And that is the heart of a good deal of our social and political conflicts in the US. Human beings are held to higher expectations than corporate entities, and yet, those corporate entities have the same rights as human beings. Note that a person didn't apply for this patent; a company did. If the smaller developers had to go up against an individual, even one with substantial resources, they probably wouldn't be nearly so worried. Corporations can draw on resources that individual humans can't, however. Furthermore, if they lose, the company goes bankrupt, dissolves, and the corporate officers go on about their merry way and try again next year. If it were a person, it would be at least seven years before they could do much of anything again.
As long as corporations can live forever or die without hurting anyone, they are unmotivated to partake in human ethics. The answer seems to be to also remove some of their human-like rights. Of course, can you imagine the corporate lobbying against such legislation?
The fact that they won doesn't mean they have a case, however. It's still useful to make the distinction between valid claims and bullying tactics.
They don't have a case. Fact is, though, they don't seem to need one... but if someone with more acquired power decides to take up the banner, they may find the situation somewhat changed.
I said even before my first marriage that I wouldn't consider marrying a guy I couldn't trust to pick out a ring for me.
That being said, I didn't leave either my ex or my current husband wondering... I found ways to inform them of exactly what kind of ring I wanted. The first proposal wasn't really a surprise, exactly, but he did fly 5,000 miles with the ring in hand. The second left me flabbergasted; in spite of the conversations, I really thought it would take him a while longer.
And here's a hint: if she hasn't managed to tell you what kind of ring she wants by now, there's three possibilities: (1) she doesn't care; (2) she doesn't want you to propose; (3) she doesn't have much sense and can bloody well deal with what you pick out. On the other hand, if you haven't been listening, the hints may be there and you'll have a heck of a time because you didn't pick up on them.
And a final note: I'm not someone who found the ring "unimportant." In fact, my first marriage probably would have ended sooner (by a few months, anyway) if I hadn't really, really liked the ring. I didn't want to take it off.;-)
That's $5 million that they take in. They turn around and spend $3 million a month on operating costs. That's what the "40% gross profit margin" means. The $3 million covers bandwidth, rent, salaries, equipment, utilities... predictable costs. But, it's gross profit and not net profit, because then they turn around and reinvest some into expansions and other products, as well as promotional expenses and the like. There's probably a small advertising budget allocated, but I doubt that paid for the Everquest Invasion van (Which has 9 computers in it and drives around the country, letting people taste the game for free).
Furthermore, Everquest has a very active volunteer program. Most of their CS is taken care of by volunteer guides, working from their homes. They get a few special tools, their play account is free, and they also get in a heck of a lot more trouble than the average player if they screw up.
While Toho first trademarked the Godzilla word mark in 1981, they did not hold a trademark on its use in computer software until October of 1994. Mozilla started in "mid-1994" from the best info I've been able to find. I seem to remember someone showing it to me in the spring of that year, though that might have been Mosaic. Neither their first trademark nor the software one have any illustrations or descriptions of a lizard-like monster creature, though; that does not appear to be a part of the trademark. Their most comprehensive trademark was registered in 2000, presumably with the launch of the Sony movie. That one *still* doesn't describe godzilla though.
I'm no trademark attorney, but I'm guessing that, since they're not claiming in the trademark registration that the mark consists of the word + the monster, they don't have a leg to stand on with *zilla claims. Also, it doesn't appear they stopped Bugzilla (the cleaning agent, not the software) from registering its trademark in 2000. Milton Bradley has also owned a trademark on Eggzilla since 1987.
All in all, they have a lot of fish to fry if they're going to try to reserve *zilla as their own, including multiple existing or pending trademarks. (Budzilla, Rodzilla, and Speedzilla are all currently published for opposition.)
I'm sure you all have realized that there was a word missing from the sentence, and you're just being sarcastic. Factor *products* of large primes in seconds, now that would be a discovery.
"If the government could track everyone who flew to Seattle that week, and mark them as suspected terrorists, then their freedom to anonymously petition would be violated."
No... because at least 95% of them would have nothing to do with the demonstration, and they know that. Seattle is something of a hub, and has a lot of business travel as well as tourism. Also, demonstrations tend to draw a lot of "home grown" support; probably a surprising proportion of those folks drove, and are untrackable.
"...if suddenly a planned demonstration or political meeting was "canceled" because 90% of the attendees had been mysteriously stopped from flying or driving or taking the train or bus to attend. But the "transportation security" system and the profiling and databases behind it are all poised and ready to do exactly that."
No, they're not. Because the thing they still *can't* do, as you pointed out earlier in your post, is track organizational membership. If I'm a member of Atheists United, and I make a plane reservation to go to Washington DC for the "Godless Americans March on Washington," in order to stop me they'd first have to know that I was a known atheist, and then that I was flying to go to that demonstration. They can't do that without breaking their own laws and throwing even (especially?) the right-wingers into a tizzy.
There is a difference between knowing who is on the plane and knowing why. You still have the right to free association because you do not need a *reason* to get on the plane. You just need a photo ID. If they start asking "And what is the goal of your trip?" when I make a reservation, I may worry, but until then the air travel industry is too high-volume for them to use that information against people. Not to mention, airlines make a nice chunk of change off of conventions and the like; they don't want to lose business, and would be reluctant to cooperate, which would make it all that much harder.
I used to work for Turner, during last year when we were being gobbled up by AOL (the Time Warner merger didn't apparently have the same borglike feel of this one, nor did it destroy the stock so much). This article caught my eye, because I was well aware that Turner owned the rights to the MGM classic catalogue, including Wizard of Oz and several other movies. They play them all the time on TCM.;-)
What I don't understand is, why does EMI have the rights to the songs at all, rather than MGM? Wouldn't it be more like MGM licensing the songs to EMI for distribution?
This is going to be a very sticky case, I can tell.
Actually, the funny thing is, recently Los Angeles and Lockheed/Martin found out the hard way that traffic light cameras serve as more of a deterrent than a revenue generator.
LA and Lockheed signed a contract for the installation of 16 cameras, as something of a test program. The contract included a "commission" on ticket revenues to be paid to Lockheed. After eight of the cameras were installed, Lockheed tried to get out of the rest of the contract, because the revenues weren't what they expected. Strangely enough, at the intersections that had cameras, fewer people were running red lights. A LOT fewer.
Sad, isn't it? Just when you think you know how the world works, human nature throws you a curve ball...
This community feels very strongly about freedom of information. Just take a look at the reaction when someone says "DMCA." Yet, people are in a tizzy because the government has decided to use information that people *voluntarily* give them in a new and more organized way.
If you sign up on a website, do you not expect them to use your demographic data in making content and advertising decisions? Here's news if you don't: that's exactly why they want it.
But, let's look at it this way. People seem upset because this is information that can't normally be gained unless you have the right readers, which previously have only been in toll booths. Now, that same information (or less) is being collected in other locations, and reported in different ways... and that is an invasion of privacy.
But, is it an invasion to record your license plate?
Because, that's what one similar traffic system does in the UK... it uses license plate recognition to get average traffic speeds. Just like the new receivers in the Bay Area, they calculate the time it takes each vehicle to go between two points, but instead of using a transponder that you put in your car, they use license plate recognition. The system works very nicely; drivers can subscribe to a service and have a nifty little screen on their dashboard telling them upcoming road conditions. It automatically screens out cars that appear to have stopped along the way, too.
So, what's the difference between requiring you to have a license plate visible on your car, and using technology to look at it? Is it the same as the difference between owning a copyrighted piece of software, and being able to reverse engineer it (look at it with different technology)? In other words... not much difference, unless you're the one being scrutinized?
Compare what you ask of others with what you ask of yourself. Really think hard about this, because I think I'm detecting a lot of hypocrisy on this issue.
Spare you the lecture? You mean, spare you the reality?
There are thousands, even millions of families who have fewer cars than they have adults. There are a lot of people who survive with public transportation. Me, I own a car, but I walk or take the bus whenever I can... and I find that I "can" in circumstances when others would think it was not realistic.
Yes, driving is a privilege. Here's the way it works (in California, anyway):
- You must be a legal adult, so that you can be held legally responsible for your actions. If you are not, your parents are responsible for what you do while driving, and can take away your license.
- You must be able to see reasonably well, and if you need corrective lenses, you must wear them whenever driving.
- You must have a basic understanding of traffic law, and demonstrate that on a written test.
- You must have a basic understanding of how to operate a vehicle, and demonstrate that in a behind-the-wheel test.
- You must provide a birth certificate and social security card, your real name, your physical description, an image of your face, your home address, and your signature. You must also surrender all but the first two to any police officer who asks, when you're behind the wheel.
- Having one identification card or driver's license precludes you from obtaining another under a different name or number.
You give up a huge amount of privacy, and have quite a bit of proving to do, in order to drive legally. And, no part of the Constitution claims that we have the right to break laws. So, yes, it's a privilege, that you earn by fufilling all the above points. It's one you can lose relatively easily, too.
Besides, you find something in the Constitution that even implies the right to motorized transit. Or even a horse. Having a driver's license is no more a right than having a car, and is no less essential to exercising your driving privilege, so tell those who can't afford a car about their rights, why don't you.
You have an opt-out feature on all of those items. Just don't use them. None of them are essential.
When it comes to private companies selling my personal information to make more money, so that other companies can direct-market at me and make more money, opting out makes sense. But when you're talking about them wanting to be able to find a phone that dialed 911, well... that's often my biggest fear; that I'll get to the phone in time to call, but not be able to tell them my location fast enough. Right now, they have no way of finding me unless I tell them. (If you call from a landline, the information automatically comes up, and there's no way to block it. You also can't block Caller ID information from showing up when you call a toll-free number, because if you're calling just to run up their bill, they can seek restitution.)
You're talking about the government (you vote for them, unless you're silly enough to complain about them and then stay home on election day like it's somebody else's problem), not private companies. They're a non-profit entity. You (and a few million of your friends) can fire them from their jobs. If you're afraid of government abuse, keep your eye out, and make sure your representatives know your concerns. Heck, sponsor an initiative referendum for a citizen's oversight group, if you really don't trust them with this info.
More like, if we choose to wear a device that broadcasts our information in order to make transactions faster and easier, we shouldn't necessarily expect that that information won't have other uses in the aggregate.
It's like if you shout your phone number across a crowded room at a friend, and then get mad at a stranger for hearing it. You make a choice what information to make public; but once you do, you don't always get to choose what happens to it.
Oklahoma was the last state to repeal Prohibition. They voted on it every few years, but decided they liked looking so virtuous compared to the rest of the nation. You could get alcohol, of course, as you could during national prohibition.
When my mother was a child (born in 1943) a man ran for governor, and let everyone know that he opposed the state prohibition law, but if he was elected, he would enforce the law strictly. He won, and within weeks of his taking office, you couldn't get a drop of liquor anywhere in the state.
The next time prohibition came up to vote, it was struck down.
If everyone suffered from equal enforcement of stupid or unfair laws, we'd have a lot fewer of them. As it is, drug laws, unreasonable traffic laws, and so on are often an excuse to pick up "suspicious" folks who haven't done anything more wrong than that white guy over there, except they were born with the wrong look.
If everyone in California could expect to get a ticket every time they went over the posted limit (be it 55, 65, or 70 now on some roads) the very next election would see an initiative referendum overwhelmingly pass to modify speed laws.
Actually, your car is not your private property in the same way your house is. I remember a story a lawyer once told me, about a client he had who had shot a man who had broken into his car. The cop advised the guy, "next time" I guess, to drag the body to the door, since you have the right to shoot someone who invades your house... but not your car.
We make decisions all the time, balancing convenience against other concerns. It is completely possible and reasonable to go through life without one of these transponders. Heck, in Southern California, we have all of maybe two toll roads, so it's a non-issue. But, if I valued my privacy more than my convenience, I could certainly opt to go through the toll booths the normal way.
It's a lot like using a credit card vs. cash. Credit is easier, but there's a record, and you've given your identity to the person you're purchasing from. Cash preserves your anonymity. You have choices; you make them every day.
- 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.
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?
Slashdot Mirror
/me looks enlightened
I get it... we need to break their noses! Now where did I put that baseball bat...
It's already here.
"Human beings are expected to have ethics..."
And that is the heart of a good deal of our social and political conflicts in the US. Human beings are held to higher expectations than corporate entities, and yet, those corporate entities have the same rights as human beings. Note that a person didn't apply for this patent; a company did. If the smaller developers had to go up against an individual, even one with substantial resources, they probably wouldn't be nearly so worried. Corporations can draw on resources that individual humans can't, however. Furthermore, if they lose, the company goes bankrupt, dissolves, and the corporate officers go on about their merry way and try again next year. If it were a person, it would be at least seven years before they could do much of anything again.
As long as corporations can live forever or die without hurting anyone, they are unmotivated to partake in human ethics. The answer seems to be to also remove some of their human-like rights. Of course, can you imagine the corporate lobbying against such legislation?
The fact that they won doesn't mean they have a case, however. It's still useful to make the distinction between valid claims and bullying tactics.
They don't have a case. Fact is, though, they don't seem to need one... but if someone with more acquired power decides to take up the banner, they may find the situation somewhat changed.
Seems that the pictures are still being pulled from the original URL (which is now refusing connections).
Ah, but if you give your girlfriend a diamond ring that you can VNC into when you need her advice, *that* will get you major geek points.
I said even before my first marriage that I wouldn't consider marrying a guy I couldn't trust to pick out a ring for me.
;-)
That being said, I didn't leave either my ex or my current husband wondering... I found ways to inform them of exactly what kind of ring I wanted. The first proposal wasn't really a surprise, exactly, but he did fly 5,000 miles with the ring in hand. The second left me flabbergasted; in spite of the conversations, I really thought it would take him a while longer.
And here's a hint: if she hasn't managed to tell you what kind of ring she wants by now, there's three possibilities: (1) she doesn't care; (2) she doesn't want you to propose; (3) she doesn't have much sense and can bloody well deal with what you pick out. On the other hand, if you haven't been listening, the hints may be there and you'll have a heck of a time because you didn't pick up on them.
And a final note: I'm not someone who found the ring "unimportant." In fact, my first marriage probably would have ended sooner (by a few months, anyway) if I hadn't really, really liked the ring. I didn't want to take it off.
Gah, stupid expiring sessions. Anyway, go here and search on Godzilla, you'll be amazed.
That's $5 million that they take in. They turn around and spend $3 million a month on operating costs. That's what the "40% gross profit margin" means. The $3 million covers bandwidth, rent, salaries, equipment, utilities... predictable costs. But, it's gross profit and not net profit, because then they turn around and reinvest some into expansions and other products, as well as promotional expenses and the like. There's probably a small advertising budget allocated, but I doubt that paid for the Everquest Invasion van (Which has 9 computers in it and drives around the country, letting people taste the game for free).
Furthermore, Everquest has a very active volunteer program. Most of their CS is taken care of by volunteer guides, working from their homes. They get a few special tools, their play account is free, and they also get in a heck of a lot more trouble than the average player if they screw up.
While Toho first trademarked the Godzilla word mark in 1981, they did not hold a trademark on its use in computer software until October of 1994. Mozilla started in "mid-1994" from the best info I've been able to find. I seem to remember someone showing it to me in the spring of that year, though that might have been Mosaic. Neither their first trademark nor the software one have any illustrations or descriptions of a lizard-like monster creature, though; that does not appear to be a part of the trademark. Their most comprehensive trademark was registered in 2000, presumably with the launch of the Sony movie. That one *still* doesn't describe godzilla though.
I'm no trademark attorney, but I'm guessing that, since they're not claiming in the trademark registration that the mark consists of the word + the monster, they don't have a leg to stand on with *zilla claims. Also, it doesn't appear they stopped Bugzilla (the cleaning agent, not the software) from registering its trademark in 2000. Milton Bradley has also owned a trademark on Eggzilla since 1987.
All in all, they have a lot of fish to fry if they're going to try to reserve *zilla as their own, including multiple existing or pending trademarks. (Budzilla, Rodzilla, and Speedzilla are all currently published for opposition.)
I love the Trademark Electronic Search System...
I'm sure you all have realized that there was a word missing from the sentence, and you're just being sarcastic. Factor *products* of large primes in seconds, now that would be a discovery.
Post it on /., but in a really sarcastic tone, so nobody believes you.
"If the government could track everyone who flew to Seattle that week, and mark them as suspected terrorists, then their freedom to anonymously petition would be violated."
No... because at least 95% of them would have nothing to do with the demonstration, and they know that. Seattle is something of a hub, and has a lot of business travel as well as tourism. Also, demonstrations tend to draw a lot of "home grown" support; probably a surprising proportion of those folks drove, and are untrackable.
"...if suddenly a planned demonstration or political meeting was "canceled" because 90% of the attendees had been mysteriously stopped from flying or driving or taking the train or bus to attend. But the "transportation security" system and the profiling and databases behind it are all poised and ready to do exactly that."
No, they're not. Because the thing they still *can't* do, as you pointed out earlier in your post, is track organizational membership. If I'm a member of Atheists United, and I make a plane reservation to go to Washington DC for the "Godless Americans March on Washington," in order to stop me they'd first have to know that I was a known atheist, and then that I was flying to go to that demonstration. They can't do that without breaking their own laws and throwing even (especially?) the right-wingers into a tizzy.
There is a difference between knowing who is on the plane and knowing why. You still have the right to free association because you do not need a *reason* to get on the plane. You just need a photo ID. If they start asking "And what is the goal of your trip?" when I make a reservation, I may worry, but until then the air travel industry is too high-volume for them to use that information against people. Not to mention, airlines make a nice chunk of change off of conventions and the like; they don't want to lose business, and would be reluctant to cooperate, which would make it all that much harder.
Did you happen to read the Fourth Amendment before you posted it?
I used to work for Turner, during last year when we were being gobbled up by AOL (the Time Warner merger didn't apparently have the same borglike feel of this one, nor did it destroy the stock so much). This article caught my eye, because I was well aware that Turner owned the rights to the MGM classic catalogue, including Wizard of Oz and several other movies. They play them all the time on TCM. ;-)
What I don't understand is, why does EMI have the rights to the songs at all, rather than MGM? Wouldn't it be more like MGM licensing the songs to EMI for distribution?
This is going to be a very sticky case, I can tell.
Actually, the funny thing is, recently Los Angeles and Lockheed/Martin found out the hard way that traffic light cameras serve as more of a deterrent than a revenue generator.
LA and Lockheed signed a contract for the installation of 16 cameras, as something of a test program. The contract included a "commission" on ticket revenues to be paid to Lockheed. After eight of the cameras were installed, Lockheed tried to get out of the rest of the contract, because the revenues weren't what they expected. Strangely enough, at the intersections that had cameras, fewer people were running red lights. A LOT fewer.
Sad, isn't it? Just when you think you know how the world works, human nature throws you a curve ball...
I also expect that same degree of privacy in my vehicle, up to the point where I start broadcasting my whereabouts and identity to other devices.
This community feels very strongly about freedom of information. Just take a look at the reaction when someone says "DMCA." Yet, people are in a tizzy because the government has decided to use information that people *voluntarily* give them in a new and more organized way.
If you sign up on a website, do you not expect them to use your demographic data in making content and advertising decisions? Here's news if you don't: that's exactly why they want it.
But, let's look at it this way. People seem upset because this is information that can't normally be gained unless you have the right readers, which previously have only been in toll booths. Now, that same information (or less) is being collected in other locations, and reported in different ways... and that is an invasion of privacy.
But, is it an invasion to record your license plate?
Because, that's what one similar traffic system does in the UK... it uses license plate recognition to get average traffic speeds. Just like the new receivers in the Bay Area, they calculate the time it takes each vehicle to go between two points, but instead of using a transponder that you put in your car, they use license plate recognition. The system works very nicely; drivers can subscribe to a service and have a nifty little screen on their dashboard telling them upcoming road conditions. It automatically screens out cars that appear to have stopped along the way, too.
So, what's the difference between requiring you to have a license plate visible on your car, and using technology to look at it? Is it the same as the difference between owning a copyrighted piece of software, and being able to reverse engineer it (look at it with different technology)? In other words... not much difference, unless you're the one being scrutinized?
Compare what you ask of others with what you ask of yourself. Really think hard about this, because I think I'm detecting a lot of hypocrisy on this issue.
Spare you the lecture? You mean, spare you the reality?
There are thousands, even millions of families who have fewer cars than they have adults. There are a lot of people who survive with public transportation. Me, I own a car, but I walk or take the bus whenever I can... and I find that I "can" in circumstances when others would think it was not realistic.
Yes, driving is a privilege. Here's the way it works (in California, anyway):
- You must be a legal adult, so that you can be held legally responsible for your actions. If you are not, your parents are responsible for what you do while driving, and can take away your license.
- You must be able to see reasonably well, and if you need corrective lenses, you must wear them whenever driving.
- You must have a basic understanding of traffic law, and demonstrate that on a written test.
- You must have a basic understanding of how to operate a vehicle, and demonstrate that in a behind-the-wheel test.
- You must provide a birth certificate and social security card, your real name, your physical description, an image of your face, your home address, and your signature. You must also surrender all but the first two to any police officer who asks, when you're behind the wheel.
- Having one identification card or driver's license precludes you from obtaining another under a different name or number.
You give up a huge amount of privacy, and have quite a bit of proving to do, in order to drive legally. And, no part of the Constitution claims that we have the right to break laws. So, yes, it's a privilege, that you earn by fufilling all the above points. It's one you can lose relatively easily, too.
Besides, you find something in the Constitution that even implies the right to motorized transit. Or even a horse. Having a driver's license is no more a right than having a car, and is no less essential to exercising your driving privilege, so tell those who can't afford a car about their rights, why don't you.
You have an opt-out feature on all of those items. Just don't use them. None of them are essential.
When it comes to private companies selling my personal information to make more money, so that other companies can direct-market at me and make more money, opting out makes sense. But when you're talking about them wanting to be able to find a phone that dialed 911, well... that's often my biggest fear; that I'll get to the phone in time to call, but not be able to tell them my location fast enough. Right now, they have no way of finding me unless I tell them. (If you call from a landline, the information automatically comes up, and there's no way to block it. You also can't block Caller ID information from showing up when you call a toll-free number, because if you're calling just to run up their bill, they can seek restitution.)
You're talking about the government (you vote for them, unless you're silly enough to complain about them and then stay home on election day like it's somebody else's problem), not private companies. They're a non-profit entity. You (and a few million of your friends) can fire them from their jobs. If you're afraid of government abuse, keep your eye out, and make sure your representatives know your concerns. Heck, sponsor an initiative referendum for a citizen's oversight group, if you really don't trust them with this info.
More like, if we choose to wear a device that broadcasts our information in order to make transactions faster and easier, we shouldn't necessarily expect that that information won't have other uses in the aggregate.
It's like if you shout your phone number across a crowded room at a friend, and then get mad at a stranger for hearing it. You make a choice what information to make public; but once you do, you don't always get to choose what happens to it.
Oklahoma was the last state to repeal Prohibition. They voted on it every few years, but decided they liked looking so virtuous compared to the rest of the nation. You could get alcohol, of course, as you could during national prohibition.
When my mother was a child (born in 1943) a man ran for governor, and let everyone know that he opposed the state prohibition law, but if he was elected, he would enforce the law strictly. He won, and within weeks of his taking office, you couldn't get a drop of liquor anywhere in the state.
The next time prohibition came up to vote, it was struck down.
If everyone suffered from equal enforcement of stupid or unfair laws, we'd have a lot fewer of them. As it is, drug laws, unreasonable traffic laws, and so on are often an excuse to pick up "suspicious" folks who haven't done anything more wrong than that white guy over there, except they were born with the wrong look.
If everyone in California could expect to get a ticket every time they went over the posted limit (be it 55, 65, or 70 now on some roads) the very next election would see an initiative referendum overwhelmingly pass to modify speed laws.
Actually, your car is not your private property in the same way your house is. I remember a story a lawyer once told me, about a client he had who had shot a man who had broken into his car. The cop advised the guy, "next time" I guess, to drag the body to the door, since you have the right to shoot someone who invades your house... but not your car.
We make decisions all the time, balancing convenience against other concerns. It is completely possible and reasonable to go through life without one of these transponders. Heck, in Southern California, we have all of maybe two toll roads, so it's a non-issue. But, if I valued my privacy more than my convenience, I could certainly opt to go through the toll booths the normal way.
It's a lot like using a credit card vs. cash. Credit is easier, but there's a record, and you've given your identity to the person you're purchasing from. Cash preserves your anonymity. You have choices; you make them every day.
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.
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?