To follow in the same metaphor, "only a fool fights in a burning house".
Your moral high ground will do you (and more importantly) the rest of this country no good whatsoever if the real serial fabricator/narcissist gets into the white house.
Thanks, all, for the (multiple) pointers to the committee membership. Write them and complain! It's hard to believe sometimes, but (at least some of them) do pay attention, if only in a self-serving way.
Thank you, the 2 or 3 of you who offered interesting and useful analysis of what might be going on here.
The rest of you -- WTF?! Did you actually DO anything besides complain?
I bought 2 shares of CBS (total cost, about $ 90 US). I then wrote an old-fashioned letter (remember those?) to EVERY SINGLE DAMNED MEMBER of the CBS board of directors, explaining why this was a stupid, stupid, business decision. And, as a share-holder, I requested a response.
To mix universes, "There is no try. There is only do, or do not."
I just received a "mail.whitehouse.gov" email (which I usually appreciate), from Sam Franklin, apparently the founder of greenvelope.com, extolling the virtues of the TPP.
I immediately wrote back to the only direct contact I could find for him (info@greenvelope.com), calling "foul" on his white-wash.
I encourage others to do the same. If I actually get a better address for him, I will post it here.
I'm intrigued by "comment moderators can be hired for a pittance". If that's really true, I smell an interesting business model. "Farms" of moderators (hopefully better/more ethical than Putin's farms of commenters!) could be offered to troubled newspapers etc. as a cheap service.
*Is* it true? Normally humans are the *most* expensive part of any such loop.
Let's take a big step back, for a moment. I suggest (I may be wrong) that the signal-to-noise ratio on the various newspaper-and-other outlets has been, and is continuing to drop.
Frankly, I don't think there IS a good, automated, way to keep decent, non-troll discussions on track, in a way that doesn't scare off the average, non-techie commenter.
I speak to this with some knowledge and history: I built one of the very first web-based discussion systems (http://caucus.com, 1995, with non-web versions back to 1986). This is A HARD PROBLEM, folks.
I think it may be fixable, but not by just waving or wringing our hands at it.
I agree that the lies about "how we value our readers input" are just that, lies. But I suggest that there is a reason they are lying -- they feel helpless, and they may be right.
I followed the link to send a comment to ICANN, which in turn sets up and prepares to send an email. When I hit "send", the email bounced back with this error:
: connect to pechora1.icann.org[2620:0:2d0:201::1:71]:25: Network is unreachable
: connect to pechora1.icann.org[2620:0:2d0:201::1:71]:25: Network is unreachable
But even in the best scenario, the market can only work if there IS a market. Meaning, IF there are readily available choices if one 'vendor' chooses to discriminate against me (or anyone in particular).
If all of the vendors in an area discriminate the same way... then there's no market. If I need something in a hurry, and only one vendor is open, then there's no market. (Think "morning after" pills, for example.)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To follow in the same metaphor, "only a fool fights in a burning house".
Your moral high ground will do you (and more importantly) the rest of this country no good whatsoever if the real serial fabricator/narcissist gets into the white house.
intel committee membership?
Thanks, all, for the (multiple) pointers to the committee membership. Write them and complain! It's hard to believe sometimes, but (at least some of them) do pay attention, if only in a self-serving way.
intel committee membership?
Does anyone know, or can find, the actual names of the members of the House intel committee? I can't read the signatures on their actual letter.
They deserve some calls and letters, calling them out for their cowardice.
Sousa was right
While I agree with almost all of the above...
... in this case, Sousa was partly right. People singing together is a rarity, where once it was common.
That *IS* a loss. It's not a justification to stop new forms of music. But always beware the Law of Unintended Consequences!
So DO SOMETHING already!
Thank you, TechDirt, for posting this.
Thank you, the 2 or 3 of you who offered interesting and useful analysis of what might be going on here.
The rest of you -- WTF?! Did you actually DO anything besides complain?
I bought 2 shares of CBS (total cost, about $ 90 US). I then wrote an old-fashioned letter (remember those?) to EVERY SINGLE DAMNED MEMBER of the CBS board of directors, explaining why this was a stupid, stupid, business decision. And, as a share-holder, I requested a response.
To mix universes, "There is no try. There is only do, or do not."
BBC?
But I can I use it to view Downton Abbey on the BBC? :-)
TPP and greenvelope.com
Hmm, sam@greenvelope.com didn't bounce. Might try that.
TPP and greenvelope.com
I just received a "mail.whitehouse.gov" email (which I usually appreciate), from Sam Franklin, apparently the founder of greenvelope.com, extolling the virtues of the TPP.
I immediately wrote back to the only direct contact I could find for him (info@greenvelope.com), calling "foul" on his white-wash.
I encourage others to do the same. If I actually get a better address for him, I will post it here.
Is this fair? Signal/Noise
I'm intrigued by "comment moderators can be hired for a pittance". If that's really true, I smell an interesting business model. "Farms" of moderators (hopefully better/more ethical than Putin's farms of commenters!) could be offered to troubled newspapers etc. as a cheap service.
*Is* it true? Normally humans are the *most* expensive part of any such loop.
Is this fair? Signal/Noise
Let's take a big step back, for a moment. I suggest (I may be wrong) that the signal-to-noise ratio on the various newspaper-and-other outlets has been, and is continuing to drop.
Frankly, I don't think there IS a good, automated, way to keep decent, non-troll discussions on track, in a way that doesn't scare off the average, non-techie commenter.
I speak to this with some knowledge and history: I built one of the very first web-based discussion systems (http://caucus.com, 1995, with non-web versions back to 1986). This is A HARD PROBLEM, folks.
I think it may be fixable, but not by just waving or wringing our hands at it.
I agree that the lies about "how we value our readers input" are just that, lies. But I suggest that there is a reason they are lying -- they feel helpless, and they may be right.
ICANN comment didn't work
I followed the link to send a comment to ICANN, which in turn sets up and prepares to send an email. When I hit "send", the email bounced back with this error:
: connect to
pechora1.icann.org[2620:0:2d0:201::1:71]:25: Network is unreachable
: connect to
pechora1.icann.org[2620:0:2d0:201::1:71]:25: Network is unreachable
If the Market CAN work...
The "let the market work" theory has some appeal.
But even in the best scenario, the market can only work if there IS a market. Meaning, IF there are readily available choices if one 'vendor' chooses to discriminate against me (or anyone in particular).
If all of the vendors in an area discriminate the same way... then there's no market. If I need something in a hurry, and only one vendor is open, then there's no market. (Think "morning after" pills, for example.)
Namecheap
Sincere curiousity -- Namecheap vs Google domains? I'm slowly moving domains off GoDaddy.