Your approach to funding PSACOT is very reasonable, Paul. As you know, getting paid for putting content on the Web has been a problem since its beginning--at least partly due to the voluntary origins of the Internet. I'm reminded of Ted Nelson's pre-Web (1960) Project Xanadu.

One of the things Ted espoused was a database where all documents could be "versioned" by anyone, becoming a new document. For example, you could revise the opening lines of Winter's Tale. People could then decide whether they liked "your version" better than Shakespeare's. If so, any compensation for viewing/downloading Willie & Paul's Winter's Tale would be shared proportionately, according to the amount of each author's contribution.

Similarly, I would receive a proportional share of any compensation PSACOT receives for the words I write and you publish. Hmmm...

All that's fine but I think it still misses a key point. Content's value is not what the author (or publisher) thinks, it's what I the reader thinks, which is why you see so many remaindered volumes in book stores. The Web allows a good mechanism for this where users could pay for each reading (or newsletter issue) according to the content's value. Vol. 4, No. 41 might be worth a buck to me, $5 to your Mother, and nothing to another reader. A content e-Bay, in effect. [ed note: in my case, I am sure it would be a race to the bottom, aka a Dutch auction].

This could require a different attitude on the part of authors involving a focus on social value, rather than personal value. The result would not necessarily create frictionless commerce, but maybe ego-less (or at least less ego) content commerce. Could human nature support this kind of change?

If anyone is interested in the intriguing ideas and quixotic career of Ted Nelson, try:

It was, therefore, obvious that larger amplifiers would accomplish little beyond the possible destruction of the speakers during the performance.

That's very kind of you. I intended sort of a crusade about such things -- in teaching the writing course for scientists and engineers, and in editing the HP Journal. There is no reason, I feel, for those long, turgid, involuted sentences that are so dear to specialists who think that way, but don't realize those they most want to inform, don't. Especially my advice was received with warmth by people writing to seek grants! A fine mutual admiration society grew with Dr. Egon Loebner, an Auschwitz escaper who made major contributions to developing the LED. He knew seven languages and said he had a strong accent in every one, even his native Czech; claimed he needed me for English. Egon is gone now, and I will miss him forever. The association was very gratifying.

I wrote that forty-six years ago and some details of tape technology disappeared into my mental wastebasket, I fear. Talking to the co- author not long ago, he said he thought we were getting 72 dB un- distorted above the basic noise of the tape. Higher tape velocity increases the recordable max level, most importantly at high frequencies, although, as I (badly) remember it, noise floor is unchanged.

It isn't. I was mistaken in saying that. That's an advantage, but good tape is a better solution to the problem than tape speed, and 3M made damned good tape. The main advantage of 30 ips over 15 or less is treble headroom. At 30 ips the wavelength on the tape of every recorded frequency is twice as long as at 15, four times as long as 7.5. As the uppermost recorded frequencies approach the null that occurs at whatever wavelength equals the playback gap width, saturation level approaches. Staying at wavelengths on tape well longer than that decline-range maximizes the headroom for treble frequencies.

My late brother used to say, "gee, sometimes I'd like to be able to consult myself when younger."

There is a problem, however, as tape speed is increased. Bass response goes bad. You have to rotate the PB head slightly to try to reduce the effect. Some people experimented with 20 IPS because of this.

Statement of U.S. Rep. Martin Frost (TX) & U.S. Rep. Nita Lowey (NY)

WASHINGTON - According to this weekend's Bradenton Herald, House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) made comments disparaging the intellect of many American Jews while campaigning for Katherine Harris, the GOP nominee for Florida's 13 District last week. According to the Herald:

"'I always see two Jewish communities in America,' Armey replied. 'One of deep intellect and one of shallow, superficial intellect.' Conservatives have a deeper intellect and tend to have 'occupations of the brain' in fields like engineering, science and economics, said Armey, a former economics professor at the University of North Texas. Liberals, on the other hand, tend to flock to 'occupations of the heart,' which he defined as people with jobs in the arts. 'They're going to be liberals ... because they want to feel good,' he said. Armey said that as people grow, they become more conservative because they gain a better sense of 'reality.' Liberals have a 'romanticized' notion of a world they pretend exists, he said." (Bradenton Herald, 09/22/02)

Rep. Martin Frost (D-TX) and Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY), two Jewish Members of the House Democratic Leadership, today issued the following response to Armey's remarks:

"If accurately reported, Dick Armey's comments are absolutely breathtaking in their ignorance. It's very disappointing to us that a high-ranking leader of the Republican Party and the House of Representatives would make such divisive remarks."

The Top 15 Worst Things to Say to a One-Night Stand the Next Morning

October 16, 2002

15> "My eggs? Over easy -- just like you."

14> "Wow! You look just like Ernest Borgnine, even in that dress!"

13> "And you are...?"

12> "Sorry, but I should probably get home before I sober up."

11> "Thanks, I had a great time. Can you just send me the bill for your replacement prosthetic?"

10> "Have you ever considered responding to one of those, um, 'male enlargement' ads?"

9> "Could I get you to sign this diary for my parole officer?"

8> "Is there any chance you could drop me off at the methadone clinic on your way back into town?"

7> "You look a lot, um, less sexy without the burqua."

6> "Remember last night when I said that I run TopFive? Well, I lied -- I'm just a contributor."

5> "For breakfast, I usually have some fava beans and a nice Chianti."

4> "Before you leave, would you like to see some sexually arousing video of me and a monkey?"

3> "Look over there at that houseplant and wave... you're on candid-slutcam.com!"

2> "We're like two ships that just use each other to dump bilge in the night."

and Topfive.com's Number 1 Worst Thing to Say to a One-Night Stand the Next Morning...

1> "Hand me my penis, will ya?"

[W]ithout consideration of "traditions" and prejudices, it [Germany] must find the courage to gather our people and their strength for an advance along the road that will lead this people from its present restricted living space to new land and soil, and hence also free it from the danger of vanishing from the earth or of serving others as a slave nation. --- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

1. "It's a terrible thing to say, but I don't believe the "President" of the United States."

Why is it terrible for an employer to speak the truth about a substandard "employee"? In particular, why is it terrible when massive and flagrant violations of Federal law (28 USC 455 - conflict of interest due to positions held by one wife and a few sons) by 60% of the voters (Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas) who gave the "employee" his "job" were required to get the "employee" his "job"?

2. "I'm afraid it's true."

The only thing you have to fear is fear itself. The more frequently you say it, the more people will realize the veracity of your statement and disseminate it themselves thereby further reducing your fear level due to the support of your fellow employers.

3. While there was full authorization for an immediate nuclear attack by the US as of early morning on Friday, Oct. 11, 2002, one should note that your "employee" was correct when he said passage of the resolution does not mean an immediate war. "Immediate" was Friday morning.

4. "Others get to pay for it"

Per the NYT on 10/15/02, those who have died in past wars fought by the US were mainly enlisted personnel. No current member of the House of Representatives has a son or daughter serving as an enlisted member of the US armed forces. That great patriot and well-known hawk from South Dakota (Democratic Senator Tim Johnson) who yields to no one in his zealous attention to the true national security interests of the United States (and who supported the war powers resolution) has a son who is enlisted. Rep Ike Skelton from Missouri has two sons who are officers. In short, most of those legislators (especially in the House) supporting the war are disconnected from the ultimate effects of any war.

5. "Bush wants war. I don't know why, and I refuse to speculate, because, as many wiser commentators have noted, speculation about motives is pointless and futile. We'll never know why."

Have a little confidence. Truth will out. In the meantime, you are absolutely correct. There is no need to speculate. It's about oil. If not (given the facts provided by your "employees"), both George and Dick are immediately certifiable seriatim as unable to discharge their duties (due to mental disease or defect) under Section 4 of the 25th Amendment. Now do you understand why George and Dick don't want to let Congress know what the oil industry and Dick said to each other last year? (Actually there was a tiny little hint in the policy as released which said something about developing energy (read oil) supplies in Central Asia. Things don't get much more central than a proposed pipeline (previously reported by PSACOT) from Turkmenistan to Afghanistan to Pakistan.)