Re:Centralized Email
on
Spam is Dead
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Typical of the bogusity of the/. moderation system that the relevant posts are downmodded, eh?
Anyway, the OP is only half right. Yes, you cannot solve an economic problem with legal or technical bandaids, but you don't have to completely centralize things as long as you make it impossible to divide by zero. At least that's how the spammers think of their costs. If there is even 1 of the red real kind associated with each piece of email, the spammer's 'economic model' collapses into dust.
Okay, so let's blame Al Gore. After all, everything else is his fault. Because he was so effective in getting unconditional funding for those pointy-headed hackers, they didn't even think about building real economic models, and ever since then we've been cleaning up the resulting mess.
Yes, I'm joking about the blame, and if they had been too worried about how the money parts would work, maybe they never would have gotten around to inventing the Internet in the first place. On the other hand, there needs to be some balance between the reality and the abtract, and the Internet hasn't found any good balance yet.
Well, as I already noted (and IaNaL, though I had a very high LSAT score), the basic notion of the right to be secure in your person and property is included in the Bill of Rights of the American Constitution. I haven't checked all of the countries, but most legal systems seem to include similar rights, whether or not they are respected. However, what is happening now is that more and more of the information about you is being stored 'out there', and other people are claiming ownership over *YOUR* information, and doing whatever they want to do with it.
Trivial example. I think I should have the right to control who uses the personal information that is my email address. I would absolutely deny that permission to spammers.
Serious example. I think my identified images on any surveillance cameras should be stored on my computer. If someone accuses me of being in a certain place at a certain time, I should have the right to decide whether or not I want to provide the proof. Even if I have the proof that I was somewhere else at the time in question, it should be my right to decide whether or not I want to answer any such questions.
I can't tell if you're trolling or just being dense. Of course the other party to any transaction would have a right to his own copy of the information. Perhaps both would agree to keep it secret, or perhaps one side would decide to share it. In a sense it's like the current situation when the police go around asking for witnesses, and the witnesses may or may not agree to cooperate.
However, there are plenty of aspects of our lives which do not involve any other parties, and even when multiple parties are involved, you should have the right to agree to respect each other's privacy. It's an interesting aspect to consider, actually. If you are too eager to expose your perfect records of the other person's acts, would you also be so eager to have their records of *YOUR* acts be equally exposed?
The default situation should most likely be that publicizing any information should require the consent of all of the parties involved. If anyone objects, then some strong reason would have to be shown as to why the information should be revealed. If someone ignores your privacy, you should be able to pursue the matter. For example, if someone harms you (by exposing your personal information) in order to derive profit, you obviously should be able to take legal action against him.
It's obviously quite hard to predict how the law would play out, but right now there is very little room for any defense of our privacy--and it's shrinking fast.
There actually were some sound legal principles underlying the creation of the NSA. They had some idea of just how badly those powers could be abused.
Anyway, this is a very old problem in a new disguise. It used to be the case that most of your personal information was locked up inside your head, and the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was very powerful. The secondary protections against warrentless search were also good, though less critical. Because of modern recording technologies, a vast amount of our personal information is becoming externalized, and the amount is increasing all of the time. If we are to have any meaningful privacy, we need to do something.
I think the thing we need to do is actually pretty obvious, though I don't know if we'll get there. I think we need to clarify that your personal information belongs to YOU, and that should include your right to store your personal records on your own equipment. Given that situation, your privacy would be protected by the privacy rules you put on your own storage devices--and you could change your mind at any time, revealing more or less information for any reason. Possession in nine points of the law.
You're running around the edges of the problem. Why does Microsoft do these things? Because they make more money that way. If they actually had to absorb the costs for their security mistakes, they would have taken a VERY different approach to security.
As current law stands, all Microsoft needs is a cutesy disclaimer in their shrinkwrap/click-through EULA and we're all screwed. They take the money up front, and if there's any problems (and hoo boy, are there problems), we pay to fix them.
Then the punchline. Microsoft will gladly charge us MORE money to 'support' their own mistakes.
Create LOTS of features, and give low priority to non-features like security.
Advertise features aggressively.
...
Profit!
The invisible Step 3 in this case is obviously "Ignore the costs of the resulting security disasters."
That's not the point, though he didn't say it very clearly. The way I see the problem is sort of philosophical. Microsoft sees the OS as a weapon, and the philosophy of building weapons is that of course you want to make them as big and powerful as possible. Metaphorically, Windows has become something like a swiss army trench mortar that little old ladies drive to church on Sundays, a bit of email, and occasionally use for killing flies. Accidents will happen. Lots of those spam-zombies are 'owned' by such grannies. Power gets abused, and Windows is abosolutely way too powerful.
Having identified the problem, I wish I had a good solution. The philosophy of the minimal OS is superior, but it doesn't make money.
By the way, if you're looking for 'the truth' on/., you'll need a pretty big lantern to see past the fog of moderation. Yes, I just got troll modded again. If I was a gamester, I'd be interested in the gaming strategies the trolls use to get mod points. After all, Taco admitted the moderation system is a game.
Do I have an axe to grind? Yeah, it's called 'the truth'. If every liar on/. would designate me as a foe, I'd be delighted--and have a really large freak list, too.
Funny, I wonder if my recent email exchange with Taco on the moderation topic contributed to this 'story'. My final comment was that he ought to run a poll and encourage a discussion of some slashdot issue at least once a month, and poof, here's this discussion. Haven't had too much time to read it, but based on the parts I've ssen so far, here are some of my reactions:
It's hard to have a coherent discussion when comments and replies can be bouncing in from many sources all the time. Additional structure (as with a poll) might help.
Taco sounds defensive, which is annoying, and makes me wonder if there is really is something 'funny' going on in the area of story selection.
Though I hadn't seriously considered this issue before, this discussion now seems obvious. People who have some motivation to submit stories will do so. It seems obvious that the editors/sysops should take those motivations into account and make extra efforts to find other submitters when possible.
The conspiracty theorists are feeding off of speculation that the/. people agree with and support the motivations of certain people (which is an aspect Taco addressed at length). This is not very plausible unless there's a significant amount of clickthough income (and kickbacks) involved. Certainly doesn't seem to be any real fame here.
Moderation might not be the root of all/. evil, but I suspect it is close. They need to correct the fundamental mismatch between the philosophy calling for impartial and honest moderation and the reality that most moderators are grinding axes, and often moderating in favor of their personal biases. Nice idea, but in the present form "The moderator is dead, Jim."
Naw, Murdoch is just in it for the money. Contrast it to Karl Rove, who's in it for backroom power. I vote for Dick Cheney as the anti-Christ. He's in it for money and secret power--and he's insane, too. To top it off, remember that he put himself there, so he gets the bonus 'evil points' for chutzpah.
Anyway, veering back to topic, I think Gates is also focused on the money, but he was just luckier with his timing. Some company was going to emerge as dominent in the computer business after IBM dropped the ball, and it turned out to be Microsoft. Yes, Gates played his cards very well and made a whole lot of money in the deal, and he also cheated a little bit on the edges, but he's never been dedicated to crazy evil in the way of Dick Cheney and some of the other neocons.
To use a strained metaphor, Gates has a house of paper--it's just money. The neocons want to build a more substantial palace, and they see killing people as a natural part of the process of building an empire. That's real evil.
I'm not interested in arguing with fools or their sock puppets. Do us both the favor of designating me as your foe and I'll simply forget you exist. Don't worry, there are plenty of other/. fools for me to encounter.
Fine. Please do me the favor of designating me as your "foe" so that I'll know to ignore you--though my settings will mostly do it preemptively. I don't suffer fools gladly, and you've convince me that you're a fool. Congratulations.
I can't tell if you're trolling me, but Walmart is *NOT* a good company, and I won't ever shop there. If you're paying attention, the latest example involved a very large settlement for illegal labor practices, but that's just par for the course when you consider how Walmart treats their employees.
Preventing the depression? Stabilization. I might look at your source, if you have one, but I think it more likely that you should cut back on whatever it is you're smoking. The reason for "might" is because I already know you can find some "economist" who will say any damn fool thing. If you actually have a source, and if he has reasonable credentials, and if he isn't being paid by Walmart, then it would probably be interesting to see what he has to say.
Good point, but I still think that many regular voters would feel inhibited about voting for "pirates". I would have favored something like 'Intellectual Property Reform Party'--but I would never get that deeply involved in politics in the first place.
Not sure whether or not I'd vote for them. As an American voting in a winner-take-all electoral system, there's no real place for third parties. (Actually, America seems far along the path to one-party rule.)
I was mostly thinking of publishers, who treat IP as a kind of inventory. Their goal is actually to squeeze the creators as hard as they can while maximizing their own profits. Even in cases where they do pay a marquee author lots of money, they only do it because the name guarantees selling lots of copies and making even larger profits.
In the patent area, it's more debatable, because many of the areas where new technologies are being developed do require large corporate-level investments. However, the original patent law was designed around encouraging individual investors, and the evolution and bandaging is far from perfect.
Are you some sort of troll? Hard to tell. If so, please designate me as your foe and we'll save time in the future. I'll know to ignore you. On the theory that you might be sincere, I'll continue:
I said nothing about trademarks [So why did you reply to my post?], but I will say that in general 'brand name' is a rip off. It is a hook for advertisers to hang fake value on. Manufacturing technology has progressed to the point where it is very easy to produce quality goods, but creating a brand name allows for much higher profit margins. It is hard to see how people would be harmed if prices decreased for merchandise of the same quality without a fancy name. However, I should add a disclaimer that I have a very low regard for advertisers and I am not very concerned with material goods these years. (Obviously, there are special situations as with new products or non-material services which are intrinsically subjective.)
With regards to copyright (which was my focus), the fundamental notion is broken, since modern digital technology has completely removed the original bottleneck that existed at the point of copying. Now anyone can do it easily, which created the 'crisis' for the companies that profit from the obsolete model. Yes, creators do need to be compensated, but the current copyright law is more suitable for casino operations. One 'jackpot' creation and you are set for life. That was never the intention.
You asked indirectly about patents, which I do have quite a bit of knowledge about. However, that is such a complicated topic that I hesitate even to tackle it in brief. One large problem with the current patent system is that the lifetime of inventions varies greatly, but the term of patent is fixed. That means that some important inventions are effectively locked up forever (or at least until the invention has no residual value), while others can enter the public domain too quickly (though that is much less common). The system for evaluating patents is much too slow, too. However, I think the largest problem with the current system is the use of patents to inhibit innovation, especially by seeking essentially frivolous patents with broad claims. The main use of such patents is not innovation, but patent infringement lawsuits.
It really is time to reconsider the incentives of intellectual property, though sticking the label of "piracy" on such reform does not seem to be the best way to market the idea. However, the current IP laws are clearly completely divorced from the original idea, which was to maximize innovation for the benefit of society. Maximizing profit for the sake of large owners of IP was NOT the idea, but the IP owners have been writing and rewriting the laws for so long that there's nothing else left.
In particular, derivative works are often the sources of significant new ideas, but the current laws make that very dangerous. Punchline: Walt Disney's stuff was highly derivative, but if a new creator tried to do the same stuff to Disney, Inc., they'd slap him in jail sooooo fast.
However, the largest abuse is probably unlimited term extension for copyright. There is almost nothing left for "society" in that area.
While I certainly want to believe that there is room for other operating systems, and I'm even certain that Microsoft's Windows is NOT the ultimate and perfect answer to how computers should be used, this article doesn't deserve to be on the/. front page. Actually, the detail about Walmart is the kind of thing that is often added to a bogosity to make it seem more plausible.
It would be nice if someone could give Microsoft a real run for the money and break up that unnecessary and damaging monopoly. However, I don't think this is the time, and Google isn't strong enough to do it, either. Therefore, they'd be foolish to attack without the ability to win.
Did you say something, you dumb ass? I'm still just checking for the red dot, though I admit at this point I really don't need it to ignore you. But what happens if someone else uses a "dumb ass" handle without actually being one? Oh, what terrible confusion could result!
I understand that newspapers such as the Austin American-Statesman (AAS) are
increasingly concerned about declining readership. Many years ago, I read
the AAS frequently. Pretty sure I was a subscriber at least some of the
time, though it's so long ago that I can't really remember for sure.
Therefore, I write on behalf of your lost readers, though I think I write
from the 'leading edge' of that trend. My main message to you is that I see
no sign of increasing attraction, either in general or as a result of
today's website visit (to be addressed below). If you're waiting for me to
resubscribe, I have to resort to the cliché: "Don't hold your breath."
First I'll address the general issue. Why would I want to read your
newspaper? As a media organization, I think you have only two real assets:
integrity and credibility. Do you speak the truth? And are you believed when
you speak it? As already noted, I don't have enough recent contact with the
AAS to address these assets specifically in your case, but I do think I can
say that if you were doing a better job, then the AAS would have emerged
visibly from the morass that is the modern MainStream Media (MSM). Since the
AAS has not 'emerged' in that sense, I'm just classifying you with all the
other MSM newspapers that I sample at random via recommended links to
articles on their websites. In summary, the MSM rarely tells the complete
truth, they often repeat unfounded and usually partisan lies, and why would
I pay them for 'information' that has to be cross-checked and verified? (By
the way, that even includes indirect payment via advertisers. No
click-throughs from me.)
These large issues go too far afield, though I could say much more on them.
Today, I visited your website for a highly specific reason, and I was quite
disappointed. I should have known, but optimistic to the last, eh? The
specific public issue which is troubling me is American-government-sponsored
torture. The specific information I sought was a list of the Texas
Representatives who joined the loser Senator Cornyn in opposing Senator
McCain's legislation against torture. I do know that some of the
Representatives from Texas were among the 112 members of the House that
voted futilely along with Cornyn, and I want to know if my Representative
from North Austin was among them. If so, I would like to start now in
supporting his political opponent, though there are only a few days left to
make such a donation in 2005. Perhaps the information exists somewhere in
the AAS website, but I think not. I think you simply ignored the issue.
Typical MSM behavior--and that's why I didn't even bother to write a "letter
to the editor" on the topic. (There's also the minor reason that I am in
general only an accidental reader of the AAS these years.)
My own belief is that such torture is an extremely serious matter that ought
to be receiving *MUCH* more coverage. When I first read about this issue (in
non-MSM sources), I was greatly offended and ashamed. I felt that I should
express my outrage to the 'Senator'--who is certainly failing to represent
me. I do not know if I succeeded, though I do know that I never received any
response from him or from his staff. I think it most likely he never got my
message because it isn't the sort of thing he wants to hear, and he has no
sincere interest in representing anyone who doesn't agree with him. Cornyn's
only concern is with his *LARGE* campaign donors.
Following is a copy of the message I attempted to send to Cornyn:
Your name appeared on a list of the nine Senators who opposed Senator
McCain's anti-torture amendment. If that is incorrect, then please provide
me with the corrected list and I will apologize. However, I think my source
was reliable, and that you did vote against this amendment. Speaking
specifically as an honorably discharged veteran, I wish to express my
strongest displeasure and outrage at your action.
Torture does *NOT* work. It does not produce reliable information, but
merely encoura
Be careful what you wish for. You wished to be some dumb ass, and you have completely succeeded. I would say perfectly, save that there is no perfection in this imperfect world.
Too bad. I still didn't read it, but you didn't waste much time with it. Much better for you to write at length demonstrating your idiocy and justifying your handle.
I think I glimpsed a word related to "small". What I want from you is a small red 'foe' dot. Actually, I would be glad to receive such red dots from all of the similar fools.
I really don't care if you are a sincerely ignorant fool, or whatever. If you actually want to cure your ignorance, the truth is available. Unfortunately, you'll need to open your mind, and this sort of exchange does (as usual) demonstrate the perfect mental closure of such fools.
I'm not clear what you hate about that 'argument'. Analytically, it is a null statement, and someone who did have something to hide would say exactly the same thing (of course). It is only related to criminal activity.
In point of fact, I think BushCo would regard me as someone who deserves to be on their lengthy list of enemies, though only for my politics, which are in stark opposition to theirs. I'm rather pround of my anti-Dubya webpages, and I have made many public comments in various forums that Dubya and his f[r]iends would dislike. For that reason, I might well be targeted for such investigations.
By the way, I also wonder if Kerry was the candidate secretly selected by BushCo as being most plausible while also being most vulnerable to their favorite styles of negative campaigning.
Listen. (Even though I didn't read what you wrote--but trolls like you deserve the rudeness.) Your sole purpose in my life is to provide me with a red "foe" dot. Then you can rest in peace, having accomplished your life's work.
Don't worry about me. I'm confident I'll run into another rude and stupid troll soon enough--and I wouldn't mind a bit if every one of them was my "foe" and thus easily ignored.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyway, the OP is only half right. Yes, you cannot solve an economic problem with legal or technical bandaids, but you don't have to completely centralize things as long as you make it impossible to divide by zero. At least that's how the spammers think of their costs. If there is even 1 of the red real kind associated with each piece of email, the spammer's 'economic model' collapses into dust.
Okay, so let's blame Al Gore. After all, everything else is his fault. Because he was so effective in getting unconditional funding for those pointy-headed hackers, they didn't even think about building real economic models, and ever since then we've been cleaning up the resulting mess.
Yes, I'm joking about the blame, and if they had been too worried about how the money parts would work, maybe they never would have gotten around to inventing the Internet in the first place. On the other hand, there needs to be some balance between the reality and the abtract, and the Internet hasn't found any good balance yet.
Trivial example. I think I should have the right to control who uses the personal information that is my email address. I would absolutely deny that permission to spammers.
Serious example. I think my identified images on any surveillance cameras should be stored on my computer. If someone accuses me of being in a certain place at a certain time, I should have the right to decide whether or not I want to provide the proof. Even if I have the proof that I was somewhere else at the time in question, it should be my right to decide whether or not I want to answer any such questions.
However, there are plenty of aspects of our lives which do not involve any other parties, and even when multiple parties are involved, you should have the right to agree to respect each other's privacy. It's an interesting aspect to consider, actually. If you are too eager to expose your perfect records of the other person's acts, would you also be so eager to have their records of *YOUR* acts be equally exposed?
The default situation should most likely be that publicizing any information should require the consent of all of the parties involved. If anyone objects, then some strong reason would have to be shown as to why the information should be revealed. If someone ignores your privacy, you should be able to pursue the matter. For example, if someone harms you (by exposing your personal information) in order to derive profit, you obviously should be able to take legal action against him.
It's obviously quite hard to predict how the law would play out, but right now there is very little room for any defense of our privacy--and it's shrinking fast.
Anyway, this is a very old problem in a new disguise. It used to be the case that most of your personal information was locked up inside your head, and the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was very powerful. The secondary protections against warrentless search were also good, though less critical. Because of modern recording technologies, a vast amount of our personal information is becoming externalized, and the amount is increasing all of the time. If we are to have any meaningful privacy, we need to do something.
I think the thing we need to do is actually pretty obvious, though I don't know if we'll get there. I think we need to clarify that your personal information belongs to YOU, and that should include your right to store your personal records on your own equipment. Given that situation, your privacy would be protected by the privacy rules you put on your own storage devices--and you could change your mind at any time, revealing more or less information for any reason. Possession in nine points of the law.
You're running around the edges of the problem. Why does Microsoft do these things? Because they make more money that way. If they actually had to absorb the costs for their security mistakes, they would have taken a VERY different approach to security.
As current law stands, all Microsoft needs is a cutesy disclaimer in their shrinkwrap/click-through EULA and we're all screwed. They take the money up front, and if there's any problems (and hoo boy, are there problems), we pay to fix them.
Then the punchline. Microsoft will gladly charge us MORE money to 'support' their own mistakes.
- Create LOTS of features, and give low priority to non-features like security.
- Advertise features aggressively.
- ...
- Profit!
The invisible Step 3 in this case is obviously "Ignore the costs of the resulting security disasters."Having identified the problem, I wish I had a good solution. The philosophy of the minimal OS is superior, but it doesn't make money.
By the way, if you're looking for 'the truth' on /., you'll need a pretty big lantern to see past the fog of moderation. Yes, I just got troll modded again. If I was a gamester, I'd be interested in the gaming strategies the trolls use to get mod points. After all, Taco admitted the moderation system is a game.
Do I have an axe to grind? Yeah, it's called 'the truth'. If every liar on /. would designate me as a foe, I'd be delighted--and have a really large freak list, too.
Anyway, veering back to topic, I think Gates is also focused on the money, but he was just luckier with his timing. Some company was going to emerge as dominent in the computer business after IBM dropped the ball, and it turned out to be Microsoft. Yes, Gates played his cards very well and made a whole lot of money in the deal, and he also cheated a little bit on the edges, but he's never been dedicated to crazy evil in the way of Dick Cheney and some of the other neocons.
To use a strained metaphor, Gates has a house of paper--it's just money. The neocons want to build a more substantial palace, and they see killing people as a natural part of the process of building an empire. That's real evil.
I'm not interested in arguing with fools or their sock puppets. Do us both the favor of designating me as your foe and I'll simply forget you exist. Don't worry, there are plenty of other /. fools for me to encounter.
Fine. Please do me the favor of designating me as your "foe" so that I'll know to ignore you--though my settings will mostly do it preemptively. I don't suffer fools gladly, and you've convince me that you're a fool. Congratulations.
Preventing the depression? Stabilization. I might look at your source, if you have one, but I think it more likely that you should cut back on whatever it is you're smoking. The reason for "might" is because I already know you can find some "economist" who will say any damn fool thing. If you actually have a source, and if he has reasonable credentials, and if he isn't being paid by Walmart, then it would probably be interesting to see what he has to say.
Not sure whether or not I'd vote for them. As an American voting in a winner-take-all electoral system, there's no real place for third parties. (Actually, America seems far along the path to one-party rule.)
In the patent area, it's more debatable, because many of the areas where new technologies are being developed do require large corporate-level investments. However, the original patent law was designed around encouraging individual investors, and the evolution and bandaging is far from perfect.
I said nothing about trademarks [So why did you reply to my post?], but I will say that in general 'brand name' is a rip off. It is a hook for advertisers to hang fake value on. Manufacturing technology has progressed to the point where it is very easy to produce quality goods, but creating a brand name allows for much higher profit margins. It is hard to see how people would be harmed if prices decreased for merchandise of the same quality without a fancy name. However, I should add a disclaimer that I have a very low regard for advertisers and I am not very concerned with material goods these years. (Obviously, there are special situations as with new products or non-material services which are intrinsically subjective.)
With regards to copyright (which was my focus), the fundamental notion is broken, since modern digital technology has completely removed the original bottleneck that existed at the point of copying. Now anyone can do it easily, which created the 'crisis' for the companies that profit from the obsolete model. Yes, creators do need to be compensated, but the current copyright law is more suitable for casino operations. One 'jackpot' creation and you are set for life. That was never the intention.
You asked indirectly about patents, which I do have quite a bit of knowledge about. However, that is such a complicated topic that I hesitate even to tackle it in brief. One large problem with the current patent system is that the lifetime of inventions varies greatly, but the term of patent is fixed. That means that some important inventions are effectively locked up forever (or at least until the invention has no residual value), while others can enter the public domain too quickly (though that is much less common). The system for evaluating patents is much too slow, too. However, I think the largest problem with the current system is the use of patents to inhibit innovation, especially by seeking essentially frivolous patents with broad claims. The main use of such patents is not innovation, but patent infringement lawsuits.
In particular, derivative works are often the sources of significant new ideas, but the current laws make that very dangerous. Punchline: Walt Disney's stuff was highly derivative, but if a new creator tried to do the same stuff to Disney, Inc., they'd slap him in jail sooooo fast.
However, the largest abuse is probably unlimited term extension for copyright. There is almost nothing left for "society" in that area.
It would be nice if someone could give Microsoft a real run for the money and break up that unnecessary and damaging monopoly. However, I don't think this is the time, and Google isn't strong enough to do it, either. Therefore, they'd be foolish to attack without the ability to win.
Did you say something, you dumb ass? I'm still just checking for the red dot, though I admit at this point I really don't need it to ignore you. But what happens if someone else uses a "dumb ass" handle without actually being one? Oh, what terrible confusion could result!
I understand that newspapers such as the Austin American-Statesman (AAS) are increasingly concerned about declining readership. Many years ago, I read the AAS frequently. Pretty sure I was a subscriber at least some of the time, though it's so long ago that I can't really remember for sure. Therefore, I write on behalf of your lost readers, though I think I write from the 'leading edge' of that trend. My main message to you is that I see no sign of increasing attraction, either in general or as a result of today's website visit (to be addressed below). If you're waiting for me to resubscribe, I have to resort to the cliché: "Don't hold your breath."
First I'll address the general issue. Why would I want to read your newspaper? As a media organization, I think you have only two real assets: integrity and credibility. Do you speak the truth? And are you believed when you speak it? As already noted, I don't have enough recent contact with the AAS to address these assets specifically in your case, but I do think I can say that if you were doing a better job, then the AAS would have emerged visibly from the morass that is the modern MainStream Media (MSM). Since the AAS has not 'emerged' in that sense, I'm just classifying you with all the other MSM newspapers that I sample at random via recommended links to articles on their websites. In summary, the MSM rarely tells the complete truth, they often repeat unfounded and usually partisan lies, and why would I pay them for 'information' that has to be cross-checked and verified? (By the way, that even includes indirect payment via advertisers. No click-throughs from me.)
These large issues go too far afield, though I could say much more on them. Today, I visited your website for a highly specific reason, and I was quite disappointed. I should have known, but optimistic to the last, eh? The specific public issue which is troubling me is American-government-sponsored torture. The specific information I sought was a list of the Texas Representatives who joined the loser Senator Cornyn in opposing Senator McCain's legislation against torture. I do know that some of the Representatives from Texas were among the 112 members of the House that voted futilely along with Cornyn, and I want to know if my Representative from North Austin was among them. If so, I would like to start now in supporting his political opponent, though there are only a few days left to make such a donation in 2005. Perhaps the information exists somewhere in the AAS website, but I think not. I think you simply ignored the issue. Typical MSM behavior--and that's why I didn't even bother to write a "letter to the editor" on the topic. (There's also the minor reason that I am in general only an accidental reader of the AAS these years.)
My own belief is that such torture is an extremely serious matter that ought to be receiving *MUCH* more coverage. When I first read about this issue (in non-MSM sources), I was greatly offended and ashamed. I felt that I should express my outrage to the 'Senator'--who is certainly failing to represent me. I do not know if I succeeded, though I do know that I never received any response from him or from his staff. I think it most likely he never got my message because it isn't the sort of thing he wants to hear, and he has no sincere interest in representing anyone who doesn't agree with him. Cornyn's only concern is with his *LARGE* campaign donors.
Following is a copy of the message I attempted to send to Cornyn:
Your name appeared on a list of the nine Senators who opposed Senator McCain's anti-torture amendment. If that is incorrect, then please provide me with the corrected list and I will apologize. However, I think my source was reliable, and that you did vote against this amendment. Speaking specifically as an honorably discharged veteran, I wish to express my strongest displeasure and outrage at your action.
Torture does *NOT* work. It does not produce reliable information, but merely encoura
Where's the red dot?
So where's the red dot?
Does it amuse you to write tripe that no one reads? Where's the red dot?
I really don't care if you are a sincerely ignorant fool, or whatever. If you actually want to cure your ignorance, the truth is available. Unfortunately, you'll need to open your mind, and this sort of exchange does (as usual) demonstrate the perfect mental closure of such fools.
In point of fact, I think BushCo would regard me as someone who deserves to be on their lengthy list of enemies, though only for my politics, which are in stark opposition to theirs. I'm rather pround of my anti-Dubya webpages, and I have made many public comments in various forums that Dubya and his f[r]iends would dislike. For that reason, I might well be targeted for such investigations.
By the way, I also wonder if Kerry was the candidate secretly selected by BushCo as being most plausible while also being most vulnerable to their favorite styles of negative campaigning.
Don't worry about me. I'm confident I'll run into another rude and stupid troll soon enough--and I wouldn't mind a bit if every one of them was my "foe" and thus easily ignored.