On a similar note, since the Judges of the court obviously do not understand what Open Source is and labeled "us" as "rogue software pirates", is there any legal action we can take against the court in a defamation of character suit? It's obvious they have just degraded us and our cause without a viable reason.
Er, where did you read that?
The judges would invoke their absolute immunity. This may seem unsporting, but imagine what would happen to the judicial decision if every losing party could tie the judge up in a lawsuit. Also, judges should be fearless in writing their opinions. That said, "rogue software pirates" is not very professional and suggests prejudice. Too much of that sometimes gets judges recused from further proceedings to avoid any "appearance of impropriety."
At least it means little to the general cause of resisting the DCMA. It is very good news for the defendant (for the moment) and an interesting discussion of personal jurisdiction, if you're into that sort of this (I am).
Personal jurisdictional is a constitutional question of due process, and governs whether a court may requires or permit a party to be joined in a legal action. Whether a court has personal jurisdiction is usually gauged by the party's contacts with the state, such as residence, committing significant acts there, consent to jurisdiction, and so on. If the court does not have jurisidiction, the case will be dismissed (at least as to that party) without addressing the merits of the lawsuit.
That's what happened here. The court was quite explicit in its conclusion which questions it was or was not deciding. It is interesting speculation whether this decision is mistaken, and where the plaintiff might next sue, if at all, so as to be assured of personal jurisdiction. It is also possible that the plaintiff dropped the ball and could have persuaded the California court on jurisdiction had it adduced more facts regarding the defendant's actions.
A parting caveat -- I just gave the opinion a power read and could be clueless on something important. However, the nature of the court's discussion is extremely familiar, and doesn't have a thing to do with DeCSS.
We, however, emphasize the narrowness of our decision. A defendant's
knowledge that his tortious conduct may harm industries centered in California is undoubtedly relevant to any determination of personal jurisdiction and may support a finding of jurisdiction. We merely hold that this knowledge alone is insufficient to establish express aiming at the forum state as required by the effects test. Because the only evidence in the record even suggesting express aiming is Pavlovich's knowledge that his conduct may harm industries centered in California, due process requires us to decline jurisdiction over his person. In addition, we are not confronted with a situation where the plaintiff has no other forum to pursue its claims and therefore do not address that situation. DVD CCA has the ability and resources to pursue Pavlovich in another forum such as Indiana or Texas. Our decision today does not foreclose it from doing so. Pavlovich may still face the music--just not in California.
First Amendment law is tough, largely because it deals with fuzzy questions framed in an endless variety of fact patterns. There is a lot of balancing going on, and few hard rules.
The distinction between commercial and political speech is one such compromise. (Remember there is also plain old expressive speech that covers expressive activity such as books and movies and nude dancing. And there's also speech that's unprotected, such as obscenity, criminal conspiracy, fighting words, libel, copyright violations....) Some conservative would have only political speech protected, leaving a hot debate over what kind of speech is political. If you want to get really strict, go back to WWI or earlier, when sedition laws were broadly interpreted and war protesters jailed for criticizing the government. Others would take the all-or-nothing approach you suggest, such as some left-wingers or libertarians. Then there an infinite number of shadings between the extremes.
Here is an overview of the legal doctrine of commercial speech, including a timeline -- I simply googled this journalist-oriented site and can't vouch for its accuracy, although my skim of it suggests it is quite objective. It has a general 1st A. resource as well, very readable. The ACLU and EFF certainly have a lot to say about speech, but are more partisan.
I won't defend the state of the law nor reject it wholesale, but I acknowledge is it complicated. I'm fairly confident that the commercial speech distinction is not going away, and that it is a useful accommodation in dealing with a difficult problem -- peruse the case law and see, and perhaps you'll agree.
Enjoy! HTH.
P.S. Ah yes, one more thing -- the thing that the 1st A. doesn't entitle you to a printing press, i.e., subsidies, is true but not perfect. The fact is that unsolicited political email costs us very little (yes, I realize we pay for it through ISP fees -- pennies), what a court might label "de minimis." And even if it collectively amounts to a lot, that doesn't matter for 1st A. analysis because you can only blame a given politician for the 8 emails she sent personally, not for the cumulative effect of 1000 politicians and political groups, and not at all for typical commericial spam which is an entirely separate analytical Q.
If you still think of political UBE as an unbearable invasion, or complain about the waste of your time, consider that it is 100% legal for that same politician to call you on the phone or come to your door. (No, they don't have a right to drive you crazy if you tell them to go away, nor to keep sending emails after you ask them to stop.) Personally, I would prefer the email.
Practically, political email is likely self-limiting because the last thing a politician or political group wants to do is alienate voters.
Actually they have that by statute ("franking privileges") but only for communicating with constituents and not for politics, i.e., campaigning. Some members of Congress press this distinction pretty hard.
Re:This is too easy...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 1
Well, I see you've given up. Your first good move. (Hey, that's a compliment.)
I haven't bashed you at all (try to find me calling you names -- "dipshit"?), though perhaps indirectly. Your argument was hotheaded nonsense, you've conceded as much by refusing to back it up.
The thread was "Are geeks Green". So I went into the green party analysis.
Huh? Oh, I get it. Look again, the topic is entitled "Green Geeks." It's right in front of you. There is no reference to the Green Party -- note that the poster is apparently Australian.
Two economists are out walking, and one says, "There's a dollar bill on the sidewalk!" The other, not bothering to look, says, "No, there's not." "But yes there is," says the first. The second sighs and explains, "If there were a dollar bill there, someone would have picked it up."
You have to be a bit of nerd to understand that one.:)
You're right about NMR --> MRI; I used to be a technologist.:)
Probably the most interesting outcome of the Chernobyl "experiment" is the almost indetectable effect the radiation had on the environment. All sorts of sensitive monitoring has been done, and there has been no evidence (other than one retracted paper) of damage to animals in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. In fact, the area has become something of a nature park, since people have been kept out.
As for Chernobyl, what you say puzzles me. The various stories and reports I have seen on Chernobyl detail continuing human impact such as thyroid cancer as far away as Scandinavia, significant radioactive contamination, and a bleak future. The exclusion zone in particular sounds like no nature park, despite its superficial appearance. Total human deaths alone are estimated in the tens of thousands, and animals show high concentrations of radioactivity in their flesh. It may be that insufficient studies have been done on animals.
Animals must be susceptible to many of the same hazards as humans. On the web I see a lot of people talking about Chernobyl such as here -- it's hard to find a consensus. I would be interested in cites to contrarian info.
Re:This is too easy...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
Thanks. I'd like to think everyone could agree about those precious things around us that are factual, then get to the politics. Like I said, that's an aspiration. You know the math better than I do, I just have my kneejerk suspicion of anyone claiming infalliability.
Perfect economics would be cool. Perfect economics, or even coherent economics, we do not have. But that's a long way from denying that the study of it, like weather, is immensely worthwhile.
as far as I can tell MacAndrew is pretty liberal
You are correct that I am liberal; and I am quite flattered that you think I'm pretty.:)
FWIW, they break down every class and subclass of mail by what it costs. First-class includes unsorted, presorted by ZIP, presorted by ZIP+4, barcoded, and on and on, with a different price for each. A lot of junk mail is first-class, but discounted. The postage at each level is supposed to reflect the actual cost, so the added work of unsorted 1st class really is paid for by the stamp. The bulk discounts from there are very deep, 50% or more. A handwritten letter has got to be a money-loser, but so also must 3,000 pounds of presorted barcoded computer-misrouted bulk mail.
Then there's the true junk, unreturnable 3rd class bulk mail parakeet cage liner. Very very cheap, and heavily marketed by the USPS.
There is actually a federal statute forbidding the USPS from subsidizing one type of mail with another, because of private industry fears that the USPS would use its monopoly power over letters to subsidize unprofitable ventures into package delivery, overnight, etc. I'm not sure how this works when USPS has a monopoly over both kinds of service, as it does for first through third class junk, er, bulk.
As to who says who subsidizes whom, my quick Google (try "'bulk mail' subsidize") found almost everyone believing bulk got the break; only the bulk people said 1st class wasn't pulling its weight. I didn't feel like figuring out who's right -- perhaps neither side is right -- but I feel very suspicious of a situation where half the mail is first class by a variety of users, the other half used by direct mailers with a very organized lobby.
There are more subtle ways to discriminate than price, too, like support services the USPS provides bulk mailer, and decisions such as whether to cut Saturday service. Perhaps most importantly, I have to be skeptical of the USPS's desire to address people's concern with junk when it provides over half of their revenue and growing as email makes its inroads. That might be worst discrimination of all, as government institution supposedly dedicated to its citizens might choose self-preservation over reducing litter, downsizing, and increasing unemployment.
This all sounds kind of tedious, OK it is, but this is ALSO a multibillion-dollar public corporation! At some point in the next 10-20 years I imagine this will come to a head. If you find the "perfect study" of this online, let me know. The Cato study I linked elsewhere here is saturated with libertarian politics, which could be a good thing but makes me question their objectivity given their overt agenda to eviscerate the PO.
Re:POLL: THERMOSTATICS
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 1
Resourceful! And the good thing about (gas) stoves is that they don't vent to the outside, so less heat is wasted and valuable oxygen is conserved.;-)
Our family will be over for dinner at 8... to help warm up your place.
The odd case I meant to mention is the people I've met (more than one) who set the thermostat higher during the winter than during the summer.... Like 75/summer 78/winter. Go figure -- it's all in their heads?
My memory of is not not personal, but from growing up in L.A. during the Apple phenomenon. I certainly got the impression that Woz was very bright and a nice guy, but you see that kind of computer god was a novelty back then, maybe it is the strength of first impressions. IBM only let them out late at night.
Notice I didn't say there was anything wrong with being strange! Why would I make fun of myself? By counter-culture I did not mean juvenile -- one has to outgrow juvenile, too many outgrow eccentricities.
I'm glad to hear Woz has been so productivite, and will look up so more information. I had hoped the US Festival would not be the zenith of his post-Apple activities (ohmigod that was 20 years ago).
As for Jobs, I am grateful for his vision and business acumen, but more dubious of his soul (to be melodramatic about it). He is clearly a very self-absorbed person, causing the predictable collateral damage, though he seems to have "grown up" as well.
The catalog people say USPS discriminates against bulk mail -- but see a bright future, as bulk mail becomes a larger fraction of all mailings, their muscle will increase. Yippee.
There are lots of sources arguing that first-class subsidizes bail; assuming everyone is honest, the difference may a question of one's accounting practices. Remember Enron?
Cato has an interesting and, unsurprisingly, highly critical profile of USPS going back to the 18th century.
One note: Americans like to savage their postal system, but many don't know how cheap their first-class stamps are relative to many or most other nations, especially consider you pay one rate from one end to the other of a physically large country. Also, the furor over each penny-or-so price increase (and I'm not kidding, at least they always find someone to fulminate on the news) generally ignores the effects of inflation that erode the real price.
They're not perfect, but they're not that bad, either. There is a long list of other governmental functions I would criticize more harshly, anyway.
But no, I don't like junk mail. Be sure to sign up for the Direct Marketing Association's "Mail Preference Service" -- I think it helps, I hope.
Hmm, I wonder how much energy we'd save if we disconnected slashdot, and all the client and host computers at once? OK, I'm talking crazy.
BTW, the Philips Earthlight series are the best CFL's I've tried so far. Remember CFL's and very different from conventional humming/flickering/cold-sensitive fluorescents. Also, the CFL's only really make sense in applications where they are on a LOT, if you hope to recoup their purchased price and the greater environmental impact of their manufacture and disposal.
*
I would like to know, whoever is listening, what real people set their real thermostats to, summer and winter? Where do you live? Do you use a setback thermometer bill? What's your worst summer electric (A/C) bill and winter gas/oil/coal (heat) bill? If you have electric heat, well, how scary is your winter electric bill?
I live in N.VA (across from DC), with relatively mild summers and winters. Electricity is cheap (~4/kwh), I think natural gas about average. Thermostat is a setback, 82F summer, 67F winter (you get used to it, really!). Furnace is 78% efficient gas, A/C is new SEER 10 IIRC.
Electric bill topped out around $80 this summer's record-breaking heat wave; and gas is normally $100-200, worst ever was near $300 during the gas price spike. Our house is being renovated by me, and the state of insulation is atrocious, yet our bill tends to be lower than other people's -- so I'm wondering if I'm cruel to my family setting the thermostat. They only turn blue occasionally.
Well, that's probably too much info -- but discuss amongst yourselves....
Yes and no: Recycling Paper Is Harmful
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
As is likely with the paper in your recycling bin, the answer is mixed. I can provide a thumbnail but urge you to look around online for some dispassionate source better informed. Things may also have changed in recent years.
Recycling paper, especially mixed (non-white) paper is a dirty business. The paper has to be broken down into pulp, polluting water, and worst must be deinked with bleaches, which produces nasty stuff like dioxin. Mixed paper and newspaper is much dirtier than office paper. Recycled paper can't quite replace virgin paper because recycling breaks down fibers (this is why shopping bags are always made from virgin wood -- strength) and the very nicest office papers are at least partially cotton (hold a sheet up to the light to look for a watermark).
But... it's important to consider the end use. Our insistence of snow-white paper for all out copying and printing needs requires a lot more processing than off-white. Producing new paper has a significant environmental impact. Make sure the playing field is level -- are new and recycling plants held to similar standards and costs? And on and on.
A funny thing happened while I was growing up. When I was a kid, junk newspaper was worth money. When I was a grownup, you had to pay to have it removed and recycled (although in many places this costs a lot less than outright disposal). Supply and demand. But how quick are we to say the problem is pointless recycling, rather than to question why we have so much newspaper? When I was a kid we were taught to recycle (then it sounded novel, but Americans were GREAT recyclers during the material shortages of WWII). Now kids are taught reduce, reuse, recycle. This applies to office paper -- it is many times better not to use a piece of paper than to recycle it. What happened to that paperless office? Why do so many people print out all of their email? Anyway, recycling is the last line of defense, not the first.
Last note... a lot of people paint environmentalists, or activists of lots of other stripes, as stupid extremists bent on a suicide pact. The smart ones, which includes most people, understand the need for balance, and always criticize the stupidity of recycling that harms the environment. But such counterproductivity occurs in any industry. Recycling is largely amenable to the same analysis of economic efficiency as any industry -- how do the pros weigh against the cons. I think a lot more harm is done by failures to consider the environment that by misguided efforts to save it.
Here in Virginia we have very good curbside recycling, and everything else goes to a waste-to-energy incinerator. Now, I'm not willing to take it on faith this is the perfect arrangement, and would like to see a study assessing what a sheet of paper does for us Virginians going to recycling rather than incineration. Assume nothing -- there are private and political scams in recycling as much as anywhere else.
Re:This is too easy...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 1
P.S. How do you get from "If you really were a lawyer, you could provide logic, if you had the facts you could state them." to "Your law degree apparently isn't worth much."
That's poor lawyering, getting your facts mixed up.:)
For the sake of debate, economy, and FaCtS: cross-link.
Re:This is too easy...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
Nice try. See, I'm not inviting you to disprove me, I'm not even proving anything myself except that you're nothing but hot air. You can't just say something ridiculous and expect anyone to take it seriously. Nor so by calling me an idiot (sniff, tears).
As for what you have baldly asserted, you're out of hand dead in the water on the sovereign immunity. There are many areas where the federal government and states may be sued for statutory and constitutional violations, and yes successfully sued (they lose often as plaintiff, too). Civil rights, social security, contract disputes, taxes, criminal matters, and so on. The government can also choose to waive sovereign immunity, as it did in the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Now, arguably sovereign immunity is overbroad, or the courts are biased towards the government (true to some degree), but it is populist claptrap to say you can't file suit or that you can't win a meritorious case.
As for the "green party," well, there are different ones in various countries with different things to say. But forget about the Greens and the rest of the parties. The fallacy you're falling into is that however wrong or corrupt the Greens or anyone else might be would never validate some other set of beliefs. Libertarianism has to stand on its own merits. Note that the Libertarian Party focuses more on constructive argument. Moreover, like the Greens and other parties, libertarians come in lots of different flavors. If I were inclined to try to discredit the lot of them by singling out some loonies, I would then be rejecting the civil libertarians with whom I agree.
Don't forget that even if you can identify a single theory of modern economics -- and you can't, part of why there are so many economists -- you have to prove further that economics is consistently right. They could all agree with each other (they don't) or even the smartest ones could run the show, but there would be no guarantee of success, just of more economic studies. Economists make terrible bets all the time; they're human.
I don't think you're a pure troll, as you probably fervently believe what you're saying. If I wanted to really disrespect you I would ignore you. However, you're coming up with nothing solid but your unsubstantiated beliefs and ridicule of others, and I think most of us learned in the schoolyard that doesn't make you very persuasive, except to people who already agree with you.
*
I guess this posting was about environmentalism. And that was your error at the outset: you assumed "environment" mean "Green Party." You also assume that anyone who is an environmentalist in whole or part is blind to the need for balance and compromise. Like zealots in other areas of political life, including libertarians, these people don't speak for the whole, and what they say applies to themselves alone.
Actually, there may be a bit of a tax in the sense that first-class subsidizes bulk rate. The USPS is only quasi-independent politically (they're not an agency, nor are they private) and has been much more solicitous of the bulk mailerts "needs" when price-hike time rolls around. Or such is my impression. I don't think bulk mail is a money-loser, but possibly not as profitable as it could be. USPS would certainly hate to lose bulk mail, and they promote the heck out of it if you look at their materials, the ones they don't put out at the local P.O.
But otherwise, carry on!
Re:This is too easy...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
Cite... anything... please. Not "pointed to" or "referenced," that's as strong as "alluded." Name some of these countries. Name some people who aren't dead.
Your theory of anitrust is, uh, interesting. And lacking any facts. Anyway, it is hardly "generally accepted."
Maybe you don't understand facts. Or economics. Otherwise prove it.
Or would that violate trolling 101?
Re:This is too easy...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 1
You aren't a lawyer, by the way, if you were you'd know you can't sue the government-- or you can, but your case will be thrown out almost all the time.
Betcha $500. $5000. $50,000. Then I'll link my bar number.
As for your assertions, cite some authority. Again, facts not someone else opinion. You may not think it is easy enough to sure the government, fine, but "your case will be thrown out almost all the time" is up there with "the world is flat." Oops, I shouldn't have gone there....
Re:This is too easy...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 1
Rather than getting your economics education from people who can't do basic math.
Exactly! You.
You still can't cough up a single damn fact, just vapid assertions and ad hominem attacks. You are your own best critic.
Slashdot Mirror
Innocent until proven guilty suddenly sounds pretty good when we like the defendant, eh?
Anyway, this ain't no criminal case.
On a similar note, since the Judges of the court obviously do not understand what Open Source is and labeled "us" as "rogue software pirates", is there any legal action we can take against the court in a defamation of character suit? It's obvious they have just degraded us and our cause without a viable reason.
:)
Er, where did you read that?
The judges would invoke their absolute immunity. This may seem unsporting, but imagine what would happen to the judicial decision if every losing party could tie the judge up in a lawsuit. Also, judges should be fearless in writing their opinions. That said, "rogue software pirates" is not very professional and suggests prejudice. Too much of that sometimes gets judges recused from further proceedings to avoid any "appearance of impropriety."
There -- much more than you wanted to know.
Personal jurisdictional is a constitutional question of due process, and governs whether a court may requires or permit a party to be joined in a legal action. Whether a court has personal jurisdiction is usually gauged by the party's contacts with the state, such as residence, committing significant acts there, consent to jurisdiction, and so on. If the court does not have jurisidiction, the case will be dismissed (at least as to that party) without addressing the merits of the lawsuit.
That's what happened here. The court was quite explicit in its conclusion which questions it was or was not deciding. It is interesting speculation whether this decision is mistaken, and where the plaintiff might next sue, if at all, so as to be assured of personal jurisdiction. It is also possible that the plaintiff dropped the ball and could have persuaded the California court on jurisdiction had it adduced more facts regarding the defendant's actions.
A parting caveat -- I just gave the opinion a power read and could be clueless on something important. However, the nature of the court's discussion is extremely familiar, and doesn't have a thing to do with DeCSS.
First Amendment law is tough, largely because it deals with fuzzy questions framed in an endless variety of fact patterns. There is a lot of balancing going on, and few hard rules.
The distinction between commercial and political speech is one such compromise. (Remember there is also plain old expressive speech that covers expressive activity such as books and movies and nude dancing. And there's also speech that's unprotected, such as obscenity, criminal conspiracy, fighting words, libel, copyright violations....) Some conservative would have only political speech protected, leaving a hot debate over what kind of speech is political. If you want to get really strict, go back to WWI or earlier, when sedition laws were broadly interpreted and war protesters jailed for criticizing the government. Others would take the all-or-nothing approach you suggest, such as some left-wingers or libertarians. Then there an infinite number of shadings between the extremes.
Here is an overview of the legal doctrine of commercial speech, including a timeline -- I simply googled this journalist-oriented site and can't vouch for its accuracy, although my skim of it suggests it is quite objective. It has a general 1st A. resource as well, very readable. The ACLU and EFF certainly have a lot to say about speech, but are more partisan.
I won't defend the state of the law nor reject it wholesale, but I acknowledge is it complicated. I'm fairly confident that the commercial speech distinction is not going away, and that it is a useful accommodation in dealing with a difficult problem -- peruse the case law and see, and perhaps you'll agree.
Enjoy! HTH.
P.S. Ah yes, one more thing -- the thing that the 1st A. doesn't entitle you to a printing press, i.e., subsidies, is true but not perfect. The fact is that unsolicited political email costs us very little (yes, I realize we pay for it through ISP fees -- pennies), what a court might label "de minimis." And even if it collectively amounts to a lot, that doesn't matter for 1st A. analysis because you can only blame a given politician for the 8 emails she sent personally, not for the cumulative effect of 1000 politicians and political groups, and not at all for typical commericial spam which is an entirely separate analytical Q.
If you still think of political UBE as an unbearable invasion, or complain about the waste of your time, consider that it is 100% legal for that same politician to call you on the phone or come to your door. (No, they don't have a right to drive you crazy if you tell them to go away, nor to keep sending emails after you ask them to stop.) Personally, I would prefer the email.
Practically, political email is likely self-limiting because the last thing a politician or political group wants to do is alienate voters.
Actually they have that by statute ("franking privileges") but only for communicating with constituents and not for politics, i.e., campaigning. Some members of Congress press this distinction pretty hard.
Well, I see you've given up. Your first good move. (Hey, that's a compliment.)
I haven't bashed you at all (try to find me calling you names -- "dipshit"?), though perhaps indirectly. Your argument was hotheaded nonsense, you've conceded as much by refusing to back it up.
The thread was "Are geeks Green". So I went into the green party analysis.
Huh? Oh, I get it. Look again, the topic is entitled "Green Geeks." It's right in front of you. There is no reference to the Green Party -- note that the poster is apparently Australian.
Bye.
Two economists are out walking, and one says, "There's a dollar bill on the sidewalk!" The other, not bothering to look, says, "No, there's not." "But yes there is," says the first. The second sighs and explains, "If there were a dollar bill there, someone would have picked it up."
:)
You have to be a bit of nerd to understand that one.
You're right about NMR --> MRI; I used to be a technologist. :)
Probably the most interesting outcome of the Chernobyl "experiment" is the almost indetectable effect the radiation had on the environment. All sorts of sensitive monitoring has been done, and there has been no evidence (other than one retracted paper) of damage to animals in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. In fact, the area has become something of a nature park, since people have been kept out.
As for Chernobyl, what you say puzzles me. The various stories and reports I have seen on Chernobyl detail continuing human impact such as thyroid cancer as far away as Scandinavia, significant radioactive contamination, and a bleak future. The exclusion zone in particular sounds like no nature park, despite its superficial appearance. Total human deaths alone are estimated in the tens of thousands, and animals show high concentrations of radioactivity in their flesh. It may be that insufficient studies have been done on animals.
Animals must be susceptible to many of the same hazards as humans. On the web I see a lot of people talking about Chernobyl such as here -- it's hard to find a consensus. I would be interested in cites to contrarian info.
Thanks. I'd like to think everyone could agree about those precious things around us that are factual, then get to the politics. Like I said, that's an aspiration. You know the math better than I do, I just have my kneejerk suspicion of anyone claiming infalliability.
:)
Perfect economics would be cool. Perfect economics, or even coherent economics, we do not have. But that's a long way from denying that the study of it, like weather, is immensely worthwhile.
as far as I can tell MacAndrew is pretty liberal
You are correct that I am liberal; and I am quite flattered that you think I'm pretty.
FWIW, they break down every class and subclass of mail by what it costs. First-class includes unsorted, presorted by ZIP, presorted by ZIP+4, barcoded, and on and on, with a different price for each. A lot of junk mail is first-class, but discounted. The postage at each level is supposed to reflect the actual cost, so the added work of unsorted 1st class really is paid for by the stamp. The bulk discounts from there are very deep, 50% or more. A handwritten letter has got to be a money-loser, but so also must 3,000 pounds of presorted barcoded computer-misrouted bulk mail.
Then there's the true junk, unreturnable 3rd class bulk mail parakeet cage liner. Very very cheap, and heavily marketed by the USPS.
There is actually a federal statute forbidding the USPS from subsidizing one type of mail with another, because of private industry fears that the USPS would use its monopoly power over letters to subsidize unprofitable ventures into package delivery, overnight, etc. I'm not sure how this works when USPS has a monopoly over both kinds of service, as it does for first through third class junk, er, bulk.
As to who says who subsidizes whom, my quick Google (try "'bulk mail' subsidize") found almost everyone believing bulk got the break; only the bulk people said 1st class wasn't pulling its weight. I didn't feel like figuring out who's right -- perhaps neither side is right -- but I feel very suspicious of a situation where half the mail is first class by a variety of users, the other half used by direct mailers with a very organized lobby.
There are more subtle ways to discriminate than price, too, like support services the USPS provides bulk mailer, and decisions such as whether to cut Saturday service. Perhaps most importantly, I have to be skeptical of the USPS's desire to address people's concern with junk when it provides over half of their revenue and growing as email makes its inroads. That might be worst discrimination of all, as government institution supposedly dedicated to its citizens might choose self-preservation over reducing litter, downsizing, and increasing unemployment.
This all sounds kind of tedious, OK it is, but this is ALSO a multibillion-dollar public corporation! At some point in the next 10-20 years I imagine this will come to a head. If you find the "perfect study" of this online, let me know. The Cato study I linked elsewhere here is saturated with libertarian politics, which could be a good thing but makes me question their objectivity given their overt agenda to eviscerate the PO.
Resourceful! And the good thing about (gas) stoves is that they don't vent to the outside, so less heat is wasted and valuable oxygen is conserved. ;-)
... to help warm up your place.
Our family will be over for dinner at 8
The odd case I meant to mention is the people I've met (more than one) who set the thermostat higher during the winter than during the summer.... Like 75/summer 78/winter. Go figure -- it's all in their heads?
Thanks for the first-hand account. :)
My memory of is not not personal, but from growing up in L.A. during the Apple phenomenon. I certainly got the impression that Woz was very bright and a nice guy, but you see that kind of computer god was a novelty back then, maybe it is the strength of first impressions. IBM only let them out late at night.
Notice I didn't say there was anything wrong with being strange! Why would I make fun of myself? By counter-culture I did not mean juvenile -- one has to outgrow juvenile, too many outgrow eccentricities.
I'm glad to hear Woz has been so productivite, and will look up so more information. I had hoped the US Festival would not be the zenith of his post-Apple activities (ohmigod that was 20 years ago).
As for Jobs, I am grateful for his vision and business acumen, but more dubious of his soul (to be melodramatic about it). He is clearly a very self-absorbed person, causing the predictable collateral damage, though he seems to have "grown up" as well.
The catalog people say USPS discriminates against bulk mail -- but see a bright future, as bulk mail becomes a larger fraction of all mailings, their muscle will increase. Yippee.
There are lots of sources arguing that first-class subsidizes bail; assuming everyone is honest, the difference may a question of one's accounting practices. Remember Enron?
Cato has an interesting and, unsurprisingly, highly critical profile of USPS going back to the 18th century.
One note: Americans like to savage their postal system, but many don't know how cheap their first-class stamps are relative to many or most other nations, especially consider you pay one rate from one end to the other of a physically large country. Also, the furor over each penny-or-so price increase (and I'm not kidding, at least they always find someone to fulminate on the news) generally ignores the effects of inflation that erode the real price.
They're not perfect, but they're not that bad, either. There is a long list of other governmental functions I would criticize more harshly, anyway.
But no, I don't like junk mail. Be sure to sign up for the Direct Marketing Association's "Mail Preference Service" -- I think it helps, I hope.
Hmm, I wonder how much energy we'd save if we disconnected slashdot, and all the client and host computers at once? OK, I'm talking crazy.
BTW, the Philips Earthlight series are the best CFL's I've tried so far. Remember CFL's and very different from conventional humming/flickering/cold-sensitive fluorescents. Also, the CFL's only really make sense in applications where they are on a LOT, if you hope to recoup their purchased price and the greater environmental impact of their manufacture and disposal.
*
I would like to know, whoever is listening, what real people set their real thermostats to, summer and winter? Where do you live? Do you use a setback thermometer bill? What's your worst summer electric (A/C) bill and winter gas/oil/coal (heat) bill? If you have electric heat, well, how scary is your winter electric bill?
I live in N.VA (across from DC), with relatively mild summers and winters. Electricity is cheap (~4/kwh), I think natural gas about average. Thermostat is a setback, 82F summer, 67F winter (you get used to it, really!). Furnace is 78% efficient gas, A/C is new SEER 10 IIRC.
Electric bill topped out around $80 this summer's record-breaking heat wave; and gas is normally $100-200, worst ever was near $300 during the gas price spike. Our house is being renovated by me, and the state of insulation is atrocious, yet our bill tends to be lower than other people's -- so I'm wondering if I'm cruel to my family setting the thermostat. They only turn blue occasionally.
Well, that's probably too much info -- but discuss amongst yourselves....
As is likely with the paper in your recycling bin, the answer is mixed. I can provide a thumbnail but urge you to look around online for some dispassionate source better informed. Things may also have changed in recent years.
... it's important to consider the end use. Our insistence of snow-white paper for all out copying and printing needs requires a lot more processing than off-white. Producing new paper has a significant environmental impact. Make sure the playing field is level -- are new and recycling plants held to similar standards and costs? And on and on.
... a lot of people paint environmentalists, or activists of lots of other stripes, as stupid extremists bent on a suicide pact. The smart ones, which includes most people, understand the need for balance, and always criticize the stupidity of recycling that harms the environment. But such counterproductivity occurs in any industry. Recycling is largely amenable to the same analysis of economic efficiency as any industry -- how do the pros weigh against the cons. I think a lot more harm is done by failures to consider the environment that by misguided efforts to save it.
Recycling paper, especially mixed (non-white) paper is a dirty business. The paper has to be broken down into pulp, polluting water, and worst must be deinked with bleaches, which produces nasty stuff like dioxin. Mixed paper and newspaper is much dirtier than office paper. Recycled paper can't quite replace virgin paper because recycling breaks down fibers (this is why shopping bags are always made from virgin wood -- strength) and the very nicest office papers are at least partially cotton (hold a sheet up to the light to look for a watermark).
But
A funny thing happened while I was growing up. When I was a kid, junk newspaper was worth money. When I was a grownup, you had to pay to have it removed and recycled (although in many places this costs a lot less than outright disposal). Supply and demand. But how quick are we to say the problem is pointless recycling, rather than to question why we have so much newspaper? When I was a kid we were taught to recycle (then it sounded novel, but Americans were GREAT recyclers during the material shortages of WWII). Now kids are taught reduce, reuse, recycle. This applies to office paper -- it is many times better not to use a piece of paper than to recycle it. What happened to that paperless office? Why do so many people print out all of their email? Anyway, recycling is the last line of defense, not the first.
Last note
Here in Virginia we have very good curbside recycling, and everything else goes to a waste-to-energy incinerator. Now, I'm not willing to take it on faith this is the perfect arrangement, and would like to see a study assessing what a sheet of paper does for us Virginians going to recycling rather than incineration. Assume nothing -- there are private and political scams in recycling as much as anywhere else.
To dispute efficiently: cross-link.
As usual for a lawyer: cross-link.
:)
P.S. How do you get from "If you really were a lawyer, you could provide logic, if you had the facts you could state them." to "Your law degree apparently isn't worth much."
That's poor lawyering, getting your facts mixed up.
For the sake of debate, economy, and FaCtS: cross-link.
Nice try. See, I'm not inviting you to disprove me, I'm not even proving anything myself except that you're nothing but hot air. You can't just say something ridiculous and expect anyone to take it seriously. Nor so by calling me an idiot (sniff, tears).
As for what you have baldly asserted, you're out of hand dead in the water on the sovereign immunity. There are many areas where the federal government and states may be sued for statutory and constitutional violations, and yes successfully sued (they lose often as plaintiff, too). Civil rights, social security, contract disputes, taxes, criminal matters, and so on. The government can also choose to waive sovereign immunity, as it did in the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Now, arguably sovereign immunity is overbroad, or the courts are biased towards the government (true to some degree), but it is populist claptrap to say you can't file suit or that you can't win a meritorious case.
As for the "green party," well, there are different ones in various countries with different things to say. But forget about the Greens and the rest of the parties. The fallacy you're falling into is that however wrong or corrupt the Greens or anyone else might be would never validate some other set of beliefs. Libertarianism has to stand on its own merits. Note that the Libertarian Party focuses more on constructive argument. Moreover, like the Greens and other parties, libertarians come in lots of different flavors. If I were inclined to try to discredit the lot of them by singling out some loonies, I would then be rejecting the civil libertarians with whom I agree.
Don't forget that even if you can identify a single theory of modern economics -- and you can't, part of why there are so many economists -- you have to prove further that economics is consistently right. They could all agree with each other (they don't) or even the smartest ones could run the show, but there would be no guarantee of success, just of more economic studies. Economists make terrible bets all the time; they're human.
I don't think you're a pure troll, as you probably fervently believe what you're saying. If I wanted to really disrespect you I would ignore you. However, you're coming up with nothing solid but your unsubstantiated beliefs and ridicule of others, and I think most of us learned in the schoolyard that doesn't make you very persuasive, except to people who already agree with you.
*
I guess this posting was about environmentalism. And that was your error at the outset: you assumed "environment" mean "Green Party." You also assume that anyone who is an environmentalist in whole or part is blind to the need for balance and compromise. Like zealots in other areas of political life, including libertarians, these people don't speak for the whole, and what they say applies to themselves alone.
Actually, there may be a bit of a tax in the sense that first-class subsidizes bulk rate. The USPS is only quasi-independent politically (they're not an agency, nor are they private) and has been much more solicitous of the bulk mailerts "needs" when price-hike time rolls around. Or such is my impression. I don't think bulk mail is a money-loser, but possibly not as profitable as it could be. USPS would certainly hate to lose bulk mail, and they promote the heck out of it if you look at their materials, the ones they don't put out at the local P.O.
But otherwise, carry on!
Cite ... anything ... please. Not "pointed to" or "referenced," that's as strong as "alluded." Name some of these countries. Name some people who aren't dead.
Your theory of anitrust is, uh, interesting. And lacking any facts. Anyway, it is hardly "generally accepted."
Maybe you don't understand facts. Or economics. Otherwise prove it.
Or would that violate trolling 101?
You aren't a lawyer, by the way, if you were you'd know you can't sue the government-- or you can, but your case will be thrown out almost all the time.
Betcha $500. $5000. $50,000. Then I'll link my bar number.
As for your assertions, cite some authority. Again, facts not someone else opinion. You may not think it is easy enough to sure the government, fine, but "your case will be thrown out almost all the time" is up there with "the world is flat." Oops, I shouldn't have gone there....
Rather than getting your economics education from people who can't do basic math.
Exactly! You.
You still can't cough up a single damn fact, just vapid assertions and ad hominem attacks. You are your own best critic.
[raises hand]
What the heck is an "extream hazord"?
If you meant extreme hazard, the answer is no: I live upwind of Los Alamos.