Path to Enlightened Insanity

In the spirt of Ted L. Nancy’s Letters from a Nut, I sent off an email to M&M/Mars about Skittles.

They didn’t get it.

See for yourself.

To: askskittles@mmmars.com

From: Nicholas Barnard

Subject: Product Defect

To Whom it May Concern:

I recently purchased a package of Skittles with the factory code 331BY3 from the vending machine at work. I was disappointed when I tossed them in the air they did not explode into fireworks as shown in a recent television commercial. Are these Skittles defective? Or do I need to be in an outdoor area to get the fireworks effect? I would appreciate any and all suggestions in how to get my Skittles to function properly.

Thank You,

Nicholas Barnard

From: mm_mars@mmmars.com

To: Nicholas Barnard

Subject: Re: 5202061A

In response to your email regarding SKITTLES BITE SIZE CANDIES “FIREWORKS”

Thank you for your email expressing your concerns.

We respect our consumer’s views and will pass your comments on
to our Marketing associates.

We thank you for your loyalty to our products.

Sincerely,

Consumer Affairs

Masterfoods USA

A Division of Mars, Incorporated

I have a way of picking the wrong movie to watch. Not that Drift is a bad movie, it just makes me want, well to search for that perfect someone, because well I don’t think I’ve found him.

This is far too late by any count. But Brad and I have been dating for around a month and a half now. Its going slow, but I’m happy when I’m with him, and I’m pretty sure we’re not going to repeat some of my past follies.

It took me longer that I would’ve like it to, but I turned the entry SpamToms into a letter to my Congressional Representatives. I’m going to be sending it off soon, but here is your preview edition!

I have been following with much interest the US Congress’s efforts to address the Internet problem of Unsolicited Commercial email (UCE), more colloquially known as Spam.

I am disappointed though with the lack of understanding and technical ineptitude displayed concerning the Internet the email transmission protocols, business models, and international enforcement issues displayed by current proposals.

It is my decade plus worth of experience using computer networks that leads me to believe that making it illegal to send UCE will not successfully reduce the proliferation of UCE in Americans’ email inboxes. Any anti-UCE efforts should be multi-pronged working to reduce the prostitution of email in any way possible.

What is necessary in addition to technical solutions that are being explored within the industry is the radical legislative position making it illegal to respond to UCE in addition to the currently proposed prohibitions to sending UCE.

Initially holding the consumer as well as the producer responsible for UCE appears to be criminalizing the victim, it is the sole way to effectively destroy the market that exists for and sustains UCE.

The legal rationale for criminalizing consumption as well as production is well understood presently in the legal rationale for outlawing prostitution.

The reasons for prohibiting prostitution are: (exclusive of moral and religious objections, which do not apply to UCE)

1. The degradation of women.
2. The creation of a public heath problem by encouraging the spread of STDs.
3. The creation of “clutter” in residential as well as commercial areas that leads to reduced property values.

Similarly the reasons for seeking to prohibit UCE are:

1. The degradation of the usefulness of email.
2. The creation Internet performance degrading traffic that requires that providers purchase more bandwidth, more storage, and higher-powered servers.
3. The increase in advertising messages that “clutters” the advertising landscape and reduces preexisting advertising’s value.

In regards to prostitution, we prosecute both the prostitutes, Janes, and their clients, Toms. Simply the logic for prosecuting both the client and the service provider is economic, that if the client didn’t exist the service provider couldn’t exist either, so it is more effective to attack the problem from both ends and destroy the market for prostitution by reducing supply and demand, therefore hopefully reducing the corresponding demand and supply.

The UCE bills being proposed only target the UCEJanes and not the UCEToms. The UCE business model only requires a miniscule response rate similar to the business model of a prostitute, or a telemarketer. If UCEJanes received no revenue from their efforts they would have no incentive to engage in sending UCE. Ergo, responding to UCE should be illegal as well, perhaps carrying a fine of $200 or double the amount spend on the goods advertised via UCE, whichever is greater. This fine amount would ensure an adequate impact on UCEToms without imposing undue harm upon lower income UCEToms.

Hypothetically, under this legal structure law enforcement would track down the UCEJanes shut them down and utilize their sales records to prosecute the UCEToms. In addition, law enforcement could also leave the websites of spammers operational to catch any future UCEToms. (This is analogous to police officers posing as prostitutes.) It would also be logical to make it explicitly legal for law enforcement and/or private ISPs to hack UCEJanes’s computer systems wherever they are located to obtain UCEJanes’s sales records, and prosecute UCEToms even if the UCEJanes cannot be prosecuted for jurisdictional and/or technical reasons.

UCE will remain prevalent in this country as long as it is profitable. While UCEJanes can move out of the country to shield themselves from US laws, most UCEToms are unable to do so. Therefore by making it illegal to respond to UCE it will not affect those who already ignore spam, and will make clear disincentives to respond to UCE.

I appreciate actual efforts to reduce UCE but I urge the US Congress to pass legislation that will work in the real world and not just legislation that will make the US Congress appear to be addressing the problem.

Respectfully,
Nicholas Barnard

I’m killing time because I have a dentists appointment and nothing to do. So I’m typing up eJournal entries and other things that have been lingering on paper.

One of the ideas that got missed in the entry Religious Underpinnings was that I also believe that while all of the religions are different in their many ways, that if you start from their core tenants, you can generally build up via logical processes many of the general social mores and find that there is a great deal of commonality. Its a bit like deriving computer languages from two different sources, but coming up with something that is similar in both cases.

I opened an account at Bank One yesterday. The only reason I did it was because they gave me a certificate for $50.00 so I figure I can deal with some extra paperwork for $50.00.

But, I swear that the “Relationship Banker” who set up my account was really doing his best to flirt with me in a low key way.

Admittedly this isn’t the first time I’ve seen a flirty gay bank employee. Well, I really would like to know him better. (You never know where you’ll find someone so its good to keep your eyes open.)

Well, I really should’ve dropped some low key gay reference, but well I wasn’t thinking on my feet that fast.

Sigh. someday I’ll get the flirting dating dance down. until then I’ll just continue the ugly duckling dance and tripping over my feet.

People who are fundamentalists about their religion perplex me.

One of the qualities i hold most dear is the ability to reason.

I do not usually find reason and religion mutually exclusive. to the contrary when I examine religions I see what is the product of rational thought. Prohibitions against birth control and homosexuality are justified and rational if you’re given a world where most people die at 35 or 40 and manual labor is imperative to maintaining society and the number of people reaching the age of procreation is only around the number required to ensure that the population remains steady or growing at a small rate. These prohibitions, which both come from the desire to ensure that sex is linked only to procreation, do not make logical sense where the health care system ensures most of the population lives into their 70s and technology is significantly advanced enough that having a significant population directed towards manual labor is no longer necessary.

Returning to the core issue. I’m reading Jon Krakauer’s book Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of a Violent Faith which explores a double murder in the Mormon community in Utah. What I’m having a hard time comprehending is the 1984 murders of Brenda Lafferty and her 15 month old daughter Erica by Brenda’s brothers-in-law, Dan and Ron Lafferty. Dan and Ron did this because they received a revelation from god to “Eliminate” Brenda and erica among others.

I don’t know where to start. Killing someone, especially a young child, is unthinkable to me. quite frankly the whole concept of god talking directly to people directing them what to do seems ludicrous. What I really see is that these revelations are a subconscious part of the brain coming out and that by phrasing them as revelations rides the revelator of responsibility for their actions or to repress the urge to act and deal with the underlying emotions.

I know my analysis comes from a humanist point of view. I firmly and adamantly believe that people should take responsibility for their actions. Passing the responsibility of on God or a Commander-in-Chief is an immature act of cowardice.

I would hold the Lafferty brothers in slightly higher regard if instead of stating that god directed them to “remove … Brenda and her baby … [because] they have truly become obstacles in [God’s] path and I will not allow my work to be stopped.” (p. 162) They stated that “We’re going to kill that bitch because she took my family from me and doesn’t know her place.” (My words, but in character.)

For that matter i’d be more respectful of Bush and conspirators just came out and said “We want oil and big government contracts for our former employers.” But, enough political digressions.

Some religions, especially fundamentalist editions, require the relinquishing of rationality and logic. Which is truly strange. If god gave you the ability to reason shouldn’t you use it?

I’m left where I started. I’m really sure that I’ll never understand people who come from a fundamentalist stance. But, then again who will ever figure me out fully?

Ick, I’m trying to figure out a way to make this glorious document in some way revenue producing, or at least raise my writer profile in some way.

I’ve already applied to be a Google AdSense client, as well as appealing directly for donations. Neither has produced any revenue. (Google denied my application, bastards.)

I’ve been thinking of making an effort to rework these into letters to Congress members or Letters to the Editor. Perhaps after sending enough reasonably analytic work into either I’ll get an offer to be hired.

Or someone could just become a patron and fund my work on a monthly basis. Sigh, the patron/artisan relationship seems so useful its a shame that it didn’t survive.

I’ve found it interesting recently that people and legislatures all over the place have been pushing to make it illegal to send spam, but no one has considered making it illegal to respond to an offer delivered via spam.

While making it illegal to respond to a spam offer initially seems crazy, consider that it is illegal to procure the services of a prostitute. While some might argue that prostitution should be legal, it currently remains illegal. (George Carlin has the clearest and most lucent argument on this subject, “Fucking is legal. Selling is legal. So why isn’t selling fucking legal?”)

The rational for the legal prohibitions against prostitution (ignoring religious and moral objections) are demoralization of women, the creation of a public health problem in the form of STDs, and the creation of “clutter” in residential as well as commercial areas. (i.e. destroying the atmosphere of neighborhoods.)

The rationales for making spam illegal respectively are the decreased usefulness of email, the creation of a problem that reduces the efficiency of the Internet and requires greater bandwidth and storage to be deployed, the increase of advertising thus making legitimate opt in email advertising less effective. (i.e. destroying an advertising vehicle)

In prostitution we prosecute both the prostitutes, Janes, and their clients, Toms. Simply the logic for prosecuting both the client and the service provider is economic, that if the client didn’t exist the service provider couldn’t exist either, so it is more effective to attack the problem from both ends and destroy the market for prostitution both by reducing supply and demand, therefore hopefully reducing the corresponding demand and supply.

But, all of the Spam bills being proposed only target the SpamJanes and not the SpamToms. Spam is a business and as such obeys the laws of economics. The business model of spam outfits only requires a miniscule response rate, as does the business model of a prostitute. If spammers received no revenue from their efforts they would have no incentive to engage in spamming. Ergo, responding to spam should be illegal as well, perhaps carrying a fine of $200 or double the amount spent on the goods advertised via spam, whichever is greater. This fine amount would ensure an adequate impact on Toms without imposing undue harm upon lower income Toms.

In a real world scenario law enforcement would track down the SpamJanes shut them down and utilize their sales records to prosecute the SpamToms. In addition law enforcement could also leave the websites of spammers operational to catch any future SpamToms. (This is akin to Police Officers posing as prostitutes.) It would also be logical to make it explicitly legal for law enforcement and/or private companies to hack SpamJanes’s computer systems wherever they are located to obtain SpamToms sales records, and prosecute SpamToms even if the SpamJanes cannot be prosecuted for jurisdictional and/or technical reasons.

Spam will remain prevalent in this country as long as it is profitable. While SpamJanes can move out of the country to shield themselves from US laws, most SpamToms are unable to do so. By making it illegal to respond to spam it will not affect those who already ignore spam, and will make clear disincentives to respond to spam.

Any anti-spam efforts should be multi-pronged working to reduce the prostitution of email in any way possible.

I’m being a dork. A big clean shaven spiffy dork.

I’m sitting outside Brad’s house waiting for him to arrive. We’re going to Pride Night 2003 at Kings Island tonight.

Its raining a bit, which is bound to be a good thing for the park because it’ll drive the people who were going to do this on the spur of the moment away and reduce the park attendance and make it easier to get on rides. (Not that that was going to be a problem anyway, but it’ll make it even easier)

I wish I could do something to enjoy the rain and make some interesting observations, but honestly, its just that sort of monochromatic dampness, but all in all its a good monochromatic dampness. It provides a nice flavor to the experience nonetheless.

Well he’s here….