Recoil magazine


While at the PSO I wore a black t-shrit that said Recoil on it. Recoil is the name of a local free magazine printed on newsprint. On the front is a magazine devoted to local events and advertising, articles about and interviews of bands (local or those coming to town) and reviews of CD's local and national. On the back is a satire magazine of fake and funny news articles a la "The Onion". 

I was wearing this shirt when we took the big group photo. That photo that greats us when we all when we click on"vista blogs". The word Recoil has been removed from my shirt. I'm guessing someone thought that it was a possible copyright issue or something. But I hardly think a local Grand Rapids magazine will be suing AmeriCorp for use of the logo.

Comment from Paul Hansen on October 11, 2006 - 11:23am

Thank you Richard for trying to stur-up some controversy but, no, it was not censorship (I didn't know or care what recoil was) that lead me to remove the word from your shirt... and it was not concern for some copyright issue... it was *aesthetics* that made me do it. I just couldn't stand the sight of the word.

If it really matters to you, I would be willing to put it back... maybe in gray rather than white letters...


Comment from Richard T. Anderson on October 11, 2006 - 1:26pm

No, that's okay Paul. No biggie.

It is probably better from an aesthetic point of view.

I hope my blog wasn't irritating or out of line in some way.



Comment from Paul Hansen on October 12, 2006 - 12:08pm

Your blog entry was in no way out of line. If it was, I would have simply deleted it.

Comment from Richard T. Anderson on October 13, 2006 - 3:59pm

Good to know.


Oh my. Now that's the power.


A response for Net Neutrality


This morning a co-worker placed an article from the July 2006 edition of Communications Engineering and Design Magazine entitled "Net neutrality legislation--my take on it" by Jeffrey Krauss, President of Telecommunications and Technology Policy.

Net Neutrality is an important issue; pending legislation and changing business practices have the potential to dramatically change how we use the Internet. Below I have responded to some of the points Mr. Krauss brought up in the article.

"There's an enormous coalition supporting net neutrality, hundreds of individuals and organizations and companies that I have never heard of. But if you follow the money, you find that it's really Google, Amazon.com, eBay and Yahoo! that are behind this campaign."

Yes, there is wide support for Net Neutrality and for good reason. I run several small websites (and am known to browse the web myself), and am happy that Google, Amazon.com, et al are behind the campaign and helping to pay for it. I don't have the money or resources to fight for Net Neutrality as well as they can, so I'm really glad that

Comment from Richard T. Anderson on September 13, 2006 - 9:45am

Wow, that sounds unbelievably complicated. My understanding was this: if those that want net Neutrality get their way then the internet will have two tiers. One you will have to pay lots of money to use, which is where all the useful web content will end up. The other tier will be for poor folk and won't have any thing.

Is this a correct summation? Do I have it backwards?

Also. Would it be possible for us to communicate directly with other CTCVISTA's here. i.e. and email feature. i know you don't want this to get too much like myspace, but it would be convienant to be able to communicate one on one with each other on this site.



Comment from Rebecca White on September 15, 2006 - 7:19pm

yeah, you've got net neutrality backwards: net neutrality means that nothing on the net should have priority; ie, there shouldn't be tiered internet access and networks should treat all data the same, not seperating it into google's data, aol's data, and your data.