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."

Wherein Visa and First Savings of Perkasie Attempt to Call my Bluff ...and I call in the Feds - Part Duex

Just sent to the First Bank of Perkasie CTO:

"Today at starting at approximately 11:30am three messages were left from Visa Fraud services on my phone number, XXX-XXX-XXXX.

All were again in reference to "Sxxxxx" or "Sxxxxxx" "Lxxxxx" about a Visa ending in XXXX.

Please, please, please, for the sake of your paying customer, take care of this.

Surely you must have some way to contact either Visa or your customer to get this resolved.

Where I work, taking care of the customer is the number one priority. It saddens me that a company in the business of providing services to customers does not share the same priorities.

I must say, given your level of service, were I your customer, I would look elsewhere for banking services."

Seriously, Verizon Sucks

I ended up calling them right after this bill arrived, trying to get some answers. I wanted to verify that I had the absolute barest-bones plans (I do) and that there's nothing I can do about the "Verizon Long Distance Shortfall" charge aka making my "free" $0.00/month Long distance plan, which can not be removed from my service, actually cost $5/month.



After that phone conversation (for what it's worth after about 20 minutes on hold the rep I spoke to was very friendly, knowledgeable and apologetic. Which only continues my experience of Verizon people being very nice and helpful, but the company as a whole is terrible) I called my DSL provider to see what they could do about setting up a "dry loop" DSL line. This is DSL service without the need for a dial tone on the line. 25 minutes of investigating later, it was clear a dry loop service was not possible , as far as I can tell because Verizon said-so. Neither was wholesale Fiber, which they do in some areas, but not mine. Even though my apartment is already wired for FiOS.

Amusing side-note:
A few weeks ago I got a telemarketing call from Verizon trying to get me to switch to FiOS to "save me money". I decided to humor the guy. I mean, if I could get 50MBps fiber service for the same number of dollars I'm currently spending, I'd be up for that.

First though, I wanted to tackle the whole "blocking port 80 etc" issue. I can't find reliable information anywhere about whether Ports 80, 25 etc are blocked on FiOS. I know they are unavoidably blocked on residential Verizon DSL lines (which is what differentiates their Resi/Commercial services, as far as I can tell). The telemarketer got flustered and said he'd have to check. After a minute or two on hold he got back to me saying he talked to someone in tech support and told me that when the installer shows up, I should just tell him what port I wanted to use in my apartment and he could set that up. I then proceeded to inform him it was not a physical device but rather a portion of the software used in networking protocol. He put me on hold for a few minutes again and then came back, apologizing that he couldn't find anyone that knew about these "ports" and that I should just ask the install tech.

Next we covered the "saving money" angle. I currently pay a total of around $70/month to Verizon and my ISP for what amounts to just my internet connection. $24 (phone bill) + $2.88 (Supplier Surcharge Recovery Fee tacked onto my DSL bill by Verizon) is paid to Verizon, who's services I do not use, and I don't appreciate being forced to pay them for services I neither receive nor want from them (yes, I get phone service, but only receive calls for other people on it).

The telemarketer was only able to offer about that much per month for just internet and phone (and free installation of a first and second computer(!)). Combined with my general dislike for the company and absolutely no answer on the blocking port 80 question, I decided to decline the "generous" offer.

Again, what really gets me about this, is my total lack of options. If I want home internet, I can either keep doing what I am, which seems overly expensive, as I'm paying almost $30/month for services I don't need or use. I could switch to FiOS, essentially rewarding Verizon for having excessive control over the phone network, or go with Comcast digital cable/voice which just seems like trading one huge telco for another which sets arbitrary bandwidth caps and may or may not be filtering/throttling connections.

Sigh. All I want is reasonably priced internet, without paying for services I don't want. Is that too much to ask?

401k FAIL

I just got my 401k statement. FAIL.

Who thought saving for retirement in the stock market was a good idea again?

But what if the "fat lady" refuses to sing?

Dear Senator Clinton,

Seriously, Hillary, it's over

Not that I'm calling you fat, Hillary, but simply making reference to the old saying. You ran a competitive campaign, and obviously there are plenty of voters who like you as a candidate. But you are in no way entitled to being the nominee because you were the First Lady for 8 years or 7 years as a senator.

You've been arguing that basically, because you say so, the Democratic Party should simply throw out it's nominating rules, go against 'the people' and make you the winner. What about all the Obama supporters out there? Wouldn't they be pretty angry about you usurping their candidate's more legitimate 'win'? Might they decide to vote independent or *gasp* Republican instead of by default voting for you?

What about voters, Democratic, Republican or Independent who don't like the idea of two families owning the presidency for what, upwards of 24-28 years? (Bush I 4yrs + W.J Clinton 8yrs + Bush II 8yrs + H.R. Clinton 4-8yrs). Regardless of any of my other political views, that last prospect scares me the most. I mean, we're a democracy (fine, fine, Constitution-based federal republic) right? With term limits for (some) elected officials? I don't care how amazing a president someone is (or might be), there is a system that exists for a reason. Washington refused to serve more than two terms for precisely this kind of reason and that precedent was adhered to until FDR was elected for his 3rd term. Even though FDR is generally accepted to have been a 'good' president, a formal term limit of 2 (technically 2.5 to account for a VP serving out a presidential term) was imposed via the 22nd Amendment in 1951 precisely because of FDR being elected more than 2 times. Similarly, the DNC's presidential nomination process, while not perfect, exists and should not be changed due to the whining of a single candidate with an over-fed sense of entitlement. You serving another 4-8 years, spiritually continuing your husband's terms, is not the 'Change' that voters want, ma'am, please stop claiming it is.

And no, Michigan and Florida should not count in the slightest. They chose to break the rules and should not be 'un-punished' just because you say so now. You can bet your bacon that you, Senator Clinton, would not be arguing for their inclusion if the results were close or clearly in Obama's favor.

Respectfully,
Potentially disenchanted 'young' voter.

PS: Am I the only one confused about non-voting US territories having presidential primaries? It seems a little goofy to me, but I guess the DNC can do what it wants to pick its candidate. The fact that a candidate won in Puerto Rico, American Samoa etc should not be used as an argument for whether or not they can win in November (or are even a better candidate than their same-party candidates)

Why the 'Chief Executive Threshold' is utter BS...

Years in office prior to assuming the US Presidency has no real bearing on presidential performance and historical rankings:

These seven presidents are consistently ranked in the 'better' half of all US Presidents. They have as little as 2 years of political office and as many as 14. Washington's 8 years as Commander-in-Chief debatably does not apply since it was not an elected, political office. This is also why Wilson's service as president of Princeton University only questionably applies. US Senators elected before 1913 were elected by the state's legislature, rather than via some form of popular vote.

Abraham Lincoln:
2 Yrs - US HoR
Total: 2 Yrs

George Washington:
(8 Yrs - CiC Continental Army)
Total: 8 Yrs, debatably applicable

Franklin D. Roosevelt:
4 Yrs - NY Gov
Total: 4 Yrs

Teddy Roosevelt:
2 Yrs - NY Gov
1 Yr - VP US
Total: 3 Yrs

Woodrow Wilson:
2 Yrs - NJ Gov
(8 Yrs - Pres, Princeton Univ)
Total: 2 (10) Yrs

Harry S. Truman:
10 Yrs - US Senate
<1 Yr - VP US
Total: 11 Yrs

John F. Kennedy:
6 Yrs - US HoR
8 Yrs - US Senate
Total: 14 Yrs

These seven presidents consistently rank at or near the bottom of rankings of US Presidents. They have service ranging from the (questionably applicable) 4 years of military service by US Grant as General of the Army to Nixon's 17 years of political service on the national scale.

Calvin Coolidge:
3 Yrs - MA Lt Gov
2 Yrs - MA Gov
2 Yrs - VP US
Total: 7 Yrs

Franklin Pierce:
5 Yrs - US Senate
Total: 5 Yrs

Andrew Johnson:
4 Yrs - TN Gov
4 Yrs - US Senate
<1 Yr - VP US
Total: 9 Yrs

James Buchanan:
10 Yrs - US Senate
4 yrs - US Sec of State
Total: 14 Yrs

Nixon:
6 Yrs - US HoR
3 yrs - US Senate
8 yrs - US VP
Total: 17 Yrs

Ulysses S. Grant:
4 Yrs - General of the Army
Total: 4 Yrs, debatably applicable

Warren G. Harding:
2 Yrs - NY Lt Gov
5 Yrs - US Senate
Total: 7 Yrs

Just for comparison:

George W. Bush:
5 Yrs - TX Gov
Total: 5 Yrs

John McCain:
4 Yrs - US HoR
11 Yrs - US Senate
Total: 15 Yrs

Hillary Clinton:
7 Yrs - US Senate
Total: 7 Yrs

Barack Obama:
3 Yrs - US Senate
Total: 3 Yrs

If Hillary's 'Threshold' is achieved somewhere between3 and 7 years of service, then does she argue that Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt and FDR should not have been elected? Were Nixon, Buchanon and Andrew Johnson inherently more qualified just because they sat in office longer?

Additionally ludicrous is her argument that while, Senator Obama is not now above the undefined threshold, he might somehow magically pass it between now and the DNC, qualifying him to be a vice president. But that would mean that he would be qualified to be President as well. You can't have it both ways, Senator Clinton.

Seriously, people, priorities?

Surely, effective scanning of commercial cargo entering the US has a direct impact on national security, right? And not some war with some country that was not involved with attacks on the US and has ended up tripling or so oil prices?

What's ~$2bn for securing our ports against a possible nuclear/dirty bomb attack when we've already spent upwards of $500bn on Iraq/Afghanistan?

Baseball > Civil Liberties?

Senate caves, votes to give telecoms retroactive immunity

So...Congress decides to basically rubber-stamp legislation the president asks for...but holds congressional hearings about whether certain baseball players used performance enhancing drugs? I've been looking, but I can't quite seem to find where it says regulating professional sports is their responsibility...

I can see civilization collapsing around me...

Exhibit A: Homies World. These are sold in rest-stop vending machines, and apparently are quite the collectible, depending on who you ask. You too can collect them all including 'Baby Mama', 'Bouncy' (at least they don't beat about the bush as to why she has that nickname), 'Conejo' (the ugly, horny guy who talks to rabbits), the Native American girl who has visions, the girl that sleeps around ("[P]erhaps you've been with Lola too?"), the sleazy ladies' man ("He says all the things you don't..."

The weirdest thing is that these characters are in amongst generally admirable sorts like the aspiring public defender, the teenage reformed criminal in a Christian-based vocational program, the radical college activist, or "homie" bios espousing the dangers of the 'tru gangsta life'.

Now, maybe I'm just pre-maturely middle-aged, but seriously, does noone see something wrong with their kids collecting tiny plastic gang-bangers and pimps? Also, what's up with the Soulja Boy Phenomenon? (MIT's analysis here). I mean, it's hilarious when a bunch of MIT students (and Richard Stallman) dance the Soulja Boy. But when he gets nominated for best male artist for Nickelodeon's Kids' Choice Awards? I'm not sure an artist/song suggesting that one should "superman that hoe" is appropriate for an awards show aimed at the 'tween/teen demographic.

Now, I'm sure that this has been said many times before about other things, but I can't see anything good coming from modern youth's obsession with 'gangsta' or 'thug' culture. Except the film 'Idiocracy'.

The Roommates and I have been talking...

...and we've come to a conclusion: Bush is a terrible Republican. $3,000,000,000,000 budgets? Who's the party of 'small government' again?

I can understand the general concept of fighting to preserve America for "the children," but, I hate to break it to you, but "the kids" aren't going to appreciate a towering, festering pile of debt, either, especially if all their civil liberties are gone too.

This has been your 3rd-quarter political update. Now back to the game.

EDIT: If it makes you feel any better, I've just run the numbers and $190bn/yr for Iraq/Afghanistan works out to about $6k/second. According to Wikipedia, 30 seconds of advertisement at Superbowl XLII cost $2.7m, which works out to $90k/second, 15 times the per-second cost of the Iraq/Afghanistan theatre of the "War on Terror"

Just FYI....continued

click here to learn more


Previously discussed here

As additional points of comparison: The Big Dig, arguably one of the biggest public-works boondoggles ever cost ~$14.6bn as of 2006, and that was over a 24 year period (in 2006 dollars, starting in 1982). The cost of a manned mission to Mars is in the $150-400bn range. Keep in mind that 40 years ago we got a dozen men onto the Moon for "only" $135bn.

MythBusters Tech Headaches

"To my mind, engineering is a high art, and it brings tears to my eyes to see it so disrespected at times by the marketing and legal departments of corporations"

--Jamie Hyneman

Amen to that!

A snippet of wisdom, as relevant as ever, on a Sunday morning...

"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men."

Samuel Adams

Wait, what?

Slashdot | How To Beat Congress's Ban Of Humans On Mars

So...does congress want to crush the hopes and dreams of aspiring American scientists and engineers? Aren't we like, supposedly falling behind, with regards to technological development, compared to the rest of the world? Shouldn't Congress be concerned about that?

The 1950s-1970's space race did amazing things both directly in terms of developing science and technology and indirectly by inspiring many to enter science and engineering professions. The problem is most of these people are retiring now, and American industry will be having serious issues replacing them and their decades of experience. It scares me that this seems to be a problem largely unconsidered outside of the engineering world.

And if it's an issue of NASA funding...FY'08 for Iraq/Afghanistan is well more than the cost of the Apollo Program (in 2006 dollars, of course)

Time for a little Find and Replace...

"In any country, if you don’t have countervailing institutions, the power of any one president is problematic for democratic development"

So when our President circumvents the judicial system and gets all pissy when Congress does not comply with his every whim he is 'defending democracy' but when Putin consolidates power by weakening their legislature and judiciary, he's being 'undemocratic'??

Again, I have to reiterate: We have three (mostly) equal branches of government, as laid out in the Constitution. Not one that gets to bully the other two around.

Dan Rather, I think it's time you just retired...

787 is Plastic?

Much of it's structure is in fact, a carbon-based composite in a polymer matrix, with polymer being the proper term for what most people consider 'plastics'.

As far as I can tell this is just another example of some media outlet bending science/engineering to garner more ratings, and I really don't appreciate it.

Methinks There Be Some Commendation Inflation at the Army...

Decorations & Awards, Two Generals, Two Eras

LolzOMGWTF??

Don't 'text' and drive

OK, I'm sorry, but who ever thought it was a good idea acceptable not idiotic to 'text' while driving? I find talking on the phone distracting enough, and that doesn't require me to read a little screen while navigating traffic.


----------------
Now playing: Cream - White Room
via FoxyTunes

Paper Trails Don't Ensure Accurate E-Voting Totals?

Slashdot | Paper Trails Don't Ensure Accurate E-Voting Totals

Now, voter-verifiable paper trails aside...what's with all the hullabaloo about e-voting? Paper isn't good enough? The FL/Chad issue is not present with all paper ballots. My town's ballots are pieces of yellow cardstock with partial arrows: >- -> pointing at candidates and Yes/No options. One takes a sharpie (or other black marker) and fills in an arrow. The ballots are then fed through a high-speed reader (basically a barcode reader writ-large) and votes are tallied. The ballots are durable and easily hand-recounted, which happens often, anyway.

Seriously, what's so wrong with that? People can screw up the ballots? Yes, but that's on the voter, not on some random company writing code that they don't let anyone look at (and it's isn't easily verified if it's even the code running on the machines) that likely has vested political interests, anyway ::choughDieboldcough::

Just because a bunch of idiots designed some terrible paper ballots doesn't mean all paper ballots are the devil. Most people think computers are magic and either trust or distrust them implicitly. Paper ballots are easily understood by anyone and do not qualify as 'magic' by any means.


----------------
Now playing: Battlestar Galactica - Colonial Anthem
via FoxyTunes

Why I Feel Like A Second-Class Citizen...

Over the past several weeks, I have been met at every turn by companies who have refused to take my money for their goods or services:

"You want a credit card? You're a student and never had one before? OK, just sit here and have an incompetant teller fill out a web-form for you and wait a week or ten days." "Oh, too bad. You're not in the system and we clearly can't issue you the only card we offer"

"Get into an accident? Sure, we'll fix your car. But those guys over there won't let you rent a car. You can enlist or get drafted and go out there and defend my whiny ass but you're not renting one of our cars. Oh no, you have to be 21 to do that, mister. And we'll still ream you, hard, till you're 25."

Conveniently I turned 21 about two weeks after the accident, but I would've been SOL if this had happened last summer or the summer before. Apparently all work done by under-21 year olds is optional and they can just skip it for a week or two.

"Oh, great! You're 21 now! You can rent a car! But not without a major credit card!"

You can have plenty of money in your account and be fully insured, regularly pay your taxes in full, but you can't rent a car without a major credit card, though they likely don't care if you're eyeballs deep in debt.

"That broken car? Yea, you need to pay us for the repairs. Check? No problem....oh, wait. There is. You haven't written enough checks so clearly we can't trust this one. Try again in six days."

That's the one that really pissed me off. I mean, they basically could deny me for any reason and refused to tell me why. At least the MA Dept of Revenue eventually told me why they didn't want to give me my money back.