worry about the gov't selling your e-mail for extra $$$

      Yeah, just like I don't have to worry about the govt selling my snail mail address and I never get any spam. Wait...

    3. Re:Why is this so bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hence the "encryption = envelope" analogy for email. Right now, you're just sending everything on postcards.

  53. Whine, bitch, moan by r_j_prahad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Look, the United States Postal Service does a damn good job for the money. Bitch if you want about the thirty-seven cents, but why don't you try hiring a cab to hand-deliver your envelope door-to-door and maybe that'll give some idea what the service is really worth. The USPS has been getting a bum rap for decades now for doing nothing less than a fantastic job with shit for a budget.

    The USPS is also a serious proponent of Linux, having deployed more than 5400 Linux boxes internally to do address scanning and recognition. Google for "Linux USPS", it's the first unsponsored link.

    I'm trying real hard here to think how the USPS could fuck up the Internet any worse than Adelphia or Qwest, and if there is something more nefarious that they could've done, it escapes me.

    1. Re:Whine, bitch, moan by Pentagon13 · · Score: 1

      Maybe they could offer cheaper rates if they weren't sponsoring athletes like Lance Armstrong. Now why is it again that my tax dollars are being spent to promote a government operation. Surely I'm not buying stamps more often just cause of their advertising right?

      Just laugh, it's intended to be a joke...

    2. Re:Whine, bitch, moan by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      Bull fucking shit. The entire lance armstrong budget is less then the worth of a closet full of suits in the house of any major CEO in this country.

      Have you ever considered the fact they might feel the need to advertise because the repubicans are on the warpath against the postal service, the postal service employees and every other federal worker?

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    3. Re:Whine, bitch, moan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the same situation in Australia - Australia Post is a public utility and generally does a superb job.

      I think it's impressive that i can put a AUS$0.45 ($US0.20 or so) stamp on an envelope and it will be delivered anywhere in the country - overnight to the larger cities. Lost mail is generally unheard of.

      I like your point about putting that letter in a taxi and having it personally delivered heh

    4. Re:Whine, bitch, moan by balthan · · Score: 1

      Have you ever considered the fact they might feel the need to advertise

      Yeah, it's a shame most people don't know that the US Post Office delivers letters and packages.

    5. Re:Whine, bitch, moan by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      Apparently I need to clarify this for you. Ok I'll try again and use smaller words just so you can get it.

      1) republicans attack the postal service.
      2) republicans attack the postal service employees.
      3) republicans attack all federal workers.
      4) The postal service and it's employees get vilified by the republicans and the republican controlled media.
      5) The postal service feels the need to portray a positive image of itself in order to convince people that they are not actually evil, communist, anti american terrorists that the republicans claim they are.
      6) they choose to sponsor a bicycling team (probably because it was the cheapest thing to sponsor).
      7) Much to chagring of republicans this team happens the contain what is arguably the best athlete in the world. The team wins the tour de france year after year. Lance Armstrong beats testicular cancer thereby giving the media something to talk about.

      finally

      8) Having failed to convince the american public that federal employees are communist, homosexual child molesting terrorists the republicans bitch and moan about the postal service wasting money to sponsor a cycling team while they drive the economy into the ground.

      Imagine if the postal service ran it's business like the republicans are running this economy!.

      Get it now?

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    6. Re:Whine, bitch, moan by balthan · · Score: 2

      The postal service feels the need to portray a positive image of itself in order to convince people

      Regardless of your hyperbole, I don't think any government agency should be spending tax dollars trying to convince people to support it.

    7. Re:Whine, bitch, moan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "why don't you try hiring a cab to hand-deliver your envelope door-to-door and maybe that'll give some idea what the service is really worth."

      First, you have no grasp of economics or economies of scale.

      "I'm trying real hard here to think how the USPS could fuck up the Internet any worse than Adelphia or Qwest, and if there is something more nefarious that they could've done, it escapes me."

      Second, nobody from any of these companies has lost it and gone postal.

    8. Re:Whine, bitch, moan by iamblades · · Score: 1

      Regardless of your hyperbole, I don't think any government agency should be spending tax dollars trying to convince people to support it.>>

      They DON'T spend your tax dollars, for the most part. They aren't technically part of the government, haven't been for while a while. Every now and then, the government has to step in to help them meet their obligations, but it's not like the USPS is a steady budget item or anything..

      What do you think your 32 cents is for?

      --
      Shit adds up at the bottom...
    9. Re:Whine, bitch, moan by 3am · · Score: 1

      http://usps.com/common/category/aboutusps.htm, you obviously need to read up.

      --

      A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
    10. Re:Whine, bitch, moan by chanceH · · Score: 1

      Are you forgetting to include the money that
      pays the armed goons that protect the USPS monopoly?

      Thats actually a pretty important part of their
      business plan.

    11. Re:Whine, bitch, moan by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      " I don't think any government agency should be spending tax dollars trying to convince people to support it."

      Hey I have an idea. Maybe the republicans should not spend govt money bashing hard working people trying to feed their families. Why can't they just be happy drving their BMWs and sailing their yachts? Why do they have to spend govt money calling hard working americans communists?

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    12. Re:Whine, bitch, moan by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      " Are you forgetting to include the money that
      pays the armed goons that protect the USPS monopoly?"

      Aren't those exact same armed goons that enforce contracts between corporations?

      --

      War is necrophilia.

  54. It's unfortunate it didn't happen. by -tji · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As others have pointed out, the USPS could not just come in and 'own' e-mail, they could provide an e-mail service, that people would use only if it provided enough value to justify the cost.

    Most likely, the main users would have been business customers, who were willing to pay for the services.

    Having a central, semi-trusted authority, employing sound technologies, could have taken e-mail much farther than it is today. Features like:

    - Useful encrypted e-mail (i.e. a central certificate authority, with a strong registration process).
    - Based on a modern protocol with some assurances of identity. SMTP is trivial to spoof, but is so widespread it's impossible to replace. It would take an organization with some clout to promote a new open standard.
    - SPAM control

    When people hear of the USPS doing e-mail, they think of their local mail carriers and laugh. Obviously it would not be run by those people, it would be a group of trained specialists designing and implementing it.

    Of course, I still would not trust them with my e-mail, or pay them for the service. But, I bet my employer would. And, I bet I would use the GNU version of their open standards and strong security on my Linux box.

  55. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  56. Antietam was a turning point... by krinsh · · Score: 1

    Gettysburg just got more publicity. This is from someone who lives *very close* to Antietam and is an avid amateur Civil and WWII-phile. I do believe that as the 'winners' of the war, we don't take into consideration that our generals weren't always that brilliant.

    --
    I think with the interesting people, their lives can't possibly be wrapped up into a nice little package.
  57. The USPS tried E-mail, and it really sucked by Animats · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I looked into using the USPS's "Electronic Computer-Originated Mail" back in the 1980s. We were considering it as a delivery system for E-mail for people who weren't on the Internet. (Yes, kiddies, there was an Internet back then; it just wasn't very big.) The USPS had managed to do almost everything wrong.

    First, you submitted mail by emulating an IBM remote-job entry system and submitting a batch job. Error messages came back the next day, by paper mail. Really.

    You had to send a minimum number of mail pieces per batch, the minimum being 100 or so. And they all had to have the same first 2 digits of the zip code, because the whole batch was printed at the same place, in some regional mail-handling facility. The switching was per-job, not per-message. (Some third party company tried to set up a switching system to take individual messages and accumulate them, but it didn't catch on.)

    Finally, it cost about the same as first class mail. More for long messages, based on pages printed.

    Even bulk mailers didn't like it. The biggest objection was that you couldn't include a return envelope, so it was useless for bills.

    Not that private enterprise did much better. FedEx tried something called ZapMail, where you faxed your message to a receiver in a FedEx truck, which then drove to the destination and delivered the message. Two-hour delivery. Killed by cheap fax machines.

  58. The Confederacy winning the US Civil War?. by bsDaemon · · Score: 2, Informative

    The whole damned thing could have been won after 1st manassis. nothern generals before Grant became eastern theatre commander were fairly lame. However, the south didn't make the move. If they had followed the nothern army on the retreat, they would have been able to take DC on the first day of the war. That would more than likely be called 'winning' -- capturing the enemy capitol in record time. yup.

    1. Re:The Confederacy winning the US Civil War?. by Uncle+Gropey · · Score: 1, Funny

      Them ol' boys, they jest ran out o bullits, or theyd a done an kicked them damn yankees in their blamed nuts.

    2. Re:The Confederacy winning the US Civil War?. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      The whole damned thing could have been won after 1st manassis. nothern generals before Grant became eastern theatre commander were fairly lame. However, the south didn't make the move. If they had followed the nothern army on the retreat, they would have been able to take DC on the first day of the war. That would more than likely be called 'winning' -- capturing the enemy capitol in record time. yup.

      Probably not. Capture of Washington DC might have meant something if Congress and the President were captured with it, but not otherwise.

      Most likely result if Washington had been captured, and the Government had escaped, was that the fighting on that particular front would have had significantly less importance in the war as a whole. Note that the really important parts of defeating the Confederacy happened elsewhere - taking control of the Mississippi, Sherman's March to the Sea. Those events were more militarily significant than the fighting between Washington and Richmond (which only happened because Washington and Richmond were so close together - neither city was especially important).

      Note also that the British captured Washington in the War of 1812. That did not have any real effect on the outcome of the war, though it probably bothered Dolly quite a lot.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  59. "What If" History isn't history at all. by yokem_55 · · Score: 1

    It can be fun to speculate about what might have happened if things had happened diferently, but all that can come out of it is merely speculation. You cannot make good predictions of "what might have happened" when simply a million other things could have taken place. The fact of the matter, is that History has played out in specific, unique, and particular ways that have shaped the present. There is no changing the past. Thus, value judgements of events in the past based on speculation of what might have been if events had happened differently are utterly worthless. Speculation is fun, but it isn't real.

    --
    ...and IN SOVIET RUSSIA, beowulf clusters imagine 1, 2, 3 profit!!!! jokes made out of YOU!!!
    1. Re:"What If" History isn't history at all. by hage · · Score: 1

      Actually, Churchill's speculation about the inevitable abolition of slavery is considered accurate, and most southern historians (that I've read) agree with his assessment.

    2. Re:"What If" History isn't history at all. by yokem_55 · · Score: 1

      That conclusion would probably fall in the category of "likely enough", but the details of precisely how are way up in the air and could have been wildly different from predicted, resulting a timeline utterly unpredictable from what we know. For all we know slavery in an independant confederacy might have been ended if the British decided to invade the Confederacy and take it back as their own. The bottom line is that the only history that we can KNOW is from what actually happened. Historical speculation is worthless in studying historical reality.

      --
      ...and IN SOVIET RUSSIA, beowulf clusters imagine 1, 2, 3 profit!!!! jokes made out of YOU!!!
    3. Re:"What If" History isn't history at all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...most southern historians... Man, I just bust a gut.

      So, you're saying that most Southern historians agree with the off possibility that makes the Confederacy pro-slavery stance seem justified?

      How about that.

  60. Not so far-fetched as you think by nygeek · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Back in the late 1970s I joined IBM as a junior electronic engineer. There I had my first experience of electronic mail. IBM had an internal network called VNET that connected all of their mainframes. It supported many of the services that we think of as characteristic of the Internet today - email, instant messages, file transfer, and remote terminal access. None of these services was as well implemented or architected as the Internet, but it wasn't too shabby for 1978.

    I was completely bowled over by email and used it a lot. To my dismay, however, in something like 1979 or so they renamed the program, which had been called "mail," because of concerns that the US Postal Service owned the name. The program was renamed "note" and most of us geeks thought the decision was hilariously stupid.

    It's fascinating to read this article and realize that what must have been going on was an effort by the USPS to protect its "brand name" for mail. I can just imagine IBM getting a lawyer letter from the Postal Service threatening legal action if they didn't stop using the word mail.

  61. Automatic License Verification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the federal system gave everyone a free connection, it could also be used to support automatic verification of software licenses. In other words, users could be REQUIRED to be connected by software manufacturers. With a free connection, it wouldn't be a serious hassle to most legal users.

    After installing XP and reading the EULA this doesn't seem too far fetched. MS might have a strong financial reason to back such a system.

    1. Re:Automatic License Verification by starX · · Score: 1

      Never said it wouldn't have it's problems, and I never said it would be free. Besides, since I know we're all legal users, why is verification of software liscences such a big deal? Remember that there is a fine line between trumped up IP infringement and warez. What it sounds to me like you're getting at is that you don't want to have to pay for your copy of Windows. There's this fun thing called Linux which is a nice alternative.

      And I honestly don't see private ISP control as an impediment to the government spying on you. Ultimately, they can obtain (through due process) the right to inspect your underwear drawer. Having a similar measure in place for internet traffic is good, it just needs to be handled responsibly and with a cool head, not the post 9/11 USA PATRIOT act reactionary bulls**t that we have now.

      There is no such thing as a perfect system, and the wonderful thing about federal government is that it acknowledges that. Try to think a little more objectively... what freedoms would you lose that you (supposedly) have now?

    2. Re:Automatic License Verification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Au contraire!!! I welcome, even implore, the federal government to put a halt to piracy by this means. Everyone should be required to own a valid license for the commercial software that they use, and I cannot imagine a more effective way to promote Linux and the thousands of apps it has spawned. I suspect there are several thousand shareware authors who might share my feelings.

  62. Oh boy. by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2

    I don't think I'd want all those aliens in the post-office twiddling with my bits...

  63. Re:Owned Email? No. First Hotmail. by therealmoose · · Score: 1, Funny

    Are you suggesting that Hemos would DRAMATIZE a news article? Burn heretic!

  64. Umm... by TechnoLust · · Score: 3, Funny

    FedEX/UPS/UHL/Airborne Express don't stop regularly
    Neither does my postman!

    --
    "Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
    1. Re:Umm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Contact your local post office. Your postman should be stopping by your box every day to pick any mail up, regardless of whether he's got mail to leave for you.

      Slackers like this give the PO a bad name.

    2. Re:Umm... by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      Contact your local post office. Your postman should be stopping by your box every day to pick any mail up, regardless of whether he's got mail to leave for you.

      Exactly - it's mandated by law.

    3. Re:Umm... by Woody77 · · Score: 1

      And for a fee, UPS stops at my dad's shop every day, to see if he's sending out any packages. FedEx hits up my company here twice a day, and DHL every day as well...

    4. Re:Umm... by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      There's another exception in the PDF allowing it if the cost of postage is $3.00 or more, or if it costs 2x the USPS rate...

    5. Re:Umm... by Loudergood · · Score: 1

      Not exactly true, we have to stop and pick up mail from rural delivery boxes, but not the one mounted on your house. At least that's what I was told by my boss/postmaster.

    6. Re:Umm... by joshsisk · · Score: 1

      And for a fee, UPS stops at my dad's shop every day, to see if he's sending out any packages. FedEx hits up my company here twice a day, and DHL every day as well...

      Wow, your Dad's shop for packages and your company for corporate mail. That REALLY sounds like "non-expedited personal mail", which is what is covered by the law, doesn't it?

  65. Ouroboros? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a very cool thread. Usually we non-merkins have to listen to these kinds of little barbs thrown our way. Does a body good to see this kind of self-referential abuse going on once in a while too...

    1. Re:Ouroboros? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2
      We make fun of ourselves far more than you would imagine - the key is that we don't do it in front of you.

      It's sort of like picking on a younger sibling, but standing up for them whenever someone else does the same. I can call my best friend a redneck, but wouldn't let you do the same. :)

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  66. on that second what if.. by AnalogBoy · · Score: 1, Troll

    Maybe we should let the south seperate? I mean, all the conservatives could have their backwards, broken, primitive nation full of fundi christians, and all the liberals could have their progressive, broken, but modern nation full of, well, liberals. We could just break the states down by geographic area into a gradient of government types.. the far north could be the extremely liberal, tree hugging libertarians, the mid-america region could be your moderates, and florida could be filled with george bush fsck-the-constitution supporters. :)

    1. Re:on that second what if.. by derch · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Now I know that the South has it's fair share of backwater far right conservatives, but don't lump all of the South in with them

      Al Gore's from Tennessee.
      Bill Clinton's from Arkansas.
      Billy Carter's from Georgia.
      Doug Wilder, former gov of Virginia, was the first elected Black governor in the US.

      Sure, we also gave the nation Ollie North, Jesse Helms, and Jerry Falwell.

      So think of the South more as a region of extremes instead of Bible toting gun weilding conservatives.

      *Texas is Texas. It does not count as a Southern state any more than Oklahoma does.

    2. Re:on that second what if.. by AnalogBoy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We'd have to, of course, relocate some people. For instance, how could we allow bush to stay in washington? That's in the liberal-but-not-greenpeace section of the nation!

  67. USPS by Quixote · · Score: 4, Informative
    First, referring to the USPS as 'The Postman' is a bit demeaning, I'd say.

    The USPS has been at the leading edge of technology in many cases. As another poster mentioned, do a Google for Linux USPS and see what you find. I speak from first-hand experience: I have worked on USPS' Linux systems. They have over 5000 dual-CPU boxes running Linux, sorting mail at real-time speeds (which is 13 pieces per second, mind you). The USPS handles 40% of the world's postal mail. They process over 500 million pieces of mail each and every working day.

    The USPS also has a huge network of SGI boxen deployed, again reading and sorting addresses (but this time those that were missed by the Linux boxes).

    With the current mess at ICANN, NSI, etc. do you think the USPS could have done any worse?

    And BTW: before you take potshots at the $0.37 FC postage rates, check the rates at other countries in Europe, f'rinstance.

    I have personally seen farmers deliver chicken hatchlings, ducks, etc. to the USPS for delivery, I kid you not. Live cargo! Lets see FedEx/UPS do anything even close.

  68. The US Government DID build the email system by jc42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm really disappointed that nobody has yet pointed out that the Internet, SMTP, and all that were built on projects funded by the US Government. The DOD's ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency), to be precise. I was using it back in the 70's, and I was quite aware of where the funding came from.

    And the actual constructions was done almost entirely by universities. The few "private" companies involved (such as BB&N) were living almost entirely off government grants and contracts.

    The corporate enterprise ideologists are trying hard to invent their own history so that they can claim some of the credit. But this is all historic revisionism. The real credit belongs to the evil old government, in collusion with a lot of academic hackers.

    It may be true that forms of email were developed by a number of computer vendors. But they were all proprietary (even UUCP and DECnet), didn't interoperate worth a damn, and mostly couldn't be licensed for a finite cost.

    It's kinda too bad. I've always thought that UUCP mail was better than SMTP. But if was freed by AT&T a bit too late, and SMTP already had the territory. Note that SMTP is defined by a set of US government standards.

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  69. Fie upon bad weather non delivery monkeys by Uncle+Gropey · · Score: 1

    I'm a rural mail carrier in Texas. We don't get snow, we get 2 inch thick sheets of glass-smooth ice about every other year, so it's always a kind of new experience. That's way slicker than snow, for you public school graduates. After a day of delivering mail to BFE with that going on, when I go to bed I can still feel my rear end sliding to and fro, inches from a five foot ditch, from which I will walk miles to the nearest phone to call for help if I fall in, which will not come because no other fools are going to get out in that kind of weather. I didn't make any of that up.

    1. Re:Fie upon bad weather non delivery monkeys by Archfeld · · Score: 2

      I can't ever recall not getting my mail :)
      Would it be worse if the Post Office controlled the domains and routing than it is now ? The various groups we've appointed to safegaurd the net have for the most part been corporatized, or lobotamized by the real power, $$$$$.

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  70. See the irony of your own flame by Uncle+Gropey · · Score: 1

    That is a stock response by any liberal to any conservative who invokes cato or limbaugh. So where do all of you get that standardized reaction?

    1. Re:See the irony of your own flame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure how you made this partisan. Is this supposed to help your argument?

    2. Re:See the irony of your own flame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am actual not a liberal and I am not sure where you got that idea. I am also not a conservative, a democrat, a republican, or an independent. I don't subscribe to any "stock" ideology. I read the argument from Cato and realized that it consisted of poorly made arguments that are based on half-truths and mistatements.

      As opposed to 99.9% of slashdotters I come up with my own conclusions and opinions. I happen to like Microsoft as a desktop OS. I personally don't think that Microsoft is even in the top 100 of evil companies. I actually believe that Apple ranks higher than Microsoft in that category. None of these things would be popular here on slashdot and yet I don't succumb to popular opinion.

  71. History is rife with crazy Post Office ideas... by guttentag · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Like Missile Mail:
    On June 8, 1959, in a move a postal official heralded as "of historic significance to the peoples of the entire world," the Navy submarine U.S.S. Barbero fired a guided missile carrying 3,000 letters at the Naval Auxiliary Air Station in Mayport, Florida. "Before man reaches the moon," the official was quoted as saying, "mail will be delivered within hours from New York to California, to Britain, to India or Australia by guided missiles."

    History proved differently, but this experiment with missile mail exemplifies the pioneering spirit of the Post Office Department when it came to developing faster, better ways of moving the mail.

  72. Ed Baker, Other Postal Services, etc. by weston · · Score: 2

    For a moment, I thought the article was going to focus on the law that states that things of a non-urgent nature must be delivered by USPS, and things like that. Interesting to find out they were looking into official electronic mail in the 70s, and interesting that the solution that finally popped up was distributed and came out of defense research.

    By the way, if anyone has any information about the history of letter delivery, and especially things like the Ed Baker Memorial Postal Conspiracy or other postal conspiracies, I'd be interested in hearing from you. Unusually, lots of information is not readily available from a Google search.

  73. Re:Owned Email? No. First Hotmail. by EvlG · · Score: 2

    I disagree. They would have been first to market with a technology on a massive roll-out.

    Anyone competing would have to have a competing technology, unless USPS licensed it to them.

    In effect, competition would fragment the market, and with the head-start the USPS had, it is very likely it would have won.

    I think had the USPS actually gone ahead with the plan, we might all have very different email addresses right now (either because we would be using a fragmented service, akin to the old AOL/Prodigy/Compuserve days, or because we all use USPS addresses.)

  74. "You are all so lucky" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like Stuart N. Brotman is diggin; for a little pat on theback.

  75. Whats the big deal? by AIXadmin · · Score: 2

    So we would have had mass propogation of email earlier, and a internet or the internet type of services would have happened sooner. Bar the internet would not have had its libertarian nature if the post office ran it.
    But we might have had more interactive high bandwidth services sooner if the plan had gone forward.

  76. The Postal Reform Act of 1970 by jpostel · · Score: 3, Informative

    "The act required the Postal Service to âoepromote modern and efficient operations and [avoid] any practiceâ¦which restricts the user of new equipment or devices which may reduce the cost or improve the quality of postal services...â"

    What I love about this is that I know someone who works for the USPS and came up with US Patent 5,339,734. It is a small hand bar code stamper. Simple idea that would save tens of MILLIONS of dollars, if the USPS would promote the use of it.

    The address (ZIP code) on the front of an envelope is read by some OCR machines. If the OCR thinks it has a pretty good match (which it usually does) then it sends the letter on its way. This is very little problem for the majority of machine printed addresses and ZIP codes. Hand written addresses however cause more problems for OCR, which is why there is a secondary step of humans sitting in front of computer screens checking the addresses of the mail that the OCR machines did not like. The people watching the screens are doing the high speed assembly line equivalent of hand sorting mail.

    None of this comes into play, however, if the ZIP (or ZIP+4) is BAR CODED onto the envelope. Check out some bulk mail for the bar code on the envelope. That step eliminates the OCR and human mail sorter from the equation. Since the machines look for the bar code anyway, less steps = less money.

    The hand held bar coder would cost less than a few stamps if produced in bulk, but the USPS is unwilling to even consider the idea, because it would put hundreds of USPS employees out of work.

    --
    Ummm, Jon, aren't you supposed to be dead...? - Otter(3800)
  77. The Post Office by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Would be the perfect place to offer authenticated encryption key registration. There's one in every town and they have the infrastructure deployed to validate your identity already. Go down there, show 2 forms of ID and give them a floppy disk with your PGP public key on it. They charge you nominal fee and slap it on their server with your name and stuff attached to it. I'd drop 10 or 15 bucks for that.

    Only it isn't going to happen because the government doesn't like encryption and the post office is (probably) too clueless to actually set up the necessary servers and keep them secure enough for it all to work.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:The Post Office by Animats · · Score: 2
      The USPS was going to get into the authentication key registration business in a big way, but backed off. The service exists, and is called "Netpost.Certified", but it is currently used only where at least one party is a Government agency. But the whole crypto/smart card/personal authentication thing is in place.

      There's a separate system for sending certified mail from the Internet to the USPS, but it uses Verisign certificates.

  78. USPS never wanted a monopoly in email by isdnip · · Score: 4, Informative

    The article makes it sound as if the USPS wanted a "private express" type monopoly in email. I have a long memory of these things, and very seriously doubt it! Remember, email as we know it began over the ARPAnet in 1972; single-computer email goes back farther. Lots of people (myself included) were on the ARPAnet in the late '70s, using email galore. There was no thought of shutting us down. In the 1980s, there was also a lot of uucp mail, fido, DECnet, BITnet, and other types of email besides the venerable SMTP. These just could not be banned or shut down.

    And don't forget X.400, the 1980s idiot bastard child of the ITU itself, an email protocol so baroque that only a Lotus Notes developer could love it. X.400 was a bad implementation of a good idea, that being to have a multivendor standard. They just ignored SMTP's existence, even as millions used it. Right into the early 1990s there were people arguing that X.400's supposedly greater capabilities were necessary.

    Various worldwide postal agencies did build something called IntElPost (sp?) in the late '70s and early '80s; basically, it was international Group IV fax service between post offices. The USPS was not allowed to participate; it still operates in some countries.

    Somebody else has noted how the USPS introduced a truly awful RJE-printer papermail service, ECOM, which flopped big time. I note that MCI Mail, a 1981-ish consumer/business email service, had a paper-output option too; I occasionally used it to send paper mail.

    The USPS could potentially play a role in a future e-post system; that might be one way to cut spam. I'd be happy to pay, oh, a penny or so per email, provided that spammers did too. More likely, it would have to be some kind of micropayment scheme wherein my inbox would block something without an e-stamp, which would cost too much for a spammer. Of course that doesn't need the USPS, but they could be a player if they got their act together.

  79. Most people forget about DNS by slew · · Score: 2

    Before widespread DNS and the MX tag, email addresses looked like...

    myneighbor!herfriend!uunet!yahoo!slew

    No kidding, email addresses used to be the other way with rmail/uucp! (and for a small time when internet email was just starting to be popular it was both ways with % signs, not to mention other nasty hpmail/vaxmail/x.400/x.500 hybrids)

    You had to source route your email explicitly although uunet was pretty good about knowing about big sites and was pretty reasonable about relaying a small amount of email for a small fee. Setting up email w/o DNS (and root servers) might be like gnutella without much bandwidth. Think of DNS root server as the virtual site that can automatically tell you where to find out how to route everything.

    The only reason email is as popular as it is today is that interoperability is pretty common (except for the spam-sources). Imagine if say 1/2 the email addresses uses a proprietary postoffice maintained "dns-like" service... It would sort of be like if the post office didn't license zip-codes to be used by their competitors (sort of how they don't let fedex/ups send to p.o.boxes)... You could set up a separate internet email, but there would be no interop...

    Just food for thought...

  80. not one but four! by not_anne · · Score: 1

    I was chatting with a former coworker about this article today, when he related the following story to me and kindly allowed me to post it here on /. I was going to post it as an AC for him, but heck, he gave me permission and stuff.

    (cut and pasted from chat)

    --
    When I send my bills or letters to my congresscritters through the USPS, there's a pretty darn good chance they will arrive at their destination if not the very next day, then the day after. That's pretty darn impressive service in my book.

    That being said, I have a friend in Ontario, Canada who lives way out in the boonies and doesn't have a phone (by choice, no less). And so I communicate with her via regular old postal mail. She had told me once that Canada Post (the Canadian postal service) was "spotty," (her term) but at the time I thought "how bad could it be?"

    When I didn't hear back from her after sending 4 letters, I got worried, and since I was on the east coast for business anyhow, I flew up there to see her and to make sure she was ok. It turns out that she was fine, and just explained again that postal service in her area is quite horrid, as she simply didn't receive ANY of those 4 letters I had sent. From that I learned really quick to send out several copies of each letter so that she will actually get them.

    It's a bit of a pain having to send out four identical copies of my letters to her, but at least now she typically receives at least one of them, if not two.

    If the USPS handled email, I'd think they'd do just as good a job as they do with snail mail. Also, perhaps that would make spammers actually have to pay per spam, just like regular mail. I can just imagine what it would be like if Canada Post handled email. Ugh.

    ~ JRay
    --
    not_anne

    --
    My comments here are my own; I do not speak for my employer.
  81. The south shall rise again!!! n/m by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/m

  82. pay up by bummpyjojo · · Score: 1

    i would be more than happy to pay 1 cent for each email i send throgh a usps email account. think about it if its a usps account its protected buy us laws ie. postal fraud (NO MORE SPAM) i think more and more people would sign up for this type of account knowing that there would be no/ or very little spam mail we could all still keep are regu. email but a spam free regulated email account would suit me just fine what about you?

    1. Re:pay up by gerardrj · · Score: 2

      In fact, having the USPS run Email and have it subjected to the same laws and regulations as standard mail would almost certainly provide you with MORE spam and more headaches.

      While you paid 1 penny to send an email, mass mailers would get massive discounts, like 1/10 of a penny.
      The USPS would be required by law to deliver any mail addressed to you, or any mail vaugly resembling your address. account_owner@domain.com would by law HAVE to be delivered to every email account in the "domain.com" domain.
      The USPS would sell your email address to mass marketers, and be required to publish your address in a master list that is available to almost anyone who asks for it.
      Further, the USPS would actively encourage mass mailers to send you bulk advertzing to increase their revenue stream.
      Email messages would have no ability to be tracked. They would dissapear in to the system, and would usually show up at the proper destination. The contents of your message may have been damaged in transit, or the message unexpectedly delayed for days or weeks.
      The 1 penny rate would only apply to messages of 1KB in size. Larger messages would be charged extra. Discounts would apply for "media" email that contained images, book transcripts, video, or sound files.
      The machines that recieve the email would have to be certified by the USPS. If any system failed to meet the approval of the USPS they could confiscate it, or refuse to deliver mail to it.

      --
      Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
  83. Re:Yes: All but the USPS ILLEGAL. Read some histor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe it was the USPS that instituted the pneumatic-tube system in Manhattan. I seem to remember that it was discontinued because it was not efficient.

  84. Re:Yes: All but the USPS ILLEGAL. Read some histor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://future.newsday.com/1/fbak0115.htm

    Pneumatic tubes connected main post offices to a network of substations in New York and at least four other American cities, beginning in Philadelphia in 1893. By 1916, there were more than 112 miles in place, according to a brochure published by the company with contracts to operate the system in Boston (13.6 miles), Chicago (19.8 miles), New York (55 miles), St. Louis (3.9 miles) and Philadelphia (20 miles).

    Get the story straight. It was shut down due to cost constraints.
    As far as the other points you make, please substantiate them. Or did postal hisotry revisionists destroy that in a Vanal-esque period of American history we are unaware of?

  85. There are better ideas. by aussersterne · · Score: 2

    Like $0 Web hosting. For less than $20 year in DNS registration fees, you can have you@youraddr.com and give nine friends an address@youraddr.com as well, not to mention Web hosting.

    I'd much rather get to choose my own domain than have to be @usps.com.

    --
    STOP . AMERICA . NOW
  86. This happened in the UK by Alain+Williams · · Score: 2

    In the UK it was illegal for electronic communications to be done except through the GPO (Post Office, which at one stage also owned the phone company). When I as at Cambridge university in the 1970s there was a legal problem with email. Email (communication between people) within one building was OK, but between different (university) sites was not. The undersity legal dons found a way round it (someone interacted with a computer, which happened to interact with someone else), but AFIR it was never tested - the GPO did not know.

    A decade later: Unix and UUCP (remember that). We built a dialup network through high speed modems 300 (baud). It mostly carried news & mail. There was a legal problem - we weren't allowed to communicate electronically with anyone, so we joined a club the UKUUG (UK Unix User Group), we were thus a closed community and so it was OK (the exact legal mumbo jumbo escapes me). Because of this UKUUG membership grew rapidly.

    Things have moved on & it doesn't appear to be necessary anymore, but I don't know how the law has changed -- I don't care as long as I can do it.

  87. No offense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but if the US hadn't become a world power then the world would have been better off. It is the USA which promotes the concept of white "values" throughout the world through the brainwashing medium of television.

    Case in point in Fiji there suddenly appeared many cases of anorexia whilst women in Fiju used to be slightly overweight (but not unhealtily so). The transmission of the series Ally McBeal changed all that.

    So many cultures have been destroyed by white meddling. So how can you say that America being a "world power" is a good thing?

    The world would have been a much better place if say Africa would have been the dominant continent. Africans show much more compassion than white men who really have to oppress others out of a feeling of insecurity. Current genetic research has shown that black people are genetically superior to whites in every respect. So it's no wonder that whites felt an inate urge to pull the blacks down to the levels of animals.

    In a world without white dominance there would be no slavery, no oppression, no hate and no killings.

    I am white but I would never dream of getting children because I consider it a hate crime to transfer white genes to a new generation. I wish I was black, but I have to live with the tremendous guilt of all the awful things which my ancestors have done.

    There is not one thing of worth ever done by a member of the so-called "white race" except making the concious decision not to procreate.

    1. Re:No offense by GutBomb · · Score: 2

      i watch ally mcbeal and i have never once gotten the urge to starve myself so I can be skinny. if this is the true reason why women in fiji were becoming anorexic in droves, than perhaps they need better parenting or psychologists in fiji. While I am not one to like america (after living in the us for 22 years and moving to europe i can finally see USA how the rest of the world sees it), I will defend them here. You can't blame "America" rising to power (news flash... america may have power, but not as much as americans think) for the outbreak of anorexia in fiji!

    2. Re:No offense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sir are a sad, sad individual. I can only imagine what your daddy did to you as a little boy to make you hate yourself so much. Maybe when you finally grow up you will realize that there are good white people and bad white people just like there are good black people and bad black people.

      I would also point out that slavery existed in Africa long before the white man came along. Perhaps you should educate yourself before throwing out racist hate at everybody.

    3. Re:No offense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not a racist, I am committedly anti-racist. I even participate in actions by ARA (Anti-Racist Action) to stop the movements of racist filth in our city.

      I think you are still deluded by notions of white supremacy. It takes a long time for a white person to shake off "white skin privilege" and see how evil whites have been and are towards people of color.

  88. Re:What do we have instead? Privacy by EinarH · · Score: 1

    Ok an USPS-administered email system established in the early 70's would probably handle a _large_ part of US citicens and buisnesses mail. Hotmail prob. would exist at all. Having one adress for life sure sounds tempting, but think about it.

    -Would it be free [as in free of charge, not the RMS way..]? Prob. not. They _charge_ for postal services. You could argument about the fact that it doesnt cost extra if you send one mail trought the "high-tech" 1980 centrally-administered national email service, but thry would have started bragging about the cost of the (here it come) infrastructure (the word of the 90`) and, of course, building services for the future (aka: -We need more money to get this shit working)

    Ok people singning up and everyone is happy, until: 11/9... The terrorist living their lives in USA learning to fly and acting completly normal also have USPS-administered email...
    They crash into Twin Towers.
    What would have happend then to the _centrally_-administered national email servic?
    Oh yeah, you now and I know. Surveilance.
    Its being done today trought a system called Echelon and probably other systems. Search slashdot or google and see. But todays system with a lot of different ISP and mail services are very difficault to track and "get the full picture".

    Ok im not an US citizen so maybe it is different.
    But changing the wiew on the email service and this system, witch have served us all well in many years (apart from the spam), because off some dotcoms/telecoms going bust and rather wanting a central mailserver is just insane.

    And by the way: From an USPS goverment employe: -You want to use PGP on this USPS-administered email? Are you terrorist?

    (Sorry my baaad english)

    --

    Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.

  89. Re:Owned Email? No. First Hotmail. by 3247 · · Score: 2

    Well, the Deutsche Post AG (the German counterpart of the USPS) does offer a free(!) email service called "ePost" just like Hotmail, Yahoo, web.de, GMX and many others. However, they don't seem to have a lot of users; one does rarely see an ePost email address (*@epost.de).

    --
    Claus
  90. Might actually have been better. by 3247 · · Score: 2
    If you think about it, it might have been better if the USPS and other governmental or government-owned organisations postal services had built the email network.
    We would probably now have somthing like this:
    • X.400-based (more complex but also more powerful than RFC 822 email)
    • In most countries, you'd be able to choose from several providers by now.
    • You could keep your email address when switching providers.
    --
    Claus
  91. Just no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Germany was already going down before the Americans got involved. Their home front was collapsing due to lack of food thanks to the British blockade of their ports and they weren't going to last the distance.

  92. Freedom! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hemos is a damnyankee =)

  93. Who gives a rat's ass about the US Postmaster? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody in Canada, I assure you! :)

  94. How can the US Postal Service handle email for UK by jester · · Score: 0

    What nonsense ! I know americans think they are the centre of the universe but having their post office controlling email for the world .... hahahahahaha.

  95. Lance Armstrong by ces · · Score: 1

    Believe it or not I suspect USPS sponsors cycling for the same reasons FedEx or UPS would sponsor sports, advertising. Many of the USPS services compete with private companies such as Express Mail, and Parcel Post.

    --
    Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
  96. The war isn't over ... by The+AtomicPunk · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... we're just re-arming and waiting for the right opportunity.

    If at first you don't secede ...

  97. Owned? No by Gleef · · Score: 2

    In spite of the trolling title, nothing in the article even implies that the USPS even considered "owning" or controlling the email delivery infrastructure. It says that there was a point where it could have bought much of the telegraph infrastructure (but it didn't), and there was a point where it could have offered email services, but decided it was out of their mandate.

    If, in 1982 they decieded to offer electronic mail services, they would have found UUCP
    and BITNet already there, connecting colleges, government agencies, and some companies with electronic mail and other services. Businessmen and power users with money were already sending electronic mail through services like Compuserve and The Source.

    I don't see anything the USPS could have done to stop the rise of FidoNet in 1984. FidoNet allowed anybody to call up a local BBS system (which was often free), and send an email that could get routed internationally, or to any of the other email networks.

    The bottom line is, there is no way short of draconian legislation that would have allowed the USPS to "own" email. The most that could have happened is for them to offer email to customers; customers who have other options that the post office must compete with. Kind of like package delivery: the USPS offers package delivery service, but as any employee of FedEx, UPS or DHL will tell you, they by no means own the service.

    --

    ----
    Open mind, insert foot.
  98. The US had a Civil War? by Uttles · · Score: 2

    Hmm, I always thought it was a war for Southern Independence, the CSA never tried to take over the union from what I know...

    --

    ~ now you know
  99. Slavery is bad in any form. by NeoNormal · · Score: 1

    Damn, I said I wasn't going to get drawn into this... sigh, but it's difficult for me to tolerate these "moral indignation" and "self-righteousness" attitudes.

    What was the North's source of "cheap labor" at the time? Immigrants that worked in slave-like settings? Children? I don't condone slavery in any of its forms. Those were vastly different times... I don't know that any of us (historians included) can understand exactly all of the dynamics that led to that war or how things would have worked out had it not occurred.

    I'd also argue that the worst racially motivated riots in the last 40+ years occurred not in the south, rather in California (take your pick) and Boston.

    But the very worst of it all, IMHO, is that "we" have really won. Our national government is dominated by "states rights" Republicans that favor today's version of plantation owners, NASCAR (gag) has taken over the country, and "country" music (not to be confused with REAL rural music) is every-frickin'-where.

    So yeah, the North won the battle (War Between the States), but I'm afraid the worst part of our southern culture has been victorious in the end.

    "Hey Poindexter, bring me the flame retardant suit!"

  100. Directory Services also by porsche911 · · Score: 2, Informative

    In the late '80s there were several meetings/discussions between the various email providers and the USPS regarding X.500 Directory Services (including X.509 digital certificates) where the USPS tried to take ownership of the U.S. domain for all electronic directory entries. The ones I sat in on were pretty sad. The postal service folks were clueless about that they were going after or how they would actually offer and manage the systems so it died by common consent in a NIST/CCITT sub-committee. It was scary the first time we discussed the long term concequences though.

  101. The Germans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Didn't know it was 'the Germans'...

    1. Re:The Germans? by Sneftel · · Score: 1

      yyyeah, that almost cries out for a (+1, funny). Except that it's ignorant as all heck.

      --
      The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
  102. Sort of offtopic, but interesting. by DysonSphere · · Score: 1

    Portsmouth N.H. has a Tug named after the Postmaster General from Philly (John Wanamaker.)
    The Tug is actually a floating resturant called Dunphy's.... Nice place to throw back a few.

    --
    Mommy. What's a karma whore?
  103. don't they already do this? by grag · · Score: 1

    From the article:

    E-COM was a message system designed to serve volume mailers, such as Shell Oil and Merrill Lynch, by generating mail from data stored electronically. The service rolled out to 25 post offices and transmitted the messages to other cities, which then transformed them into hard copy and delivered them within two days. The Postal Service was to be the active agent in E-COM, involved with all aspects of management.

    Check out the online services that they offer. One simply uploads a document in a particular digital format (Word, Wordperfect,...), and USPS will print and deliver the item(s) to one or many addresses. Just browse USPS.com and see all the services they offer online. (Isn't it interesting they push usps.com as their URL.)

  104. Re:Yes: All but the USPS ILLEGAL. Read some histor by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Get the story straight. It was [built by the USPS itself and] shut down due to cost constraints.

    I'll stand corrected. I had that word of mouth.

    As far as the other points you make, please substantiate them. Or did postal hisotry revisionists destroy that in a Vanal-esque period of American history we are unaware of?

    Other posters have pointed out the the feud between the USPS and western union. (Composing a web search for the similar issue with fax is difficult, since there's so much stuff mentioning faxing and mailing filings for suits. B-) And I don't have time to hit a hardcopy library. So if you want to assert that the fight over the telegraph established precedents on wire transmission that headed off a fight on faximile I won't argue.)

    On my main point: If you don't want to hit a physical library do a search for "Lysander Spooner" just for starters. here's a sample (edited to somewhat less colorfull language. When history - especially anarchist history - gets onto the web it's often posted by people with axes to grind. B-) ):
    By the 1840's the issues of stamps and liberty collided again. During this period the fee for mail delivery was between 18-25 cents. Considering by 1865, the standard price for first-class delivery of letter weighing under 1/2oz was 2-3 cents, it proved to be a rather hefty, bloated and highly unpopular price. ...

    In short, competition against the state's monopoly was not only desired but, due to the state's monopoly over mail delivery, the reform was slow in coming. A businessman who would successfully "take up, receive, order, dispatch, carry, convey or deliver any letter or letters, packet or packets, other than newspapers for hire or reward", in competition of the Post Office, would soon have their operation shut down ...

    Eventually this would lead to a breach in the postal monopoly through a jury verdict [United States v. Adams & Company (1843)]. Even though it was still 'illegal' for anyone to set up a stagecoach or other company to transport the letters, the jury agreed that passengers could rightfully carrying their own mail, or someone else's mail, and they refused to convict Adams ...

    Naturally, a number of companies soon sprang up to take advantage of the new
    laissez-faire loophole in the system. For the most part, these start-up postal companies were paying passengers a small sum to carry letters on a train or boat to the city which these passengers were already traveling to -- a win-win situation for all parties involved. Upon arrival, the passengers would transfer the letters they were paid to carry to couriers, who would deliver them to the addressee. Among these start-up companies was Lysander Spooner's American Letter Mail Company (Jan. 1844): a letter carrier service operating between Boston and New York, and soon after Philadelphia, and Baltimore.

    Upon starting his venture Spooner boldly sent a letter to the Post Master General stating his intentions and, along with the letter, Spooner (who was trained attorney) enclosed one of his radical, well-reasoned pamphlets entitled The Unconstitutionality of the Laws of Congress Prohibiting Private Mails.

    Soon Spooner's company was literally out-competing the Post Office's first-class mail 'service'; [The USPS took him to court and ran him out of money]
    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  105. Electronic Postmarks are avalible by MountainLogic · · Score: 2

    The USPS already does have an Electronic Postmark service.

  106. Re:No offense - get a life... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lesson: You don't have to be white to be evil.

    There's lots of genocide among blacks in Africa, whites in Europe, and Asians in Asia. Whitey ISN'T to blame for ALL the atrocities. The indigenous people do a good job by themselves.

  107. You@zipcode.gov by cbuskirk · · Score: 1

    I find this interesting, because a few years back, part of Clinton's plan to bridge the digital divide was to have the US Postal Service provide free web based e-mail to everyone in the country. Each person would recive an email address MailAddress@90210.gov or something similar, which they could access at the local public library. Maybe the fact that hotmail and yahoo mail were in place negated the need, but I still know a large number of people who have heard of neither.

  108. In Spain by Pseudonymus+Bosch · · Score: 2

    The Spanish Correos y Telégrafos has a partnership with Yahoo.
    You could get a Yahoo Mail address through the Correos website. I don't know what Correos got out from the deal.

    --
    __
    Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
    GW Bu
  109. War between the States! by uugly · · Score: 1

    The United States was once an organization of peer states.
    Until the Southern States found out that once you join the club, you'll be killed if you disagree or try to quit the club.
    The "United States" has a real talent for creating it's own enemies, foreign and domestic.

    --
    "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate."
  110. Re:No offense - get a life... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The world would have been an idyllic place weren't it for the white people. Just look at how e.g the Maja's in Mexico. They had civilisation without the associated brutalities which white people brought upon them.