The Junk Mail Battle Continues...

"Better Business Bureau:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID XXXXXXX, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

I am still disappointed that my name has been entered into the RedPlum system. I filed this complaint out of refusal to be listed in their database when I did not request their junk mail in the first place. I find it reprehensible that they "require" me to provide my name to get my address removed (when the mailings, if I may charitably refer to the material they require me to carry out to the recycling bin on a weekly basis) from their system. I have just checked, and their website still requires someone to enter their name to remove their address from the RedPlum mailing list, even when the mailings themselves are addressed to "Resident". I might not hesitate to use a false name, which might also help me track down anyone they sell my name/address to other trash peddlers. However, on the website, it says the user needs to enter their name to act as their legal signiture. This seems simply absurd and over-stepping their bounds. To register for the national Do Not Call registry, for example, it simply requires the phone numbers and a (potentially temporary) e-mail address for verification.

I require that RedPlum removes my name and any reference to my address from their system, except for what references to my address are required to keep it on their "do not mail" list. Once they can provide that specific assurance, I can accept their response to my complaint.

Regards,

Alexander Belton

PS. I would like to take this opportunity to register my opposition to the unsolicited junk-mail business model from an ecological viewpoint. I do not think they consider any of the ramifications on the environment relating to either the energy requirement to process and print the ads themselves (I will be kind and assume the paper is already entirely recycled pulp) as well as the transportation cost of bringing the packet from the printers to the unwilling recipients (including the increased load on the US Postal Service in manpower and fuel costs) and then the cost and inconvenience forced upon the recipients to dispose of the mailings in either the recycling or refuse streams, and then the energy required to transport the waste to either the landfill or to the recycling facility and then sorted and reused. By mailing their junk to everyone regardless of interest, they are forcing these costs upon the planet and society. Both would be better served if Red Plum, and others like them, would adopt an opt-in rather than an obfuscated opt-out system."

Diesel > Gasoline

Honda aims to bring green diesel cars to Japan soon

We need more diesel vehicles in the US. Drastic drops in CO2 emissions as well as increased mileage (or similar mileage with double the torque), lower fuel cost without any drastic drop in performance or increase in vehicle cost.

In summary: diesels are awesome.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING!

Interesting Argument About Global Warming Video



I was saying basically that over a year ago, and I've never been more confident in my analysis of the situation. I wouldn't necessarily have had such dire consequences for unneeded action, but he was dealing with extremes and he likely presented a slightly less biased argument.

Spring Break + 1 week

Yea, so I'm back. Spring break seems a while ago, with a week worth of work (including a test and a quiz) intervening.

I still have tons to get done this weekend including some Stress Analysis CAD/FEA as well as most of the problem set for that along with building a deck, effectively, down in the new S'n'S Dungeon and perhaps going to see Greek Sing and working on my Phase HW sunday evening.

Should be a good weekend.

Anyway, two things:

1. I am not Travis! I keep getting calls asking if I'm Travis, and those of you who know me clearly know I am not. Please, I'm just going to get 'up in the face' (over the phone, of course) of the next person who calls for Travis!

2. My thoughts on policies regarding global warming:
First off, I thoroughly believe that humanity has had a negative impact on our environment. How much, I'm not sure, but I am sure that the effects are there and will continue to get worse. A lot of people, including a certain governing administration do not want to believe that anything's wrong, and therefore go about their merry business.
Let's consider failure modes, for a moment, of two opposing bases for policy:

I) Global warming isn't happening
Ia) The Earth's climate is changing, but it's solely due to natural, periodic fluctuations.
II) Global warming is happening, and we're to blame, at least partly

Let's start at the end, and work our way up, shall we?
Suppose for a second that policy is generated assuming case II is true. What happens? We switch to power sources that are 'carbon-neutral' or close to it, we drive more efficient cars, carpool, take public transit more, insulate our houses better and plant more trees. What's so bad about any of those things? And what if it turns out we're wrong about global warming? Well, we'll have reduced our dependence on foreign oil and have more trees. Sounds nice to me!
Now, lets reverse it, let's say that we assume that Case I or Ia is true and do not choose to reduce our usage of fossil fuels or opening of the carbon cycle. If we're right, things're OK, but Acid Rain etc are still problems. If we're wrong well, we migh have to start building domes over our cities or just move to Mars. Now, as much as I'd like to travel to Mars, I'm looking more to it more as a vacation destination, rather than a permanent move.

So...yea. I got distracted reading about changes in HDD sector sizes on /.
Basically, my point is, nothing good will come if humanity continues to act as though global warming isn't happening.

[UPDATE]: Just read this and noted that it is remarkably topical. Go give it a read if you get a chance.