At 2:26 AM +0100 12/9/00, Mats O. Bergstrom wrote:

At 10:52 2000-12-08 -0800, Tim May wrote:

...

[cryptography@c2.net removed from the distribution list. They claimed not to want any politics discussion, and they are a closed list, so why is political discussion going to it?]

As I remember ancient history it was the coderpunks offspin refusing any politics while "Perry's list" - cryptography - started with the intent of allowing crypto-politics and related subjects that the moderator would let through. Anyway, "Perrygrams" have become almost extinct on the cryptographt list lately.

Whatever. The modus operandi is for someone to create His Own List and then issue the rules and tell people he doesn't want politics talked about. Unless, of course, he is the one talking politics, or unless he likes what others are saying. Fine that people want such closed lists, whether Perrypunks, Lewispunks, Declanpunks, Hettingapunks, whatever. Just don't crosspost from their closed lists to our open list, is all I ask. (Every time I write a message pointing this out, I can count on getting a snippygram from one of them saying that I am perfectly free to become a member of their lists and thus be able to post. No thanks, on general grounds. Plus, I am not interesting in writing an essay and then having my submission blocked by Perry or Lewis or whomever. I accept their propertarian right to do such blockage, of course. Doesn't make it what I want, or what I think the community benefits from.) --Tim May -- (This .sig file has not been significantly changed since 1992. As the election debacle unfolds, it is time to prepare a new one. Stay tuned.)

At 2:27 PM -0800 12/10/00, petro wrote:

Mr. May:

...

The author also mentions that consumers dislike (so?) tracking of their purchases...and then in the next paragraphs cites the Firestone tire recall as an example of better policy than most Web sites have (or something like this...I re-read his analogy several times and still wasn't sure what his claim was). But

I took that statement to mean that if Firestone exercised the same level of diligence in the engineering of their tires that most web sites used, they would be recalling a *LOT* more tires, enough to make the current recall a drop in the bucket.

Sure, but I was making the point that this is an ironic example, as it was the records which Firestone and Ford kept of their customers which allowed them to send recall letters out to those customers! (I just got Yet Another Letter from Ford, which I haven't opened. The last couple have exhorted me to _please_ make arrangements with a local dealer to have the Firestone tires on my Explorer replaced.) I got a similar letter from Costco, the giant box store, saying that a _rope light_ I bought at some time in the past--their letter gave the exact date--has been recalled due to the chance that it may burst into flames under certain circumstances. (When it gets wet, as the waterproofing was faulty. Inasmuch as I use these rope lights to illuminate and heat the interior of my gun safe, I ignored the letter.) There are technological solutions for how companies can notify customers without knowing what customers buy, obviously. Nyms, cut out accounts, agents which send ticklers, etc. This was not my point, only the irony of citing the Firestone recall in a discussion of how companies are tracking purchases. But since the word "irony" has been removed from all current dictionaries.... --Tim May -- (This .sig file has not been significantly changed since 1992. As the election debacle unfolds, it is time to prepare a new one. Stay tuned.)