Re: What is a homemaker worth?

[Bryon Daly]

From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

The economic value of a stay-at-home spouse is closer to $30,000 a year. 
Our
society doesn't place a high dollar value on a homemaker's work, and those
who choose to stay home do so at their own economic peril.
:
The numbers that purport to show otherwise are flights of the author's
fancy. They're typically constructed from the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics' average pay figures for a variety of occupations including:
Child-care worker, $8.91 an hour
Maid, $8.02 an hour
Food preparation supervisor, $11.70 an hour
Bookkeeper, $11.94 an hour
Chauffeur, $8.67 an hour
The formula is simple. Figure out how many hours, on average, a homemaker
performs each task, multiply those hours by the appropriate wage and come 
up
with an impressive and completely overblown annual figure.
The problem here, as I see it, is that they're calculating these numbers as 
if the homemaker were an employee of some company getting paid those wages 
per hour.  But the problem is that for insurance purposes, I'd really want 
to calculate actual replacement costs:

While some daycare center might (under)pay it's child-care workers $8.91 per 
hour, that's a far cry from what I'd have to pay someone to provide what is 
essentially 24-7 child care in my house, for my 3 very young children.

The same goes for a maid service, chauffeur, etc.  You couldn't hire these 
people to work for you for the necessary hours and necessary times of the 
day for anything close to the rates they list.

And families who lose a stay-at-home spouse typically do not rush out to
hire 17 professionals to take his or her place, let alone employ them 24/7.
They may hire one or two people, usually for 50 hours a week or less, and
pay them an hourly wage of $10 to $15.
That's why the economic payout is typically less in wrongful death and 
other
lawsuits when the victim is a stay-at-home spouse than when the victim is
employed. The lifetime economic value of a female homemaker who dies at age
30 is currently about $300,000, Schouten said, based on statistics from a
seminal study in this area, "The Dollar Value of Household Work."
True, they don't hire 17 pros for 24/7, but they couldn't possibly afford 
to!  And unless you had a mansion to house them in, would be unworkable.  
That doesn't mean that the loss doesn't exist or isn't real, it just means 
that families can scrape by with lesser amounts of care, cleaning, etc.  
This whole argument to me seems similar to saying that if someone crashed 
their $150K Ferrari, and only bought a $70K Jaguar with the insurance 
payout, that the Ferarri was only worth $70K.

_
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Gray Davis Recall Election Set for Sep-Oct

[Nick Arnett]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Ronn!Blankenship
> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 3:20 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: RE: Gray Davis Recall Election Set for Sep-Oct
>
>
> At 07:51 AM 7/25/03 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Behalf Of pencimen
> >
> >...
> >
> > > Enron _and_ the Bush administration.
> > >
> > > Or is that what you meant?
> >
> >Sort of.  Except that there's some superset that they're both
> part of, which
> >I dare not name.  ;-)
>
>
>
> "Politicians"?
>
> "Human beings"?

Right on both counts!  I should have dared.

A couple of comments on other parts of this thread.  It's hard to call what
the energy companies were doing "blackmail."  It seems to have been a
largely concocted "crisis," but some parts of it were not deliberate, but
rather were due to Enron's vast stupidity.  A friend of mine is in the
energy consulting business; he told me stories that were like others that
I've seen reported, in which Enron traders didn't realize that they were
trading the same chunks of energy repeatedly, artificially driving up the
prices.  This only became clear after the trades were analyzed -- their
internal tracking systems were so awful that they failed to track the fact
that two Enron traders and a third party could be bidding back and forth on
the same power block.  Shameful, certainly, but deliberate, no.

Nick

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: SC2 Music (was Re: I have returned from paradise)

[Bryon Daly]

From: "Andrew Crystall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

WinAmp is an awful MOD player. But basically think of a MOD file as a
MIDI with it's instruments embedded rather than relying on those on
the sound card.
Before MP3's came in, I liked them because they allways sounded the
same on any system (unlike MIDI's), and are small compared to WAV's.
It's a real shame the .mod format and its siblings (.sc3, .669, .xm, etc) 
are largely dead (though you can still find we sites with tons of them).  
Maybe they still live on in the Amiga community.

Many can sound synthetic (many deliberately so), but I have a few
great .s3m (Screamtracker 3) files which don't.
I have a few non-techno ones, also, including a neat piano track.  They 
don't have to sound synthetic, I think that's just the kind of music that 
was popular with the mod musicians.

_
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: SC2 Music (was Re: I have returned from paradise)

[Bryon Daly]

From: "Andrew Crystall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

I'm guessing that's Mod4Win referenced there. Working link to Mod4Win
unlimited:
http://pjeantaud.free.fr/mod4win/m4w-2_40.exe
Yep, same program.

I think the one referenced there is a bad install, as it's what 800K,
the correct one is 2.4MB.
My version isn't a bad install; it's an English-only install (and I 
double-checked that it works fine for me).  The 2.4MB version has a 
multi-lingual install.  They used to offer both as downloads, but seem to 
only provide the larger one, now.

_
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Gray Davis Recall Election Set for Sep-Oct

[Kevin Tarr]

At 05:10 PM 7/27/2003 -0400, you wrote:
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Kevin Tarr
> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 4:26 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: RE: Gray Davis Recall Election Set for Sep-Oct
>
>
> >A more accurate assessment seems to be that Enron used exorbitant,
> >unfair fees to blackmail California consumers and threatened to
withhold
> >power if they weren't paid.
> >
> > >From an article in the SF Chronicle, quoted on corpwatch.org:
> >http://www.corpwatch.org/news/PND.jsp?articleid=2530
> >
> >Jon
>
>
> Right, so the people who want to blame the current federal government
> are...surprise!...wrong.
No, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under the Bush
administration tried to stop California from fighting Enron with price
caps and we can safely assume that this was in part because Enron was
lobbying the Bush administration to do so as reported in AP:
(http://www.nctimes.net/news/2002/20020131/53224.html) Consumers
definitely got screwed because of that and the general attitude at the
time from the administration seemed to be 'blame the victim', which was
simply inappropriate once the truth about Enron's business practices was
made public.
Some googled sites:

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/utilities/pr/pr002556.php3
http://www-irps.ucsd.edu/irps/innews/sdut-040401.html
http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/story1c020601.html
If this were a normal situation, price caps would have been a terrible
idea that would have made the situation worse over time.  Economists
publishing in Fortune, the National Review and the Wall Street Journal
all gave very clear and impassioned arguments as to why caps would
encourage corporate disinterest in increasing supply or making upgrades
to current equipment in CA.  But afaik, they did so before the truth
about Enron's price gouging was revealed.  Since Enron was deliberately
creating a crisis by boosting energy prices through the roof, price caps
weren't just appropriate in this case, they were an absolute necessity.
> Kevin T. - VRWC
> but don't let that stop you
Don't worry, I won't. :-)

I'm curious about Brad DeLong's opinion on this.  Brad, you around?

Jon


Okay, again I see all of that. But I'm assuming (and keep in mind I'm 
completely inebriated right now) that the Cal people agreed with a certain 
plan, then when things got tight, they wanted to change the plan. I'm not 
saying that business profits should trump all, but that a government should 
not have carte blanche to change the rules whenever it feels like it. I 
have an example right outside my back door. A business made an agreement 
with the local government  that was to last for 99 years. Things changed 
and the business sued to get out of the contract and won! A bad example for 
me: the courts saw that it was a bad contract and voided it, but that 
doesn't make it right.

Kevin T. - VRWC
Enough for now, time for three hours of sleep
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: SC2 Music (was Re: I have returned from paradise)

[Bryon Daly]

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

I tried to play the MOD files in my WinAmp 2.81 and I'm not sure if all
sounds are as they should be but I heard some songs... Sounded rather
synthetic but that's probably as designed?
Yeah, they're what I'd generally call "Techno" music.  I'm not sure how much 
they'd appeal to someone who hadn't played Star Control 2, or who doesn't 
like Techno in general.  Basically, in SC2, every game screen had its own 
background theme music, and every alien race you encountered (there are 
many) also had its own theme music, generally very fitting to the race's 
personality.  By the time you've finished the game, those songs are all 
engrained in your head.

I've listened to these mods in a little bit WinAmp, and they sounded a bit 
"flatter" to me than with Mod4Win, but not enough to say they sound 
significantly different, so if you didn't care for them, I wouldn't blame 
WinAmp.

_
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Arrgh!

[Bryon Daly]

From: Jan Coffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Water cooled is definaly a possible first step. Anyone have any other ideas
for keeping the video card cool? Anyone know of a 450W power supply with a
quiet fan?
For the video card cooling, how about a blower fan that sits in a PCI slot 
next to the video card:
http://www.newegg.com/app/Showimage.asp?image=35-129-025-01.JPG
Antec Cyclone Blower, Expansion Slot Fan Model 77094 Retail Cyclone Blower 
111x89x21mm, low noise, fits into any expansion slot. Help cool Video and 
other expansion cards.
Specifications:
Air Volume : 22CFM
Noise Level : 28dBA.
Fan Speed 2,200 rpm
Fits any expansion slot

IMHO, 28dBA is quite quiet. You could probably add 2-3 to empty slots and 
still not have much extra noise.

_
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words

[Doug Pensinger]

Dan Minette wrote:
But, we  facilitated the change of government when the Shah was deposed,
about 25 years ago.  


???
By supplying hostages?
Doug

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words

[Kevin Tarr]

> Worse in what way in 21st Century USA? Had them beaten? Had them lead
> from the Capitol in chains and sent to Quantanamo with the rest of
> the enemies of the US? The 19th century was, well the 19th century.
> Has anything remotely like this happened in the 20th or 21st century
> except in Texas (hey that was another republican adventure wasn't it?)
I've heard accounts of protesters who were arrested in DC.  If any
Congresscritters had been treated that way, yeah, that would have been
worse.  (And those accounts were since January 2001.)
If you're thinking of the Democrats fleeing to Oklahoma in May, yeah,
that was Texas.  The whole redistricting mess.  And the @#$% special
sessions the governor keeps calling for dealing with it aren't making
anyone I talk to, regardless of political affiliation, all that happy.
(Of course, I'm not talking to Tom DeLay, but at this point, I would not
be inclined to give him the time of day due to his involvement in
redistricting issues.)  I think that no matter what kind of new map
passes, if one does, there WILL be a lawsuit, and the state of Texas is
going to have to spend taxpayer money on the suit instead of things that
could *use* it a lot more, like schools (especially in property-poor
districts) and roads.
Julia


About the DC protestors issue: is it the account that was posted here, a 
few month ago? How can I say this charitably? I've had "dealings" with 
police both good and bad. I could type out incidents that would make your 
hair stand on end, and they would be factually true. I could type out the 
same incidents and they'd be funny as hell and just as true. When a police 
officer calls you a redheaded MoFo, and he used the complete word, what can 
you do? I laughed in his face.

One question I had about the Texas redistricting issue, I've seen the map 
of the proposed redistricting, but no maps of the current districts. I hear 
the dems arguments, but wonder how much is just political grasping at 
straws? I'm going to say something bad (surprise): while I understand if a 
black district complains about being split up, or worse forced together so 
they always pick a certain party representative, I don't think the 
Hispanics are as rigid in their party affiliation, as a certain Texas 
representative said they should be. It's almost reverse discrimination, 
saying the people can't choose for themselves.

Here in PA, there was a redistricting fight which pitted a long standing 
Dem against a longer serving Repub. While the final vote was close, the 
voter counts were so high for the winner in some districts, like 90%, that 
it was unbelievable. I'm not saying there was fraud, no recount was called 
for but some rational people look at those numbers and wonder where they 
came from. The story now is, the loser can't find an ear as a lobbyist, 
he's blamed for the loss.

Kevin T. - VRWC
Why am I still up?
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution

[Doug Pensinger]

Julia Thompson wrote:
Doug Pensinger wrote:

Julia Thompson wrote:


Actually, *my* point was I thought that Erik was being a bit cheeky, and
I was trying to be cheeky right back at him.  I think Erik got my post
better than you did.
I can't remember seeing such obvious sarcasm whoosh over people's heads
the way Erik's comments did.


Well, there are people who do deadpan all too well, and I've seen *that*
be taken too seriously.  Plus there was something major on another list
I'm on, sometime during the spring of last year, that wasn't even as
sharp as sarcasm, that started one heckuva flamewar, and when a crucial
detail was explained at a meeting of some of the listmembers, there were
people in *tears*.  So I've seen or known about worse, but not lately,
and not here.
I know, I know, but we've got a lot of smart people here and I'm 
guessing that most of them are aware of Erik's libertarian views, not to 
mention his tendency to use sarcasm (especially when dealing with 
intolerance), so the statement:

"Catholics have a distorted view of the world that isn't
healthy to pass on to children. They should not be permitted to legally
marry, and their children should be put up for adoption with decent
parents."
Has to stand out as either so far out of character as to be absurd or 
extremely sarcastic.

Doug



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Stargate: Atlantis

[Gary Nunn]

> Are you posting to the correct forum? I thought this was a political 
> message list. ;-)
> Kevin T. - VRWC

It WAS a political message It was subliminal... Didn't you get it?

Gary

You are getting sleepy Maru

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Stargate: Atlantis

[Kevin Tarr]

At 12:04 AM 7/28/2003 -0400, you wrote:


Read about this briefly in TV Guide today and found some stuff online.
Most of the stuff online is dated 2001, but this article seems to be
more recent...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?D19B42865

Some older stories about this
http://www.gateworld.net/news/archive/spinoffnews.shtml


Are you posting to the correct forum? I thought this was a political 
message list. ;-)

Kevin T. - VRWC
I'm drunk, &^&*^&^)*)*&&^%^%$^% yankees
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: America in the Middle East, was: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message -
From: "David Hobby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 9:55 PM
Subject: America in the Middle East, was: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words


> Dan Minette wrote:
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "David Hobby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ...
> > > No.  We are dealing with a pathological minority, backed
> > > up by a large sector of public opinion in the Middle East.  If
> > > we clean up our act, public opinion there will change.
> >
> > I'm in the middle and I have questions to ask of both sides of the
> > arguement.  Your's just happens to be the easiest to ask.  What is the
> > basis of this?  What horrid things have we done in the Middle East.
You
> > mention supporting the Shah in the 50s.
>
> Yes.  This is the argument that I want to be having.
> I might lose it, but it will at least be more sensible.  I'm
> getting tired of having my words twisted on me.
> So we're thinking that American misdeeds should be those
> in the Arab world?  That sounds fair--I imagine the average
> Middle Easterner doesn't even know what we did in Chile, say.
> (As the world gets more "global" this might change, and our
> reputation in one area would have more of an effect on our
> reputation in others.)

It might, but if you look at the South American and Central American
countries, most have some form of representative government.  Compare an
average South American country with an average Middle Eastern country.  So,
even with all the US meddling for the worse, there was enough US
encouragement of the better so that the governments do a far better job
serving the people in South America than they do in the middle east.


> I mentioned the Shah because I believe that the Iranian
> Theocracy came to power partially because of resentment to his
> rule.  But let me do some research...
>
> ---David
>
> > But, we  facilitated the change of government when the Shah was
deposed,
> > about 25 years ago.
>
> (I wouldn't really call it that--we didn't seem to be doing
> much "facilitating" at the time.)

Huh?  I remember a number of things that Jimmy Carter did to help the
transistion along.  He told the Shah that we would not tolerate massive
killings to keep in power.  We found a way out for him. Who knows, if he
acted like Hussein, his son might still be in power.


> Yes, and our "friends" the Saudis are some of the worst.
> It might have made sense to uncritically ally with them during
> the Cold War, but now it is time to insist on some changes there.

How in the world could we insist?  What would we do if they said no?


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gray Davis Recall Election Set for Sep-Oct

[Doug Pensinger]

Jon Gabriel wrote:

 the Bush administration recruited something like a dozen Enron
employees for top-mid level positions so it isn't as if these people
were strangers to one another.


However to play devil's advocate, the administration could have bailed
Enron out and opted not to do so.  Just because members of the current
administration were close to the Enron execs didn't mean those execs
were above the law.
I think if Enron's failure hadn't been so spectacularly miserable, they 
would have bailed them out.

Doug

More pure speculation.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gray Davis Recall Election Set for Sep-Oct

[Doug Pensinger]

Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 07:51 AM 7/25/03 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of pencimen

...

> Enron _and_ the Bush administration.
>
> Or is that what you meant?
Sort of.  Except that there's some superset that they're both part of, 
which
I dare not name.  ;-)




"Politicians"?

"Human beings"?


Criminals?

Doug

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Religion based ethics

[Doug Pensinger]

Russell Chapman wrote:
Doug Pensinger wrote:

But doesn't the randomness of evolution begin to recede once you are 
actually aware of the evolutionary process and actively abet it?

An animal with a successful adaptation is unaware of what that 
adaptation is, but a human with a successful innovation can 
immediately recognize what and why it is successful and continue to 
build upon it.


Not really, because we also hinder it at the same time - handicapped 
people who would never have had the chance to pass on the damaged genes 
in past millenia are now at no disadvantage in terms of conceiving and 
raising a child. If anything, we are increasing the randomness by 
allowing disadvantages to continue and promoting genetic advantages, so 
there's a broader range of genetic variance. Hell, in this century, even 
_I_ can have children and raise them to child bearing age...  :-)

But increasingly, our greatest assets are our minds.  (tried and true 
example follows) How long would Stephen Hawking have lived even a 
hundred years ago?

Essentially, I agree with you, but I think that the advantages of 
allowing more minds to survive has (at least) neutralized the 
disadvantages of allowing genetic disadvantages to survive.

Doug

Pure speculation though.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Stargate: Atlantis

[Gary Nunn]

Another Stargate article (mentions spin-off series)

TV Guide: Stargate returns for Season Eight
JULY 16, 2003

http://makeashorterlink.com/?G5AB26865

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Stargate: Atlantis

[Gary Nunn]

Read about this briefly in TV Guide today and found some stuff online.
Most of the stuff online is dated 2001, but this article seems to be
more recent...

http://makeashorterlink.com/?D19B42865


Some older stories about this
http://www.gateworld.net/news/archive/spinoffnews.shtml

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution

[Julia Thompson]

Doug Pensinger wrote:
> 
> Julia Thompson wrote:
> 
> >
> > Actually, *my* point was I thought that Erik was being a bit cheeky, and
> > I was trying to be cheeky right back at him.  I think Erik got my post
> > better than you did.
> 
> I can't remember seeing such obvious sarcasm whoosh over people's heads
> the way Erik's comments did.

Well, there are people who do deadpan all too well, and I've seen *that*
be taken too seriously.  Plus there was something major on another list
I'm on, sometime during the spring of last year, that wasn't even as
sharp as sarcasm, that started one heckuva flamewar, and when a crucial
detail was explained at a meeting of some of the listmembers, there were
people in *tears*.  So I've seen or known about worse, but not lately,
and not here.

Julia

who learned from the tear-inducing one that you should NOT jump on
someone about the domain in their e-mail address
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Genetic fractions, was Re: The Case for a Marriage...

[Julia Thompson]

David Hobby wrote:
> 
> > > > David Hobby wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The above would have been easier to state if we had general kinship
> > > > > terms based on degrees of genetic relatedness.  Sibling, parent and
> > > > > child are all "halves".  Grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece,
> > > > > nephew, half-sibling, and so on are "quarters".  And you know you're
> > > > > really a redneck if you need fractions which aren't negative powers
> > > > > of two!
> > > >
> > > > Oh, like 17/2^N for some N?  I think that number (not sure what N is)
> > > > describes my kinship relation to a particular someone.  Details
> > > > available upon request.  (Anyone wanting details to actually calculate
> > > > the mess, ask!)
> > > >
> > > > Julia
> >
> > > I'm not sure that I have the courage to ask for your details.
> > > This stuff can get messy fast.  But I bet that your 17/2^N is
> > > of the form 1/2^k + 1/2^(k+4), since that seems easiest.
> >
> > OK, case 1, of the guy related to me where I believe it's 17/2^N:  He is
> > my third cousin from one pair of ancestors; my fourth cousin from a
> > second pair of ancestors; my fourth cousin from a third pair of
> > ancestors; and my sixth cousin from a fourth pair of ancestors.
> >
> > My uncle calculated the degree of relation (all his children are related
> > to him through the same sets of ancestors), and he's slightly more
> > closely related to me than a second cousin would be.  If we know what k
> > is for saying the second-cousin fraction is 1/2^k, then the relation
> > degree is as you give above.  (1/2^k for 2nd cousin, 1/2^(k+4) for sixth
> > cousin.  At least, that's what it ought to be, yes?  Or am I off?  If
> > so, please correct me!)
> 
> That's what I was thinking.  But then I get 1/2^7 for the 3rd
> cousins, 1/2^9 for each time it's 4th cousins, and 1/2^13 for the 6th
> cousins.  Adding is not actually valid, but here it's a good
> approximation.  So I get: (64 + 2*16 + 1)/2^13, which is doesn't
> really get close to 17/2^N for any N.
> I imagine that we are not communicating well.  Let's take
> something as simple as 2nd cousins.  These are individuals who share
> a set of great-grandparents, right?  If they are at different
> "generational levels", then they can't be cousins?
> I do get that first cousins are 1/8th related, while second
> cousins are then 1/32 related, at least with my definition of
> "second cousins".  Help?
> 
> ...
> >
> > Julia
> >
> > who knows how many ancestors she has in common with that cousin at the
> > generation where you'd expect to have 128 ancestors; it's 34.  (And she
> > herself only has 126 there.)
> 
> There should be a formula for genetic relatedness from this
> fact.  Although HOW she had only 126 might well matter...  Ignoring
> that, and assuming that the generations aren't getting mixed up, I
> get:
> Each of your 128 ancestors is 1/128 with you, as are your
> cousin's to her.  So to the extent that adding is valid, there are
> 34 different ways that you are 1/2^14 connected to your cousin,
> giving 34/2^14 = 17/2^13.  (It seems that adding is valid when
> none of your 128 ancestors are themselves related to each other.)

Actually, it's "him", not "her", and the two that make my 126/128
instead of 128/128 are ancestors of his.  Not quite sure what this does,
but if anyone is really trying to come up with a number, that might be
helpful.  (Gender is just clarification, not having to do with any
mathematical relation.  And he read almost no SF in college, but *did*
read _Snow Crash_.  I sent a long list of recommends to him a few years
ago, though, to help him catch up some.)

Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Genetic fractions, was Re: The Case for a Marriage...

[David Hobby]

> > > David Hobby wrote:
> > >
> > > > The above would have been easier to state if we had general kinship
> > > > terms based on degrees of genetic relatedness.  Sibling, parent and
> > > > child are all "halves".  Grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece,
> > > > nephew, half-sibling, and so on are "quarters".  And you know you're
> > > > really a redneck if you need fractions which aren't negative powers
> > > > of two!
> > >
> > > Oh, like 17/2^N for some N?  I think that number (not sure what N is)
> > > describes my kinship relation to a particular someone.  Details
> > > available upon request.  (Anyone wanting details to actually calculate
> > > the mess, ask!)
> > >
> > > Julia
>
> > I'm not sure that I have the courage to ask for your details.
> > This stuff can get messy fast.  But I bet that your 17/2^N is
> > of the form 1/2^k + 1/2^(k+4), since that seems easiest.
> 
> OK, case 1, of the guy related to me where I believe it's 17/2^N:  He is
> my third cousin from one pair of ancestors; my fourth cousin from a
> second pair of ancestors; my fourth cousin from a third pair of
> ancestors; and my sixth cousin from a fourth pair of ancestors.
> 
> My uncle calculated the degree of relation (all his children are related
> to him through the same sets of ancestors), and he's slightly more
> closely related to me than a second cousin would be.  If we know what k
> is for saying the second-cousin fraction is 1/2^k, then the relation
> degree is as you give above.  (1/2^k for 2nd cousin, 1/2^(k+4) for sixth
> cousin.  At least, that's what it ought to be, yes?  Or am I off?  If
> so, please correct me!)

That's what I was thinking.  But then I get 1/2^7 for the 3rd
cousins, 1/2^9 for each time it's 4th cousins, and 1/2^13 for the 6th
cousins.  Adding is not actually valid, but here it's a good 
approximation.  So I get: (64 + 2*16 + 1)/2^13, which is doesn't 
really get close to 17/2^N for any N.
I imagine that we are not communicating well.  Let's take
something as simple as 2nd cousins.  These are individuals who share
a set of great-grandparents, right?  If they are at different 
"generational levels", then they can't be cousins?
I do get that first cousins are 1/8th related, while second
cousins are then 1/32 related, at least with my definition of 
"second cousins".  Help?

...
> 
> Julia
> 
> who knows how many ancestors she has in common with that cousin at the
> generation where you'd expect to have 128 ancestors; it's 34.  (And she
> herself only has 126 there.)

There should be a formula for genetic relatedness from this
fact.  Although HOW she had only 126 might well matter...  Ignoring
that, and assuming that the generations aren't getting mixed up, I 
get:
Each of your 128 ancestors is 1/128 with you, as are your
cousin's to her.  So to the extent that adding is valid, there are
34 different ways that you are 1/2^14 connected to your cousin,
giving 34/2^14 = 17/2^13.  (It seems that adding is valid when
none of your 128 ancestors are themselves related to each other.)

---David
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words

[Julia Thompson]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 7/27/2003 5:48:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> writes:
> 
> > Not to say that the Republicans look all that good in this, but it could
> > have been worse.  (And then the backlash would have been
> > that much more,
> > as well.)
> 
> Worse in what way in 21st Century USA? Had them beaten? Had them lead
> from the Capitol in chains and sent to Quantanamo with the rest of
> the enemies of the US? The 19th century was, well the 19th century.
> Has anything remotely like this happened in the 20th or 21st century
> except in Texas (hey that was another republican adventure wasn't it?)

I've heard accounts of protesters who were arrested in DC.  If any
Congresscritters had been treated that way, yeah, that would have been
worse.  (And those accounts were since January 2001.)

If you're thinking of the Democrats fleeing to Oklahoma in May, yeah,
that was Texas.  The whole redistricting mess.  And the @#$% special
sessions the governor keeps calling for dealing with it aren't making
anyone I talk to, regardless of political affiliation, all that happy. 
(Of course, I'm not talking to Tom DeLay, but at this point, I would not
be inclined to give him the time of day due to his involvement in
redistricting issues.)  I think that no matter what kind of new map
passes, if one does, there WILL be a lawsuit, and the state of Texas is
going to have to spend taxpayer money on the suit instead of things that
could *use* it a lot more, like schools (especially in property-poor
districts) and roads.

Julia

and if you could keep me off that soapbox, please do -- I'm not sure the
stepping up onto it is helping me any
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Justifying the War Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words

[John D. Giorgis]

At 11:26 PM 7/27/2003 -0400 Jon Gabriel wrote:
>> Didn't the Iraqi Information Minister say that the total number of
>> casualties was 100,000?
>
>Hilarious!  
>
>Should we expect your next 'unimpeachable' source to be the Jon Lovitz'
>"Tommy the Liar" character from SNL?

If nothing else, I figured that Michael could not have argued that his
estimate was too low!

Anyhow, I stand corrected - the number of casualties for civilians of all
ages was below 10,000 - or less than the number of children the UN thinks
that Saddam killed every two months by refusing to trade oil for food and
medicine under UN auspices.

JDG
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Justifying the War Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words

[John D. Giorgis]

Michael,

The NY Times reports that the US was considering Iraq as early as 9/13/01.
 You seem to somehow imagine that Bush including Iraq in the "axis of evil"
in January somehow was not a clear signal that the US intended to effect
regime change in Iraq.   Yet, by Presidents Day 2002, again while Bush's
aproval ratings were still high, the Washington Post reporter, albeit
incorrectly, that the Administration had made the decision to attack Iraq
in May of 2002.   Although this report was inaccurate, the fact that the
decision was well enough under discussion for the Post to speculate on the
timing of the attack shows that this decision was not made under
short-orders due to a termporary down-turn in the polls as you suggest.

As for your contention that the only usable intelligence is intelligence
that we know is 100% true - well, that contention simply does not comport
with reality.   Life is full of judgement calls due to imperfect data,
Michael, sometimes you're right, sometimes your wrong - but almost nothing
in life is 100% certain.   Ralph Nader doesn't wait until he has 100% data
to speak out against consumer defects, and the President simply cannot wait
until he has 100% data before deciding to act either.

As for your argument that liberation of  Afghanistan would not have been
justified on September 10th, 2001 - well   I find it most peculiar to hear
the logic of retribution coming from you.The liberation of Afghanistan
was justified because it made the Afghan people better off, end story.
The liberation of Afghanistan was justified because it prevented
Afghanistan from being used as a based of operations for attacks upon us,
end story.   To argue that the liberation of Afghanistan was justified
because the killing of more than 2000  Americans justified killing a large
number of Al Qaeda members is a logic that frankly I find disturbing - and
let this be clear that this is what you are arguing when you say that
retribution is a _necessary_ argument for liberating Afghanistan, without
which the others fail.

In Iraq, the US had standing authorization by the UNSC from 1990 to use,
'all necessary means to enforce all previous and subsequent resolutions
regarding the situation in Iraq.'   Iraq signed an agreement wit the US at
the end of the 1990-1 Gulf War, which it never ever upheld.  Additionally.
it is worth noting that UNSC resolution 1441  was passed unanimously by the
UNSC in the fall of 2002, and was brought up under the same agenda item as
the 'all necessary means' resolution, and indeed, resolution 1441
specifically 'recalled' the 'all necessary means' resolution in its
preamble.   The harm done in waiting for 4 months-to-a-year is that
inspections only resumed after US troops were sent back to the Gulf, and it
would have been exceptionally cost prohibitive for the US to leave one out
of every 1,000 Americans in the Persian Gulf for that period of time,
especially since they would be vulnerable there to terrorist attacks.  The
US had the legal justification - especially since Iraq never complied with
the inspections, so it made the call go in and end the long national
nightmare of 38 million Iraqis.

I think that it is clear to anyone that nuclear weapons are far more
effective killers than biological or chemical weapons.   We have
protections against biological and chemical weapons - which I might add
were distributed to every Israeli citizen.   We have no such defense
against a nuclear blast.   If Iraq developed a nuke, its game over.

You claim that there was no intelligence that Iraq had restarted its
nuclear program - yet somehow the DPRK managed to build nuclear weapons
right underneath our noses, Iran made vast strides in their nuclear program
without us ever knowing it, the US was completely surprised by India's and
Paksitan's nuclear tests (see any opinion piece calling on George Tenet to
resign for evidence), and Iraq came within a year of building a nuclear
weapon in 1991 without us knowing it.   Sorry Michael, but the absence of
evidence is not the absence of evidence.. MOREOVER, the United Nations
Security Council agreed unanimously in resolution 1441 that the burden of
proof was upon Iraq to demonstrate the dismantling of its nuclear,
biological, and chemical weapons programs - and that the burden was not
upon the US to demonstrate that those programs still existed.   Now, you
are free to disagree with the UNSC's unanimously (including Syria I  might
add) assigning the burden in this case uon Iraq - but you'd be taking a
rather extreme position in that case.

Sorry Michael, but nuclear weapons are NOT easy to detect.   In fact, it is
believed that some of them can be made as small as a brief case and of
course, once they reach a US harbor it is already too late to prevent the
incineration of hundreds of thousands.   We had EVERY reason to believe
that Hussein would try to acquire a nuclear weapon the first chance that he
got.   To deny that is to deny reality.

RE: Justifying the War Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words

[Jon Gabriel]

> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of John D. Giorgis
> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 10:50 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: Justifying the War Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
> 
> At 06:24 PM 7/27/2003 -0700 Gautam Mukunda wrote:
> >--- "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I'm glad you brought this up, Michael, because the
> >> answer is between
> >> 100,000 and 200,000.Meanwhile, according to
> >> UNICEF, Saddam Hussein was
> >> kiilling around 5,000 people a day. Of course,
> >> the Left only cares
> >> about people killed by Americans thus if you get
> >> killed in Zimbabwe,
> >> don't expect ANSWER to start rallying international
> >> support to stop the
> >> killing.
> >>
> >> JDG
> >
> >Where did those numbers come from?  200,000?  Not a
> >chance.  There hasn't even been _time_ for that.
> >Direct civilian casualties seem to have been on the
> >order of 1000.
> 
> Didn't the Iraqi Information Minister say that the total number of
> casualties was 100,000?

Hilarious!  

Should we expect your next 'unimpeachable' source to be the Jon Lovitz'
"Tommy the Liar" character from SNL?

:-D

Jon
I'm kidding Maru!



Le Blog:  http://zarq.livejournal.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Gray Davis Recall Election Set for Sep-Oct

[Jon Gabriel]

> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Doug Pensinger
> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 9:16 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: Gray Davis Recall Election Set for Sep-Oct
> 
> Jon Gabriel wrote:
> 
> >
> > No, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under the Bush
> > administration tried to stop California from fighting Enron with
price
> > caps and we can safely assume that this was in part because Enron
was
> > lobbying the Bush administration to do so as reported in AP:
> > (http://www.nctimes.net/news/2002/20020131/53224.html) Consumers
> > definitely got screwed because of that and the general attitude at
the
> > time from the administration seemed to be 'blame the victim', which
was
> > simply inappropriate once the truth about Enron's business practices
was
> > made public.
> >
> > Some googled sites:
> >
> > http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/utilities/pr/pr002556.php3
> > http://www-irps.ucsd.edu/irps/innews/sdut-040401.html
> > http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/story1c020601.html
> >
> > If this were a normal situation, price caps would have been a
terrible
> > idea that would have made the situation worse over time.  Economists
> > publishing in Fortune, the National Review and the Wall Street
Journal
> > all gave very clear and impassioned arguments as to why caps would
> > encourage corporate disinterest in increasing supply or making
upgrades
> > to current equipment in CA.  But afaik, they did so before the truth
> > about Enron's price gouging was revealed.  Since Enron was
deliberately
> > creating a crisis by boosting energy prices through the roof, price
caps
> > weren't just appropriate in this case, they were an absolute
necessity.
> >
> 
> Also worth considering are the extremely close ties Bushco has to the
> company.  I believe I remember reading that Enron CEO Kevin Lay and
the
> Shrub attended each others family functions on a regular basis, and
that
>   the Bush administration recruited something like a dozen Enron
> employees for top-mid level positions so it isn't as if these people
> were strangers to one another.

However to play devil's advocate, the administration could have bailed
Enron out and opted not to do so.  Just because members of the current
administration were close to the Enron execs didn't mean those execs
were above the law.

Jon


Le Blog:  http://zarq.livejournal.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Justifying the War Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words

[Jon Gabriel]

> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of John D. Giorgis
> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 7:31 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Justifying the War Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
> 



> >Your suggestion that the left's inability to form an effective war
plan
> >against terror is a demonstration of bad leadership is not just wrong
(as
> a
> >war plan is entirely uncalled for IMNSHO), it disgusts me that you
> beleive
> >that the republican style of the war on terror is neccessary.  How
many
> >civilians has our war in Iraq killed?
> 
> I'm glad you brought this up, Michael, because the answer is between
> 100,000 and 200,000.Meanwhile, according to UNICEF, Saddam Hussein
was
> kiilling around 5,000 people a day. Of course, the Left only cares
> about people killed by Americans thus if you get killed in
Zimbabwe,
> don't expect ANSWER to start rallying international support to stop
the
> killing.
> 

John, do you have a cite for that statistic?  According to Iraqometer,
the number of civilians killed is 6105.  I haven't seen anything that
suggested more than 100,000 civilians have been killed. 

Jon


Le Blog:  http://zarq.livejournal.com


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Goodbye.

[Michael Harney]

I'm sorry, I can't stay here anymore.  I took an afternoon nap and had a
nightmare.  It was the last straw that pushed me over the edge.  I've had
many dreams about dolphins over the course of my life.  Many pleasant, many
unpleasant, but every dream I've had about dolphins since I rejoined has
been unpleasant.  Judging by content and context of the dreams I've had, I
would say that a part of me that I care a great deal about feels like it is
dying here, and I feel powerless to stop it.  I can't take the nightmares
anymore, I have to leave.

Goodbye.

Any replies to this message should be sent directly to me as I will
unsubscribe once I get confirmation that it was sent to the list.

Michael Harney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

"Good bye, so long, and thanks for all the fish." - Douglas Adams

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

America in the Middle East, was: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words

[David Hobby]

Dan Minette wrote:
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "David Hobby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
...
> > No.  We are dealing with a pathological minority, backed
> > up by a large sector of public opinion in the Middle East.  If
> > we clean up our act, public opinion there will change.
> 
> I'm in the middle and I have questions to ask of both sides of the
> arguement.  Your's just happens to be the easiest to ask.  What is the
> basis of this?  What horrid things have we done in the Middle East.  You
> mention supporting the Shah in the 50s.  

Yes.  This is the argument that I want to be having.
I might lose it, but it will at least be more sensible.  I'm
getting tired of having my words twisted on me.
So we're thinking that American misdeeds should be those 
in the Arab world?  That sounds fair--I imagine the average 
Middle Easterner doesn't even know what we did in Chile, say.
(As the world gets more "global" this might change, and our 
reputation in one area would have more of an effect on our 
reputation in others.)
I mentioned the Shah because I believe that the Iranian
Theocracy came to power partially because of resentment to his 
rule.  But let me do some research...

---David

> But, we  facilitated the change of government when the Shah was deposed,
> about 25 years ago.  

(I wouldn't really call it that--we didn't seem to be doing
much "facilitating" at the time.)

> The main things we have done in the Middle East
> between that time and 9/11 was
> 
> 1) Buy a bunch of oil
> 2) Roll back Hussein's attempt to overtake the Middle East
> 3) Work for Arab oil companies
> 4) Support Israel's right to exist.
> 5) Sell military equipment to less extreme governments in order to decrease
> their obvious vulnerability to other countries, such as Iraq and Iran
...

> Finally, there is one other point worth thinking about.  Via both schools
> and the media, the citizens of the Arab world have been taught a pack of
> lies about the US and Jews.  A good example of this is the multiple
> presentations of  "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as history.  It is
> everywhere from being presented as a top rated television series on
> Egyptian television to being taught in Palestinian schools.
> 
> Why aren't these lies more critical to Arab public opinion than any errors
> the US may have committed in dealing with Arab governments?
> 
> Dan M.

Yes, and our "friends" the Saudis are some of the worst.
It might have made sense to uncritically ally with them during 
the Cold War, but now it is time to insist on some changes there.

---David
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Justifying the War Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words

[John D. Giorgis]

At 06:24 PM 7/27/2003 -0700 Gautam Mukunda wrote:
>--- "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm glad you brought this up, Michael, because the
>> answer is between
>> 100,000 and 200,000.Meanwhile, according to
>> UNICEF, Saddam Hussein was
>> kiilling around 5,000 people a day. Of course,
>> the Left only cares
>> about people killed by Americans thus if you get
>> killed in Zimbabwe,
>> don't expect ANSWER to start rallying international
>> support to stop the
>> killing.
>> 
>> JDG
>
>Where did those numbers come from?  200,000?  Not a
>chance.  There hasn't even been _time_ for that. 
>Direct civilian casualties seem to have been on the
>order of 1000.

Didn't the Iraqi Information Minister say that the total number of
casualties was 100,000?Given Michael's procliviites, I was using that
as something of an upper bound.

JDG
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Conservative psychology

[William T Goodall]

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml

"Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature 
about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of 
political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for 
inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to 
political conservatism include:

* Fear and aggression
* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
* Uncertainty avoidance
* Need for cognitive closure
* Terror management"
...
"The researchers said that conservative ideologies, like virtually all 
belief systems, develop in part because they satisfy some psychological 
needs, but that "does not mean that conservatism is pathological or 
that conservative beliefs are necessarily false, irrational, or 
unprincipled.""

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that,
lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of
their C programs.  -- Robert Firth
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Religion based ethics

[Doug Pensinger]

Dan Minette wrote:

But doesn't the randomness of evolution begin to recede once you are
actually aware of the evolutionary process and actively abet it?


Then, its not really evolution.
So once we become aware we are evolving, we stop evolving?

As I pointed out, the aberrant behavior of the Iriquois allowed them the
greatest power for the greatest time with respect to the Europeans of any
native group.  The 6 nations were afforded some respect by the Europeans
because of their power.
But, as someone else pointed out, their behavior put them in a poor 
position to compete with the Europeans.



In turn, behaviors that eventually prove to
be more successful may have appeared and failed one or more times before
they succeeded.  Evolution.


That only works if you are taking a snapshot of about 50 years of history
and calling it the culmination of history. The US is somewhat unique in
that morality is actually the third priority of foreign policy (after
national security and economic self interest). The US winning the Cold War
was not a certainty.
I was thinking of stuff like the emergence of a form of democracy in 
ancient Greece...

What you appear to be saying is that the system that ends up the dominant
system is, by definition, moral.  If totalitarian systems had won, or
eventually win, will that make individual freedom immoral? 
But that's a non sequitur because that type of system, though it 
continues to emerge, continues to fail.  It's like saying in biological 
evolution, if, under normal circumstances, a clearly inferior design had 
"won" over an inferior one.

This isn't to say that there are  extraordinary cases where a less moral 
system has advantages over a more moral one - suspending rights during 
(a real) war might be an example, but those are the exceptions, not the 
rule.

 If your worst
nightmares come true, and a US theocracy is formed, will that make you
immoral if you are not Christian.  Does might make right?
You see, you are trying to foist moral relativism on me and that isn't 
what this argument is about.  Looking at one particular system that may 
or may not be dominant at any given time doesn't determine what is moral 
and what is not.  It is the trend over time _what_works_ that determines 
our morals.

The argument given above indicates that this is true.  My argument is, that
some things are immoral, even if they prove successful.  It was wrong to
treat the Native Americans as we did, even though the power of our country
is at least partially founded on that immoral behavior.  Would you argue,
by definition, it was right?
You aren't looking at the big picture.  I don't think that you would 
argue that any successful system in our past was free of immoral 
elements would you?  What I see and you apparently don't is that the 
morals of a thousand years ago and the systems that used them are 
clearly inferior to those of today.

Doug

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Arrgh!

[Russell Chapman]

Jan Coffey wrote:

He then tried to build a a water cooler for it with a fishtank pump. The pump
wonder ful design, supper neat to watch it go, but the pump was louder than
the industrial fan.
There are plenty of specifically designed watercooling systems designed 
for overclocked PCs, which just replace the heatsink/fan unit with a 
coupler, and run the pump and radiator separately. If you need to get 
serious, these can be in an enclosure, but they're not particularly 
large or noisy (or expensive).

Cheers
Russell C.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution

[Doug Pensinger]

Julia Thompson wrote:

Actually, *my* point was I thought that Erik was being a bit cheeky, and
I was trying to be cheeky right back at him.  I think Erik got my post
better than you did.
I can't remember seeing such obvious sarcasm whoosh over people's heads 
the way Erik's comments did.

Doug

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Robotic Singularity

[Kanandarqu]

>Erik wrote-
>I think the article asks a good question, which is how the economy
>can be modified to deal with these sorts of things. 

I think one of the deficits of this article is the potential population 
decline in the future.  If you look at the trend of lack of 
replacement rate in many civilized countries, this might dovetail
fairly well with the fear many industries have of losing an
employment pool.  

>One solution was
>outlined in _Beggars in Spain_ by Nancy Kress, with the "donkeys" and
>the "livers". For me, that is something of a nightmare scenario, but
>it does seem to be a likely outcome. 

Haven't read this yet.

>But I'd much rather see most
>children acquiring an education despite the fact that an education is
>not REQUIRED in order to live. But how to motivate people to learn? The
>only answer I can come up with is to continue to balance cooperation
>with competition. Don't give the "livers" everything they want. Provide
>a minimum safety net for free (nutritious but not desirable food,
>minimalist housing and clothing, basic medical care, etc.) and set up
>an economy where people must still compete if they want more than the
>minimum. Medium of exchange would be based on whatever is still scarce
>(land, energy, creative thinking, etc.)

Cooperation and competition do drive people to work together.  Here in the
South, many companies are finding a lack of suitable technically trained
workers.  First the initiative was started to bring local community colleges
in line with industrial needs for CAD training, etc.  People know they can
get local training if they want a job or if they are out of work.  The local 
universities have helped to create partnerships with lesser developed 
areas to raise the general level of education by strong community 
based needs research
 and corporate involvement/committment.  

Dee
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Justifying the War Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm glad you brought this up, Michael, because the
> answer is between
> 100,000 and 200,000.Meanwhile, according to
> UNICEF, Saddam Hussein was
> kiilling around 5,000 people a day. Of course,
> the Left only cares
> about people killed by Americans thus if you get
> killed in Zimbabwe,
> don't expect ANSWER to start rallying international
> support to stop the
> killing.
> 
> JDG

Where did those numbers come from?  200,000?  Not a
chance.  There hasn't even been _time_ for that. 
Direct civilian casualties seem to have been on the
order of 1000.

=
Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Justifying the War Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words

[Michael Harney]

From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> At 03:14 PM 7/27/2003 -0600 Michael Harney wrote:
> >The war on Iraq wasn't about liberating Iraq, it wasn't about weapons of
> >mass destruction or terrorism.  It was entirely politically motivated.
The
> >republicans saw their approval failing after Osama Bin Laden evaded
capture,
> >and, wanting some sort of evil figurehead detained or killed as a trophy
> >that people in the US can applaud, they chose to attack our most recent
war
> >enemy Saddam Hussain (sp?).
>
> This is nonsense, Michael.   President Bush declared that Iraq was a
member
> of the "axis of evil" in January of 2002 when his approval ratings were
> sky-high.  Try another theory.

Unneccesary, many countries were named in the axis of evil.  It was the
choice to go to war with them that was politically motivated.

>  >(and by golly, the military took every shot they could when they even
> >just had questionable evidence that he was at a given location... at
least
> >three attempts to kill him using missle strikes, at least one of those on
a
> >civilian target, all missed killing the intended person).
>
> So, the US should not have tried to kill Saddam and using missile strikes
> to try and do so was wrong?   Are you serious

Firing on a civilian target when your intelligence is as sketchy as someone
thinking they heard someone over a phone who sounded like Saddam.  Yes, bad
thing.  He obviously wasn't there, and civilians were killed in the attack.
Didn't the intelligence also say his two sons were there too?  That was
(obviously) wrong as well.

> >They committed a very
> >criminal act that resulted in the deaths of thousands of people and
> >retribution was called for.
>
> Do you really believe that the liberation of Afghanistan was justified
> solely by retribution?I mean, I don't even consider retribution to be
> in the Top Ten of reasons for the US to liberate Afghanistan and
> indeed, I'm not sure that it is a reason at all.

I never said *solely* by retribution now did I?  Give me the Letterman top
ten.  Tell me that September 11th isn't one of the reasons people in this
country said "go kick Al Quida's butt."  Your living in a dream world if you
think it wasn't reason Number 1.  For sure, there were other reasons, but
those reasons weren't adequate before the September 11th attacks.

> >What did Iraq do though?  Nothing.  They had no
> >proven ties to the attacks of September 11th.  Should we wait for them to
> >attack us or one of our allies before we attack them?  Damn right we
should.
> >Otherwise it is we who are the terrorists, it is we who are the
criminals.
>
> Actually, on 2 August 1990 Iraq suddenly attacked Kuwait.In early
1991,
> Iraq signed a cease-fire with the United States, a cease-fire whose terms
> they have never abided by.   Case closed.


Hardly, the U.S. broke proper channels when it acted outside the U.N. Other
countries would have liked a stronger inspection regime before invading
Iraq, and really, Saddam was less of a threat to us then than he was in 1991
after the cease fire.  What damage would it have done to wait another 4
months, or, if as you might argue, the summer weather would be prohibitive,
a year?  You yourself said we never had a majority of the security council
support, France's veto be damned, we didn't even have the majority.


> >If this war really was about weapons of mass destruction, why aren't we
> >going to war against Isreal and North Korea for their illegal nuclear
> >weapons programs?  Case and point: it simply isn't about that, it is all
> >about politics.  Disgusting.
>
> What's disgusting Michael is your inability to comprehend that an attack
on
> a country that already has a nuclear weapon would very likely result in
the
> incineration of hundreds of thousands of people - to say nothing of the
> hundreds of thousands of civillians that would die in Seoul thanks to DPRK
> artillery shells.  Once Iraq gets a nuclear weapon, Michael its game
over -
> unless of course you advocate direct confrontations between nuclear
powers.
>
> Let's consider for a moment what might have happened had Iraq waited to
> attack Kuwait until 2 August 1992.   We now know that Saddam Hussein would
> likely have shocked the world by successfully testing a nuclear weapon at
> this time.   Thus a nuclear-armed Saddam rolls into Kuwait and begins
> pushing on into Saudi Arabia - and he declares that if the US sends troops
> to Saudi Arabia that he will lob a couple nuclear weapons into Tel Aviv
and
> Haifa.*Now* what, Michael?


Your scenario is flawwed.  U.S. intelligence suggested that Saddam had
enough anthrax, VX gas, and other agents to kill every person on the planet
at least a couple of times.  Of course that would require perfect dispersal,
but it wouldn't have been a stretch to say that if U.S. intelligence was
correct, Saddam could easily have killed millions in Iraq and neighboring
nations with such an arsenal.  Yet he didn't, and

Re: When does it end? (RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words)

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> We would then be at war for at least a decade. Does
> that mean we can't criticize bush or the gop for
> that long? Golly

Which, of course, no one is saying, except those
making indefensible criticisms and they trying to hide
their partisan motivations behind a smokescreen of
protested innocence.  

=
Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> So it really depends on who the "left" is. If you
> are talking about moderate democrats and liberals,
> their plan would have been much the same as Bush's
> sans the alienation of the rest of the world and the
> war on Iraq this year (maybe not; Some in Clinton's
> white house wanted to take Sadaam out so with a
> changed political climate this might have happened
> anyway). If you are talking about the real left (not
> just the left of center liberals), who cares?

Do you seriously believe that if any person other than
Bush were President we would have taken out Saddam by
now?  Really?

Also, the goal of international relations is not
_popularity_.  The world is not a high school.  Bush
_used_ the sympathy 9/11 generated to make possible
something that would not have been possible without it
- the removal of Saddam Hussein, something that was
clearly not in the interest of anyone in the region or
in Europe (save England).  His ability to do that was
diplomatic skill of the highest order.

=
Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gray Davis Recall Election Set for Sep-Oct

[Doug Pensinger]

Jon Gabriel wrote:

No, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under the Bush
administration tried to stop California from fighting Enron with price
caps and we can safely assume that this was in part because Enron was
lobbying the Bush administration to do so as reported in AP:
(http://www.nctimes.net/news/2002/20020131/53224.html) Consumers
definitely got screwed because of that and the general attitude at the
time from the administration seemed to be 'blame the victim', which was
simply inappropriate once the truth about Enron's business practices was
made public.  

Some googled sites: 

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/utilities/pr/pr002556.php3
http://www-irps.ucsd.edu/irps/innews/sdut-040401.html
http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/story1c020601.html
If this were a normal situation, price caps would have been a terrible
idea that would have made the situation worse over time.  Economists
publishing in Fortune, the National Review and the Wall Street Journal
all gave very clear and impassioned arguments as to why caps would
encourage corporate disinterest in increasing supply or making upgrades
to current equipment in CA.  But afaik, they did so before the truth
about Enron's price gouging was revealed.  Since Enron was deliberately
creating a crisis by boosting energy prices through the roof, price caps
weren't just appropriate in this case, they were an absolute necessity. 

Also worth considering are the extremely close ties Bushco has to the 
company.  I believe I remember reading that Enron CEO Kevin Lay and the 
Shrub attended each others family functions on a regular basis, and that 
 the Bush administration recruited something like a dozen Enron 
employees for top-mid level positions so it isn't as if these people 
were strangers to one another.

Doug

Beyond suspicious.



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words

[Kanandarqu]

>Erik wrote-
>Really? I have heard many people claim that "everybody talks" when
>tortured. In the movies, the tortures that are applied seem so tame
>and unimaginative. Perhaps I have an unusually sadistic imagination,
>but I can imagine tortures that I don't think anyone could possibly
>endure without talking. (They could give false information, of course,
>but the torturer would make it clear that their information would be
>spot-checked and if it did not check out the torturer would be back)

Having met a few people that have been through SEER. (Search, 
Escape, Evasion and Resistance as best I can recall), torturers
have imagination.  Soldiers who go through training learn to plan
to survive- what I recall participants saying is to try to survive
24-48 hours is the critical time.  You learn a story close enough
to your own that you won't get tripped up, and you give the info
you have to protecting what you can. 
Dee
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Arrgh!

[Jan Coffey]

--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 03:36:28PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
> 
> > Water cooled is definaly a possible first step. Anyone have any other
> > ideas for keeping the video card cool? Anyone know of a 450W power
> > supply with a quiet fan?
> 
> I think the ultimate in quiet and powerful would be to build a
> soundproof box to put the entire case inside. Of course, soundproof
> (plexiglass and foam box would work) probably also means thermally
> insulating. So you have to find a quiet way to get the heat out of the
> soundproof box. One way to do that would be to run two pipes or hoses
> through the box for coolant, with a big heatsink inside connected to the
> coolant. Then you have the problem of creating a quiet recirculating
> cooler. Or you could put the recirculating cooler outside the house,
> like a central air conditioning heat exchanger. Or if you don't mind
> using a lot of water, you could just run cold water constantly through
> the box and down the drain.

If you believe that propa.just kidding :)

The Carillion audio computer is just that soundproof case. They use a very
very quiet fan and as you say below, a couple of steps back from the state of
the art, so that there are less thermal issues.

My neigbot built a supper overclocked computer but to keep it fan he had to
run an industrial fan on the case. The fan was the same size as the case.

He then tried to build a a water cooler for it with a fishtank pump. The pump
wonder ful design, supper neat to watch it go, but the pump was louder than
the industrial fan. He is considering putting the pump in the basement or
garage and pumping the water from there. I want to go the other way and move
the computer to the basement and run wireing up to the house. I don't think
ata cable will have that kind of reach though. Anyone know?

> Or you could just buy CPUs and graphics cards that are about 2 steps
> down from state of the art, they are usually more optimized for low
> power/low heat production. Then you could design a system that doesn't
> need forced air cooling at all (like many notebook computers before the
> P4).
> 
> -- 
> "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   http://www.erikreuter.net/
> ___
> http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l


=
_
   Jan William Coffey
_

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Arrgh!

[Jan Coffey]

--- Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 03:36 PM 7/26/03 -0700, Jan Coffey wrote:
> 
> >--- Reggie Bautista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Bryon wrote:
> > > >I think it'd be more fun
> > > >to mount a jumbo AC fan on the side...  :-)
> > >
> > > As long as either your hard drive or you fan motor are magnetically
> > > shielded
> > > well enough... :-)
> >
> >I have two computers that get used most frequently. One is a Clariion
> audio
> >computer which is not the latest grates, but runs quite for studio
> recording.
> >
> >It has 1 (ONE) fan and never has heating problems. 845 chipset 2.2 Ghz.
> You
> >cn't even tell that it's on. The micropone however still picks up a lot of
> >noise so I wired keyboard, mouse, 2 monitors, audio breakout cable, midi
> >switch cable, usb, and firewire to wall outlets and the computer sits in
> an
> >un-airconditioned cclosed loset with soundproof lyning.
> >
> >The other machine is a game machine with a 2.4 Ghz HT (C) 12 fans total,
> >radon 9800 pro with component hdtv video out via a dvi to component
> >converter. 895p chipset, Giant aluminium case. The thing sounds like an
> air
> >conditioning unit.
> >
> >My next project is to make the vieocentric computer more quit so I can
> >actualy use it in a Qubase network. Even being on a differnt floor and the
> >other side of the house form the studio I can't have it on while
> recording.
> >
> >Water cooled is definaly a possible first step. Anyone have any other
> ideas
> >for keeping the video card cool? Anyone know of a 450W power supply with a
> >quiet fan?
> 
> 
> 
> Um, one in a different room?
> 

to claify it's 875p chipset not 895. and the computer is, as I said (but
perhaps not in a way that was understood) the "loaud" comuter is in a
comleatly different room on a differnt level of the house. Still it's so
loaud that I have to turn it off when recording (upstairs in a different part
of the house). I tried getting a quiter power supply, but it simply heated
the case to the point where the heat alarm went off.

I'm begingin to consider how long ata cards can be made. put the computers in
the basement and the run the drives etc. up to the house :).

=
_
   Jan William Coffey
_

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution

[Erik Reuter]

On Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 07:34:35PM -0400, John D. Giorgis wrote:

> In that case, I think that I got Erik's post (both the cheeky and the
> serious content) better than you did.

No, you did not, JDG, based on your earlier comment which was exactly
opposite.


-- 
"Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: What is a homemaker worth?

[Russell Chapman]

Robert Seeberger wrote:

 (Overall, 13% of the
nation's households include a stay-at-home spouse.)
That's an amazing figure. I wonder what the figure was in 1953 or even 
1963. I don't know about the US, but our TV ads for household products 
typically portray a traditional housewife - makes me think advertisers 
have lost touch with their market (or believe that women yearn to be 
stay-at-home domestic engineers).

Cheers
Russell C.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution

[John D. Giorgis]

>> At 02:32 PM 7/25/2003 -0500 Julia Thompson wrote:
>> >Erik Reuter wrote:
>> >
>> >> You just insulted all bigots while trying to insult me!
>> >
>> >Personally, I'm prejudiced against bigots.
>> 
>> Exactly.   The point being that Erik is being wholly unproductive, uncivil,
>> and unapologetic for equating prejudice against bigots with prejudice
>> against Catholics and homosexuals.
>
>Actually, *my* point was I thought that Erik was being a bit cheeky, and
>I was trying to be cheeky right back at him.  I think Erik got my post
>better than you did.

In that case, I think that I got Erik's post (both the cheeky and the
serious content) better than you did.

JDG 
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Justifying the War Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words

[John D. Giorgis]

At 03:14 PM 7/27/2003 -0600 Michael Harney wrote:
>The war on Iraq wasn't about liberating Iraq, it wasn't about weapons of
>mass destruction or terrorism.  It was entirely politically motivated.  The
>republicans saw their approval failing after Osama Bin Laden evaded capture,
>and, wanting some sort of evil figurehead detained or killed as a trophy
>that people in the US can applaud, they chose to attack our most recent war
>enemy Saddam Hussain (sp?). 

This is nonsense, Michael.   President Bush declared that Iraq was a member
of the "axis of evil" in January of 2002 when his approval ratings were
sky-high.  Try another theory.

 >(and by golly, the military took every shot they could when they even
>just had questionable evidence that he was at a given location... at least
>three attempts to kill him using missle strikes, at least one of those on a
>civilian target, all missed killing the intended person).  

So, the US should not have tried to kill Saddam and using missile strikes
to try and do so was wrong?   Are you serious  

>They committed a very
>criminal act that resulted in the deaths of thousands of people and
>retribution was called for.  

Do you really believe that the liberation of Afghanistan was justified
solely by retribution?I mean, I don't even consider retribution to be
in the Top Ten of reasons for the US to liberate Afghanistan and
indeed, I'm not sure that it is a reason at all. 

>What did Iraq do though?  Nothing.  They had no
>proven ties to the attacks of September 11th.  Should we wait for them to
>attack us or one of our allies before we attack them?  Damn right we should.
>Otherwise it is we who are the terrorists, it is we who are the criminals.

Actually, on 2 August 1990 Iraq suddenly attacked Kuwait.In early 1991,
Iraq signed a cease-fire with the United States, a cease-fire whose terms
they have never abided by.   Case closed.  

>If this war really was about weapons of mass destruction, why aren't we
>going to war against Isreal and North Korea for their illegal nuclear
>weapons programs?  Case and point: it simply isn't about that, it is all
>about politics.  Disgusting.

What's disgusting Michael is your inability to comprehend that an attack on
a country that already has a nuclear weapon would very likely result in the
incineration of hundreds of thousands of people - to say nothing of the
hundreds of thousands of civillians that would die in Seoul thanks to DPRK
artillery shells.  Once Iraq gets a nuclear weapon, Michael its game over -
unless of course you advocate direct confrontations between nuclear powers.  

Let's consider for a moment what might have happened had Iraq waited to
attack Kuwait until 2 August 1992.   We now know that Saddam Hussein would
likely have shocked the world by successfully testing a nuclear weapon at
this time.   Thus a nuclear-armed Saddam rolls into Kuwait and begins
pushing on into Saudi Arabia - and he declares that if the US sends troops
to Saudi Arabia that he will lob a couple nuclear weapons into Tel Aviv and
Haifa.*Now* what, Michael?  

You have argued that it is terrorist and criminal to attack a country that
has not attacked you or one of your allies  so, you simply wait for
that country to build nuclear weapons and *then* attack your allies?   

By the way - of the recent developments in the nuclear programs of the
DPRK, India, Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq over the past 15 years - how many
occurred with the knowledge of US intelligence sources?   

I'll give you a hint - the answer is a very round number so I wouldn"t
count on being able to know when a successful test is "imminent" if that is
your plan.

>Let me illustrate the blatant lack of perspective that the majority of this
>country has.  All of the following are more likely to kill someone in the
>U.S. than a terrorist attack:

Only because Iraq has so far been successfully prevented from developing
nuclear weapons and selling them to the highest bidder.

Michael, a nuclear bomb going off in NYC would kill millions of people...
so that statistic of yours is absolutely meaningless.  

>Your suggestion that the left's inability to form an effective war plan
>against terror is a demonstration of bad leadership is not just wrong (as a
>war plan is entirely uncalled for IMNSHO), it disgusts me that you beleive
>that the republican style of the war on terror is neccessary.  How many
>civilians has our war in Iraq killed? 

I'm glad you brought this up, Michael, because the answer is between
100,000 and 200,000.Meanwhile, according to UNICEF, Saddam Hussein was
kiilling around 5,000 people a day. Of course, the Left only cares
about people killed by Americans thus if you get killed in Zimbabwe,
don't expect ANSWER to start rallying international support to stop the
killing.

JDG
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize 

Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words

[John D. Giorgis]

At 06:49 PM 7/27/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> 
>> QUESTION 1)  The British inform us that they have learned that Iraq has
>> recently tried to acquire significant quantities of intelligence in Africa.
>> 
>> The Bush Administration naturally tries to verify this claim, but cannot
>> do so.   They tell the British that we can't verify their claim.   The
>> British respond that they cannot reveal their intelligence sources on this,
>> but they assure us that the intelligence is of the highest quality.
>> 
>> At this point, do you;
>> a) Call the British liars since our intelligece services have such strong
>> reservations about it?
>> b) Call the British incompetent for giving us intelligence that our own
>> intelligence services has not verified, and indeed has strong doubts about?
>> c) Ignore the British intelligence as questionable?
>> d) Accept that the British intelligence services may have access to sources
>> our own do not, particularly in Africa, and that the British intelligence
>> services are generally considered among the best and most reliable in the
>> world, and BELIEVE the British intelligence report?  
>> 
>> Your choice.   What do you do?
>> 
>> I look forward to your, Nick's, and Ritu's answers to  this question.
>> 
>> YOU LEAVE OUT OF THE STATE OF THE UNION MESSAGE. YOU DO NOT USE IT TO
TRY TO CONVINCE AMERICANS THAT WE MUST GO TO WAR UNTIL YOU CAN AT LEAST
CONVINCE YOUR OWN INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY THAT THE STATEMENT IS TRUE
>

The State of the Union is irrelevant to this example."Leaving it out of
the State of the Union" is an action that is consistent with actions a, b,
c, and d above.  

So, which is it, Bob?Before you decide whether or not to include it in
the State of the Union, you have to make the more fundamental determination
of a, b, c, or d.  

JDG - Tough Decisions, Maru - but he is the POTUS after all
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words

[Bemmzim]

In a message dated 7/27/2003 5:48:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

> Not to say that the Republicans look all that good in this, but it could
> have been worse.  (And then the backlash would have been 
> that much more,
> as well.)

Worse in what way in 21st Century USA? Had them beaten? Had them lead from the Capitol 
in chains and sent to Quantanamo with the rest of the enemies of the US? The 19th 
century was, well the 19th century. Has anything remotely like this happened in the 
20th or 21st century except in Texas (hey that was another republican adventure wasn't 
it?)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words

[John D. Giorgis]

At 06:40 PM 7/27/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Uhhh because finding WMD's was considered a very nice way of deterring
>> criticism of the war?
>> 
>so in your mind it is ok to use WMD to deter criticsm even if the threat 
>of WMD (at least nuclear) was unsubstantiated. 

Good grief, you really do have an unlimited ability to twist things to
criticize Republicans.   If you at all paid attention to the context of
the discussion, it is clear as to what I am referring to.   Someone asked
me why we were searching for WMD's in Iraq if it was unlikely that we could
keep them all out of the hands of the retreating/disappearing Baathists.
I noted that if you justify a war by claiming that country isn't disarming
itself of WMD, and critics of the war argue that that country really didn't
have any WMD, then finding at least a few WMD's is an important part of the
political process of justifying the war - since the US is a republic after
all, and  wars have to be justified - even if you prefer not to.  :)



JDG
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words

[John D. Giorgis]

At 06:33 PM 7/27/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I wonder if the republicans in congress would have really elected bush 
>if a recount of the vote in florida showed that Gore had won by a few
thousand 
>votes.

You can wonder all you want - except that we now know that no such result
would have ever happened. the only recount that would have even
produced the slightest of Gore wins was a recount that both the Gore
campaign and the FLSC rejected.   Indeed, it was the FLSC's rejection of
that exact recount that got the FLSC's-mandated recount ruled
unconstitutional by the USSC.

Yes Virginia, the *only* people in the Florida recount affair who made a
decision that would have produced a Gore victory were the five Republicans
on the USSC. 

History is full of ironies.

JDG
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words

[John D. Giorgis]

At 05:43 PM 7/27/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> We do not know the result of a popular vote in which every vote would count.
> Under those outlandish circumstances (each individual's vote counts the same
> regardless of where it was cast) Bush might have gone after votes in
populous 
> states like NY and Cal where he had no chance of gaining the electoral
votes.

> Bush won (Not fair and square but he won with the help of his friends on the
> court).

Ahem, how exactly did Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy become
"friends" George W. Bush?(I'm not aware any friendship between
Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas and GWB - but I suppose its possible, and in
those cases you could at least imagine an ideological affinity.)

Additionally, how exactly did the actions of the USSC impact the eventual
outcome of the 2000 Presidential election?  

Lastly, if Al Gore had won the 2000 election, would you be bitterly
complaining that he did so thanks to his partisans on the Florida Supreme
Court?

JDG
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words

[John D. Giorgis]

At 04:48 PM 7/27/2003 -0500 Julia Thompson wrote:
>I'd have to agree with John here.  There's a definite difference in
>degree, if not kind, between trying to have someone arrested and
>actually inflicting that kind of bodily damage.

And its unclear that "arrest" is even the proper word to describe what the
Chairman tried to do - since I don't think that even if the Chairman's
request had been carried out that the Democratic Representatives would have
been detained, placed in jail, or had charges filed against them.

At any rate, caning another Congreesman, literally nearly to death, on the
floor of Congress is far worse.   

JDG
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, 
   it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words

[Bemmzim]

> 
> QUESTION 1)  The British inform us that they have learned that Iraq has
> recently tried to acquire significant quantities of intelligence in Africa.
> 
> The Bush Administration naturally tries to verify this claim, but cannot
> do so.   They tell the British that we can't verify their claim.   The
> British respond that they cannot reveal their intelligence sources on this,
> but they assure us that the intelligence is of the highest quality.
> 
> At this point, do you;
> a) Call the British liars since our intelligece services have such strong
> reservations about it?
> b) Call the British incompetent for giving us intelligence that our own
> intelligence services has not verified, and indeed has strong doubts about?
> c) Ignore the British intelligence as questionable?
> d) Accept that the British intelligence services may have access to sources
> our own do not, particularly in Africa, and that the British intelligence
> services are generally considered among the best and most reliable in the
> world, and BELIEVE the British intelligence report?  
> 
> Your choice.   What do you do?
> 
> I look forward to your, Nick's, and Ritu's answers to  this question.
> 
> YOU LEAVE OUT OF THE STATE OF THE UNION MESSAGE. YOU DO NOT USE IT TO TRY TO 
> CONVINCE AMERICANS THAT WE MUST GO TO WAR UNTIL YOU CAN AT LEAST CONVINCE YOUR OWN 
> INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY THAT THE STATEMENT IS TRUE
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words

[Bemmzim]

> 
> QUESTION 1)  The British inform us that they have learned that Iraq has
> recently tried to acquire significant quantities of intelligence in Africa.
> 
> The Bush Administration naturally tries to verify this claim, but cannot
> do so.   They tell the British that we can't verify their claim.   The
> British respond that they cannot reveal their intelligence sources on this,
> but they assure us that the intelligence is of the highest quality.
> 
> At this point, do you;
> a) Call the British liars since our intelligece services have such strong
> reservations about it?
> b) Call the British incompetent for giving us intelligence that our own
> intelligence services has not verified, and indeed has strong doubts about?
> c) Ignore the British intelligence as questionable?
> d) Accept that the British intelligence services may have access to sources
> our own do not, particularly in Africa, and that the British intelligence
> services are generally considered among the best and most reliable in the
> world, and BELIEVE the British intelligence report?  
> 
> Your choice.   What do you do?
> 
> I look forward to your, Nick's, and Ritu's answers to  this question.
> 
> YOU LEAVE OUT OF THE STATE OF THE UNION MESSAGE. YOU DO NOT USE IT TO TRY TO 
> CONVINCE AMERICANS THAT WE MUST GO TO WAR UNTIL YOU CAN AT LEAST CONVINCE YOUR OWN 
> INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY THAT THE STATEMENT IS TRUE
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: When does it end? (RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words)

[Bemmzim]

In a message dated 7/25/2003 10:22:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

> 1) The establishment of a secure, viable and independent Palestine
> alongside Israel.
> 
> 2) Regime change in Iran, Syria, Lybia, Saudi Arabia, 
> Egypt, and the DPRK

We would then be at war for at least a decade. Does that mean we can't criticize bush 
or the gop for that long? Golly
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words

[Bemmzim]

In a message dated 7/25/2003 9:28:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

> I think that's Gautam's point.   If, as you seem to agree, the Left is
> simply incapable of coming up with a coherent war plan against terrorism,
> then the Left is inherently unqualified and unworthy to hold high political
> office in the United States for the future as far as we can 
> see.

So it really depends on who the "left" is. If you are talking about moderate democrats 
and liberals, their plan would have been much the same as Bush's sans the alienation 
of the rest of the world and the war on Iraq this year (maybe not; Some in Clinton's 
white house wanted to take Sadaam out so with a changed political climate this might 
have happened anyway). If you are talking about the real left (not just the left of 
center liberals), who cares?
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words

[Bemmzim]

> Uhhh because finding WMD's was considered a very nice way of deterring
> criticism of the war?
> 
> 
so in your mind it is ok to use WMD to deter criticsm even if the threat of WMD (at 
least nuclear) was unsubstantiated. So it was therefore ok to lie to the american 
people about the real purposes of the war. So it was ok that the government not trust 
the american people to make a considered opinion based on the truth? So it was ok 
because the government knows what is best to hell with that peskly government by the 
people stuff?
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words

[Bemmzim]

In a message dated 7/25/2003 9:09:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

> The fact that a Committee Chairman in the House is making
> that tradeoff in a way that the minority disagrees with is hardly new.
> Thus, I know that I am not a hypocrite, as you accuse, because Democratic
> Committee Charimen in the House most certainly have rammed bills through
> Committee in the past - and I know that I have never 
> complained terribly
> loudly about it.

Unless I missed the point, the problem was that the republican sent the capital police 
to arrest (or do something else nasty) to the dems who were trying to meet about the 
bill. In addition, the dems had not actually seen the changes they were being asked to 
vote on. So it is a bit more than trying to ram something through.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words

[Bemmzim]

In a message dated 7/25/2003 8:54:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

> 
> 
> > Eh, probably not.  I have an almost reflexive need to point out the
> truth - and ultimately I consider this growing urban legend that the USSC
> somehow changed the outcome of the 2000 election to be most damaging to our
> country.

I wonder if the republicans in congress would have really elected bush if a recount of 
the vote in florida showed that Gore had won by a few thousand votes. I think some 
would have correctly viewed this act as an abrobation of their resonsibilities to 
americans. I doubt that Bush could have governed effectively under these 
circumstances. He would have gotten no cross over dem votes. He would have been viewed 
by 
Americans as illegtimate. It might have seriously damaged the republican party in the 
future (I think it still may).

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Gray Davis Recall Election Set for Sep-Oct

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 07:51 AM 7/25/03 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of pencimen
...

> Enron _and_ the Bush administration.
>
> Or is that what you meant?
Sort of.  Except that there's some superset that they're both part of, which
I dare not name.  ;-)


"Politicians"?

"Human beings"?



--Ronn! :)

I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon.
I never dreamed that I would see the last.
--Dr. Jerry Pournelle
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Robotic Singularity

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 11:24 AM 7/27/03 -0400, Jim Sharkey wrote:

While there is an element of hysteria in this article, I too find the 
American fascination with automating *everything* disturbing.  However, I 
find it disturbing for an additional reason.

First off, I agree that it seems that no one has really thought this 
automation thing through.  I still think the author of this essay is a 
little over the top, but I wonder what's going to happen to the people in 
this country that lack the intelligence and skills to do anything but low 
wage jobs here as we autmate everything.

This may tag me as some kind of Luddite, but I find it appalling that 
people can't wait to excise as much human contact from their lives as 
possible.  I know people that would rather eat nails than actually have to 
go to the bank for three whole minutes.  No one's time is really that 
important, is it?


One answer is that the "three minutes" you mention do not include the 
fifteen to thirty minutes waiting in line for everyone else to do their 
three minutes' worth before you get your chance to do your three minutes' 
worth.  Add that to the time required to drive to the bank during lunch 
hour when everyone else and his brother is also trying to drive to the bank 
to do his three minutes' worth during the same lunch hour, and some people 
would indeed rather eat nails, or at least decide that having their 
paycheck direct deposited¹ into their account and getting cash when they 
need some from an ATM is a better use of their time than going through the 
above process every (weekly/semimonthly/monthly/whatever) payday.

_
¹Also, some employers now no longer give you a choice of getting a paper 
paycheck and taking it to the bank and standing in line (or idling in line 
at the drive-thru), but will only pay you through direct deposit into your 
bank account.  While convenient, this also can cause problems if they screw 
up something and that ends up screwing up your bank account.



--Ronn! :)

I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon.
I never dreamed that I would see the last.
--Dr. Jerry Pournelle
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Robotic Singularity

[Andrew Crystall]

On 27 Jul 2003 at 15:59, Julia Thompson wrote:

> Also, how much longer will Moore's Law hold?  It gets to where part of
> what's making things faster is that the size of components on a chip
> are shrinking; there's some finite limit to that beyond which
> shrinking is impossible.  Then we have to use other methods on the
> same hardware to increase speed, or go in a totally different
> direction with it.

Some other directions ARE being explored. For example, IBM has purely 
optical chips in development. I seem to remember them demonstrating 
one running at ~200Mhz about a year back.

And there are other things as well as optic paths on motherboards, 
evolveware and so on. I think we're going to see things handed off 
more to specalist sub-CPU's and for massively enhanced bus 
bandwidths. Could be wrong of course, but we'll see.

Andy
Dawn Falcon

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: I have returned from paradise

[Ronn!Blankenship]

That would have been #1 on my list . . .

Here's the address for info and to find out how to download it:

<>

The function we are describing is found under Image | Resize/Resample.

At 04:08 PM 7/27/03 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would propose Irfanview, which has a nice Batch Process utility and is
freeware for private use (I use it for my shkrinking of images for the
website)...
Regards
Armin
> --
> From: Ronn!Blankenship[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Reply To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Sent: Freitag, 25. Juli 2003 23:54
> To:   Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject:  RE: I have returned from paradise
...
> > > I have to figure out how to shrink the pics we took, though.  My wife
...
> And if Jon can't help you with that, I can make some suggestions for
> freeware programs you can download from the 'net which will do the
...




--Ronn! :)

I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon.
I never dreamed that I would see the last.
--Dr. Jerry Pournelle
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words

[Julia Thompson]

John Garcia wrote:
> 
> On Thursday, July 24, 2003, at 11:50  AM, The Fool wrote:
> 
> >
> > Friday browncoat republicans in the house of representatives called the
> > police to arrest and remove democratic representatives from a library
> > in
> > the house of representatives.  The future is here and now.  Never
> > before
> > has something so shocking happened in the history of the united states.
> 
> Worse has happened. I would say the incident where Congressman Preston
> Brooks beat Senator Charles Sumner nearly to death on the Senate floor
> over Sumner's speech on "Bleeding Kansas" was worse.

I'd have to agree with John here.  There's a definite difference in
degree, if not kind, between trying to have someone arrested and
actually inflicting that kind of bodily damage.

Not to say that the Republicans look all that good in this, but it could
have been worse.  (And then the backlash would have been that much more,
as well.)

Julia

who still thinks that Gov. Perry needs a proctocraniectomy, and that
he's not doing anything to make Republicans terribly popular in Texas
right now
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: [Listref] Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined

[Jon Gabriel]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Robert Seeberger
> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 12:57 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Listref] Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than
Imagined
> 
> http://www.spacedaily.com/news/materials-03w.html
> 
> Space elevators have an image problem, mainly due to two prominent
science
> fiction novels. They appear either ungainly impossible, or so
potentially
> dangerous to the planet itself you would never dream of building one.
With
> the science now indicating that they are potentially near-term
transport
> systems, it's time to review the fiction in relation to the possible
> reality.
> Three publications by Pearson in 1975/6/7 and work done by Moravec and
> published in the Journal of the Astronautical Sciences in 1977 were
enough
> to prompt Arthur C Clarke to write "The Fountains of Paradise" and
Charles
> Sheffield "The Web Between the Worlds" - both published in 1979.
> 

 

> Red Mars
> The next great opinion-forming novel was "Red Mars", by Kim Stanley
> Robinson
> in 1992. A captured asteroid is mined using nanotechnology to extend a
> graphite cable 37,000km down to the surface.
> 
> Elevator cars take several days to make the journey, and are thirty
> stories
> high. But the main image from this incarnation is when the cable is
> brought
> down by revolutionary action. It twists around the planet at 21,000km
per
> hour, with horrific consequences.
> 
> "Red Mars" was part of a trilogy. In "Green Mars", a replacement cable
is
> made using Carbon Nanotubes from another captured asteroid. Cars
travel up
> and down the cable at the same time to minimize energy losses. It's no
> coincidence that both these cables are called 'Clarke'.
> 

Minor Nitpick: The asteroid that the cable was attached to was named
'Clarke'.  The cable itself had no name except perhaps 'the cable'. 

Jon


Le Blog:  http://zarq.livejournal.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words

[Bemmzim]

In a message dated 7/25/2003 1:08:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

> Uh, didja forget?  Gore *did* win -- the vote, anyway.  
> Just not the office
> that usually goes with it.

I am not one who thinks that Gore won. The popular vote does not determine the final 
result and therefore candidates do not attempt to win it. We do not know the result of 
a popular vote in which every vote would count. Under those outlandish circumstances 
(each individual's vote counts the same regardless of where it was cast) Bush might 
have gone after votes in populous states like NY and Cal where he had no chance of 
gaining the electoral votes. Bush won (Not fair and square but he won with the help of 
his friends on the court).
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Robotic Singularity

[Erik Reuter]

On Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 03:59:52PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote:

> How much progress has been made on the visual processing problem in
> the last 20 years?  What is the current rate of progress?  How many
> people are working on this?

I can't answer most of this, but I do know that computer vision is
regularly used in many areas of manufacturing today in specialized
applications. But it is still far from being able to work in a general
purpose way as human visual recognition does.


-- 
"Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution

[Erik Reuter]

On Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 04:06:42PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote:

> Wow!  That's quite a list!
>
> Now, who *should* be allowed to reproduce, in your opinion?

Did I miss someone?

> And what happens if someone reproduces and *then* gets an SUV

They have a choice: SUV or junior? Could be a tough choice for some...




-- 
"Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words

[Bemmzim]

In a message dated 7/24/2003 11:47:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

> If your criticism is that Bush said "learned" instead of "informed us that
> they believe", then who is being pedantic and mincing words 
> here?

The criticsm is that this is a weasally way of saying something that our own 
intelligence community could not confirm and had in fact serious doubts about. The 
criticsm is that this was a cleaver deception (aka a lie)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words

[Bemmzim]

In a message dated 7/24/2003 11:43:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

> Didn't they used to duel on the floors of Congress?
> 
> Sounds like classic ingomious political chicanery to me.

Sounds more like republican arrogance to me. Now the perpetrator (chairman of the 
House Ways and Means Committee) has since apologized but this does reveal the thinking 
of the republican leadership. Might makes right. Anything we do is ok because we are 
god's party.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words

[Michael Harney]

From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> At 07:52 AM 7/24/2003 -0700 Nick Arnett wrote:
> >Setting aside sarcasm now... I think that you may be mistake in
*expecting*
> >the left to come up with a coherent war plan against terrorism.
>
> I think that's Gautam's point.   If, as you seem to agree, the Left is
> simply incapable of coming up with a coherent war plan against terrorism,
> then the Left is inherently unqualified and unworthy to hold high
political
> office in the United States for the future as far as we can see.
>
> JDG

Like what high offices?  President?  Senator?  Representative?  I suppose that you would suggest that Democrats, Libertarians,
and Green party candidates shouldn't be allowed to even run on any ballots
in the next election.  Or better yet, we should arrest people outside the
polls who voted for any "left" party candidates and fly them to cuba,
locking them up as "enemy combattants". 

The war on Iraq wasn't about liberating Iraq, it wasn't about weapons of
mass destruction or terrorism.  It was entirely politically motivated.  The
republicans saw their approval failing after Osama Bin Laden evaded capture,
and, wanting some sort of evil figurehead detained or killed as a trophy
that people in the US can applaud, they chose to attack our most recent war
enemy Saddam Hussain (sp?).  He was painted as having possible ties to Osama
Bin Laden (even though evidence of that is blatantly lacking) and was turned
into a scapegoat.  He was chosen probably because he seemed an easier target
to hit (and by golly, the military took every shot they could when they even
just had questionable evidence that he was at a given location... at least
three attempts to kill him using missle strikes, at least one of those on a
civilian target, all missed killing the intended person).  This was was
politically motivated to try to boost aproval ratings in the site of a
struggling economy and bad environmental policy.  Iraq posed no significant
threat to us.  There was no good reason to go to war with them.  There is no
reason to make a war plan for a war on terror, because a war on terror is
simply not necessary.  Should we have gone into Afghanistan to get Al Quida
after what they did?  Hell yeah.  Damn skippy.  They committed a very
criminal act that resulted in the deaths of thousands of people and
retribution was called for.  What did Iraq do though?  Nothing.  They had no
proven ties to the attacks of September 11th.  Should we wait for them to
attack us or one of our allies before we attack them?  Damn right we should.
Otherwise it is we who are the terrorists, it is we who are the criminals.

If this war really was about weapons of mass destruction, why aren't we
going to war against Isreal and North Korea for their illegal nuclear
weapons programs?  Case and point: it simply isn't about that, it is all
about politics.  Disgusting.

Let me illustrate the blatant lack of perspective that the majority of this
country has.  All of the following are more likely to kill someone in the
U.S. than a terrorist attack:

Heart disease; lung cancer; breast cancer; prostate cancer; aids; the flu;
etc.

That's right ladies and gentlemen, you are more likely to die from the flu
than from a terrorist attack.  How much is spent on medical reasearch each
year?  All together, about a couple billion dollars.  That is to cover all
these things as well as other medical research, which, even in 1991, when
the most deadly terrorist attack took place in the U.S, each were at least 7
times more likley to kill someone in the U.S. than a terrorist attack.  How
many tens of billions of dollars were spent thusfar in the war on terror.
Over thirty billion dollars spent on efforts in Afghanistan.  How much has
been spent in Iraq?  Unknown, but conservative costs estimates before the
war were above eighty billion dollars.  A *preemptive* war on terror simply
does not make any sense from any standpoint, and demostrates considerable
bad judgement in foriegn policy from the standpoint of foriegn relations.

Moreover, the blatant discarding of the constitution over this problem is a
paranoid knee-jerk over-reaction to a problem that just simply does not
warrant that kind of action yet.  Do we issolate people with the flu or AIDS
to prevent these deseases from spreading?  No.  Yet each is a greater threat
to human life than terrorism.  Should we tighten security on planes and
airports because of what happened?  Deffinately.  Should we blatantly
disregard the constitution and basic human rights?  No.  Issolating people
that we have no proof commited any crimes and blatantly disregarding the
constitution and their rights in the process is deplorable.  If we have
proof they committed a crime, charge them with one, if not, release them.

Your suggestion that the left's inability to form an effective war plan
against terror is a demonstration of bad leadership is not just wrong (as a
war plan is entirely uncalled for IMNSHO), it di

Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution

[Julia Thompson]

"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
> 
> At 02:32 PM 7/25/2003 -0500 Julia Thompson wrote:
> >Erik Reuter wrote:
> >
> >> You just insulted all bigots while trying to insult me!
> >
> >Personally, I'm prejudiced against bigots.
> 
> Exactly.   The point being that Erik is being wholly unproductive, uncivil,
> and unapologetic for equating prejudice against bigots with prejudice
> against Catholics and homosexuals.

Actually, *my* point was I thought that Erik was being a bit cheeky, and
I was trying to be cheeky right back at him.  I think Erik got my post
better than you did.

Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Gray Davis Recall Election Set for Sep-Oct

[Jon Gabriel]

> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Kevin Tarr
> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 4:26 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: RE: Gray Davis Recall Election Set for Sep-Oct
> 
> 
> >A more accurate assessment seems to be that Enron used exorbitant,
> >unfair fees to blackmail California consumers and threatened to
withhold
> >power if they weren't paid.
> >
> > >From an article in the SF Chronicle, quoted on corpwatch.org:
> >http://www.corpwatch.org/news/PND.jsp?articleid=2530
> >
> >Jon
> 
> 
> Right, so the people who want to blame the current federal government
> are...surprise!...wrong.

No, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under the Bush
administration tried to stop California from fighting Enron with price
caps and we can safely assume that this was in part because Enron was
lobbying the Bush administration to do so as reported in AP:
(http://www.nctimes.net/news/2002/20020131/53224.html) Consumers
definitely got screwed because of that and the general attitude at the
time from the administration seemed to be 'blame the victim', which was
simply inappropriate once the truth about Enron's business practices was
made public.  

Some googled sites: 

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/utilities/pr/pr002556.php3
http://www-irps.ucsd.edu/irps/innews/sdut-040401.html
http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/story1c020601.html

If this were a normal situation, price caps would have been a terrible
idea that would have made the situation worse over time.  Economists
publishing in Fortune, the National Review and the Wall Street Journal
all gave very clear and impassioned arguments as to why caps would
encourage corporate disinterest in increasing supply or making upgrades
to current equipment in CA.  But afaik, they did so before the truth
about Enron's price gouging was revealed.  Since Enron was deliberately
creating a crisis by boosting energy prices through the roof, price caps
weren't just appropriate in this case, they were an absolute necessity. 

> Kevin T. - VRWC
> but don't let that stop you

Don't worry, I won't. :-)

I'm curious about Brad DeLong's opinion on this.  Brad, you around?

Jon


Le Blog:  http://zarq.livejournal.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message -
From: "David Hobby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words



> No.  We are dealing with a pathological minority, backed
> up by a large sector of public opinion in the Middle East.  If
> we clean up our act, public opinion there will change.

I'm in the middle and I have questions to ask of both sides of the
arguement.  Your's just happens to be the easiest to ask.  What is the
basis of this?  What horrid things have we done in the Middle East.  You
mention supporting the Shah in the 50s.  I'll agree with  you that this
definately was interfering with internal affairs, but

1) It was 50 years or so ago

2) I don't know enough about the other parties in the conflict to know if
the statement that they were likely to be allies of the USSR was correct.

But, we  facilitated the change of government when the Shah was deposed,
about 25 years ago.  The main things we have done in the Middle East
between that time and 9/11 was

1) Buy a bunch of oil
2) Roll back Hussein's attempt to overtake the Middle East
3) Work for Arab oil companies
4) Support Israel's right to exist.
5) Sell military equipment to less extreme governments in order to decrease
their obvious vulnerability to other countries, such as Iraq and Iran

#2 has some correlation with AQ, as does #4.  But, I really don't see what
horrid exploitive things we've done in the Middle East.  Now, if it were
South America or Central America that was the source of terrorism, this
arguement would have had a bit more versimilitude.

I've been in the Middle East twice, and I've talked to a number of expats.
Americans and Europeans are definately the hired hands in the Middle East.
While our status ranks above the unskilled laborers, we are supposed to
know our place.

>
>
> Oh, they all had some, all mixed together with the rest
> of their craziness.  But this is a silly way to argue about this
> issue.  We would do much better discussing the concerns of moderate
> Arabs (most of which are of course shared by the crazies).

I've worked with a number of folks from the Middle East, many for years.
Unlike my South American friends, I cannot provide a list abuses involving
the US government and US companies that they have outlined for me.  I know
that they are less than thrilled with the Israeli/Palestinian situation and
blame Israel for everything.  I also know that many are unhappy with the
government in the Middle East, and think the US can do more.

Finally, there is one other point worth thinking about.  Via both schools
and the media, the citizens of the Arab world have been taught a pack of
lies about the US and Jews.  A good example of this is the multiple
presentations of  "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as history.  It is
everywhere from being presented as a top rated television series on
Egyptian television to being taught in Palestinian schools.

Why aren't these lies more critical to Arab public opinion than any errors
the US may have committed in dealing with Arab governments?

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution

[Julia Thompson]

Erik Reuter wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 03:51:27PM -0500, Reggie Bautista wrote:
> 
> > 2) You condone a law that would prevent 62 million American citizens
> > from being able to get married and have children?  How ironic.
> > Apparently you only support freedom of speech, not freedom of thought
> > or freedom of religion.
> 
> You underestimate me, sir. I don't just want to prevent Catholics from
> having children.  I have a list of people who should not be allowed to
> marry or reproduce: fundamentalists, Mormons, Jews, Muslems, Hindis,
> young people, old people, people who drink alcohol, people who smoke,
> people who own SUVs, government workers, philosophers, lawyers, and
> last, but not least, conservatives.

Wow!  That's quite a list!

Now, who *should* be allowed to reproduce, in your opinion?

And what happens if someone reproduces and *then* gets an SUV in order
to be able to haul children & stuff around safely, and drives carefully
so as not to get into an accident with the precious cargo of small
people carrying their genes?

Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Robotic Singularity

[Julia Thompson]

Jim Sharkey wrote:
> 
> This may tag me as some kind of Luddite, but I find it appalling that
> people can't wait to excise as much human contact from their lives as
> possible.  I know people that would rather eat nails than actually
> have to go to the bank for three whole minutes.  No one's time is
> really that important, is it?

Social phobia of some sort?

Given my druthers for how to interact with someone I don't know well:

1)  through the internet

2)  face-to-face

3)  phone

If there's a reasonable way to have a face-to-face interaction, rather
than deal with a total stranger over the phone, I'll take the extra hour
to do the face-to-face interaction.

My mom is worse than *I* am in this respect, even.  If there's no way to
do something except by phone and I'm around, sometimes she'll have me do
it in her name.  (Although I think the last time she had me do that for
her was when she was still living in New Hampshire in 1998)

I used to prefer going into the bank to using the drive-through, but
once you've taken an 18-month-old into the bank and had to wait in line,
the drive-through seems a lot nicer.

I'm also reluctant to go to a new location for doing thing X.  I prefer
to be in a more familiar environment with more familiar people.  The
most annoying thing is figuring out the exact configuration of a new
grocery store.  Unfamiliar bookstores I can handle a little better than
unfamiliar stores of any other type that I frequent.

I guess I'm saying a) there's a limit as to how much change I can handle
at once, and b) I prefer the various cues and the human contact that
come with a face-to-face meeting as long as I actually have to *talk* to
someone.

Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Robotic Singularity

[Julia Thompson]

The Fool wrote:
> 
> http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm
> 
> Robotic Nation
> 
> by Marshall Brain



> The Vision Thing
> One of the key capabilities limiting robotic expansion at the moment is
> image processing -- the ability of robots to look at a scene like a human
> does and detect all the objects in the scene. Without general, flexible
> vision algorthms, it is hard for a robot to do much. For example, it is
> hard for a blind robot to clean a bathroom or drive a car. Part of the
> problem is raw CPU power, but that problem will be solved over the next
> 20 ro 30 years because of Moore's law. The other part is a software
> problem. We don't have really good algorithms yet. My prediction is that
> we will see significant progress in the image processing field over the
> next 20 years.

How much progress has been made on the visual processing problem in the
last 20 years?  What is the current rate of progress?  How many people
are working on this?

This is the biggest stumbling block to the problem.

Also, how much longer will Moore's Law hold?  It gets to where part of
what's making things faster is that the size of components on a chip are
shrinking; there's some finite limit to that beyond which shrinking is
impossible.  Then we have to use other methods on the same hardware to
increase speed, or go in a totally different direction with it.

I'm just wondering where the technology is now and at what rate it's
improving.

Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Genetic fractions, was Re: The Case for a Marriage...

[Julia Thompson]

David Hobby wrote:
> 
> Julia Thompson wrote:
> >
> > David Hobby wrote:
> >
> > > The above would have been easier to state if we had general kinship
> > > terms based on degrees of genetic relatedness.  Sibling, parent and
> > > child are all "halves".  Grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece,
> > > nephew, half-sibling, and so on are "quarters".  And you know you're
> > > really a redneck if you need fractions which aren't negative powers
> > > of two!
> >
> > Oh, like 17/2^N for some N?  I think that number (not sure what N is)
> > describes my kinship relation to a particular someone.  Details
> > available upon request.  (Anyone wanting details to actually calculate
> > the mess, ask!)
> >
> > Julia
> >
> > whose kinship relation to her sister is actually slightly over 1/2, and
> > details on *that* are available upon request, as well, for anyone either
> > interested or wanting to calculate *that* particular mess
> 
> If you go back far enough, that happens to everyone.  So
> the value of N is relevant.  : )
> I don't have a good enough geneology to come near that, though.
> I know all my grandparents.  On my father's side, that's about it.  So
> I don't have any known "extra" relationships between my mother and
> father--my brother will have to stay at exactly 1/2 from me.
> I know parts of my mother's side going back to the 1500's,
> and there are a few "circuits" that I know of in those family trees.
> So there might be a 17/2^N for me too, I'd have to look.  Anyway,
> N would be 12 or so, and the individual I was related to by that
> much would have been dead for 200+ years.  Most of their descendants
> would also be 17/2^N from me, for various values of N.  Some serious
> research would let me name a living one, but by then N is around 20.
> So you probably win!
> ---David
> 
> I'm not sure that I have the courage to ask for your details.
> This stuff can get messy fast.  But I bet that your 17/2^N is
> of the form 1/2^k + 1/2^(k+4), since that seems easiest.

OK, case 1, of the guy related to me where I believe it's 17/2^N:  He is
my third cousin from one pair of ancestors; my fourth cousin from a
second pair of ancestors; my fourth cousin from a third pair of
ancestors; and my sixth cousin from a fourth pair of ancestors.

My uncle calculated the degree of relation (all his children are related
to him through the same sets of ancestors), and he's slightly more
closely related to me than a second cousin would be.  If we know what k
is for saying the second-cousin fraction is 1/2^k, then the relation
degree is as you give above.  (1/2^k for 2nd cousin, 1/2^(k+4) for sixth
cousin.  At least, that's what it ought to be, yes?  Or am I off?  If
so, please correct me!)

Case 2, myself, I am my own sixth cousin through the pair of ancestors
by which I'm that cousin's sixth cousin (that one was a marriage of
second cousins) and I am my own ninth cousin through a pair of ancestors
on the other side (that one was a marriage of first cousins).  So I am
sixth cousin and ninth cousin to my sister, as well as being her
sibling.  The extra fraction of relation in that case is small enough to
be trivial, but possibly of interest.

Julia

who knows how many ancestors she has in common with that cousin at the
generation where you'd expect to have 128 ancestors; it's 34.  (And she
herself only has 126 there.)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Gray Davis Recall Election Set for Sep-Oct

[Kevin Tarr]

A more accurate assessment seems to be that Enron used exorbitant,
unfair fees to blackmail California consumers and threatened to withhold
power if they weren't paid.
>From an article in the SF Chronicle, quoted on corpwatch.org:
http://www.corpwatch.org/news/PND.jsp?articleid=2530
Jon


Right, so the people who want to blame the current federal government 
are...surprise!...wrong.

Kevin T. - VRWC
but don't let that stop you
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

A Murder of Crows.....(mild list reference)

[Medievalbk]

It is 100 degrees outside.

What else is there to do but sit at the computer and have the TV on.

I did not know what the movie A Murder of Crows was about.


>Spoiler<


-yawn-

After the talk on this list.well,...


.as soon as Cuba's character put his name to a novel 
he didn't write, that character became a Barry Lyndon:

I couldn't care less what happens to him.

A perfectly constructed movie about a smuck is still a 
movie about a smuck.


William Taylor
-
That which is rotten to the core, 
is rotten even to The Core.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words

[Erik Reuter]

On Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 03:28:08PM -0400, David Hobby wrote:

> If we clean up our act, public opinion there will change.  When it
> does, most of the support for Al Qaeda will dry up.

That's an interesting fantasy world you are describing.


-- 
"Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words

[David Hobby]

"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
> 
> At 01:08 AM 7/25/2003 -0400 David Hobby wrote:
> >> Why do you think that Osama bin Laden objects to the
> >> same things about American foreign policy that you do?
> >
> >   That's not a fair tactic in an argument.
> 
> Actually, I think that it is the most salient thing that Gautam has had to
> say in this argument.

It is a form of ad hominem attack.  And we do not object 
to the same things.  He seems to object to most of our constitution,
while I do not.  BUT he probably also objects to large amounts of 
US meddling in the Middle East, from installing the Shah of Iran on.
On these issues, I do agree with him.
Now would you two stop mischaracterizing my position and
attacking strawmen?

...
> >>  We aren't dealing with an opponent
> >> that wants rational things - we are dealing with a
> >> pathology.  

No.  We are dealing with a pathological minority, backed
up by a large sector of public opinion in the Middle East.  If 
we clean up our act, public opinion there will change.  When it
does, most of the support for Al Qaeda will dry up.

> Please detail which of the Al Qaeda members who have attacked the US over
> the past 10 years you consider to have, quote, "reasonable concerns," and
> what these concerns are.
> 
> JDG
>

Oh, they all had some, all mixed together with the rest
of their craziness.  But this is a silly way to argue about this
issue.  We would do much better discussing the concerns of moderate
Arabs (most of which are of course shared by the crazies).

---David
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: What is a homemaker worth?

[Julia Thompson]

Robert Seeberger wrote:

> Insurance coverage takes a holiday
> If you doubt the veracity of all this, just try to buy life or disability
> insurance on a stay-at-home spouse.

We did.

Dan could get life insurance for me fairly cheaply through his job.  So
he did.  I'm not sure what I'm insured for, I just know it's at least
$100,000 and I believe it's not as much as $300,000.  (But then again,
where we can, we tend to self-insure, or take higher deductibles; the
exception on that is *his* life insurance, which is geared towards
paying off the house and letting me be home for kids without any income
for awhile, and then reduced income later.)

We could not buy disability insurance on me.  We tried.  I don't know if
it was state law or the insurance company, but I couldn't be insured for
disability.  So if something happens to me that doesn't kill me, we'll
be looking to friends and relatives for more help and spend less money
hiring people to do various things I'd otherwise do.

Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Gray Davis Recall Election Set for Sep-Oct

[Jon Gabriel]

> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:brin-l-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Tarr
> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 1:49 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: RE: Gray Davis Recall Election Set for Sep-Oct
> 
> At 07:51 AM 7/25/2003 -0700, you wrote:
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:brin-l-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Behalf Of pencimen
> >
> >...
> >
> > > Enron _and_ the Bush administration.
> > >
> > > Or is that what you meant?
> >
> >Sort of.  Except that there's some superset that they're both part
of,
> which
> >I dare not name.  ;-)
> >
> >Nick
> 
> 
> But the problem is, Bush accepted Enron's money and did not give them
> anything in return,while Clinton gave them concessions. The state's
energy
> problems didn't suddenly appear Jan 2001.

I don't like Alternet because they're very biased, but they did have an
interesting article about this here:
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13281

The short version: some concessions were given, even though the Bush
administration stopped short of doing anything overt.  

> And I truly don't know about this: were there energy problems last
year,
> or
> so far this year? 

I don't know if it was the result of an energy crisis or not, but 1,200
people in Hollywood were without power for a while on Friday:
http://www.nbc4.tv/news/2359076/detail.html

> Yes the price may still be astronomical, but supply
> should be the more pressing concern. I may have this completely wrong,
> that
> the 2001 energy problems weren't supply, but was from California not
> willing to pay for the energy it needed, and this is directly related
to
> an
> Enron deal.

A more accurate assessment seems to be that Enron used exorbitant,
unfair fees to blackmail California consumers and threatened to withhold
power if they weren't paid. 

>From an article in the SF Chronicle, quoted on corpwatch.org: 
http://www.corpwatch.org/news/PND.jsp?articleid=2530

Excerpt: "SACRAMENTO, California -- Energy traders for Enron used
elaborate schemes with nicknames like "Death Star" and "Get Shorty" to
manipulate California's electricity market and boost profits, according
to internal company memos released by federal regulators Monday.
The memos -- jaw-dropping in their frank descriptions of how a
sophisticated operation exploited California for financial gain --
enraged consumer advocates and state officials and prompted Sen. Dianne
Feinstein to call for a federal criminal investigation of the company's
behavior as the lights went out in California.
A state senator who has spent a year investigating the energy crisis
called the documents "tremendous" proof that California's power debacle
had been caused by companies looking to make money and not by energy
shortages."

Jon


Le Blog:  http://zarq.livejournal.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Gray Davis Recall Election Set for Sep-Oct

[Jon Gabriel]

> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Kevin Tarr
> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 1:40 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: RE: Gray Davis Recall Election Set for Sep-Oct
> 
> At 02:13 PM 7/26/2003 -0400, you wrote:
> >At 01:38 AM 7/25/2003 -0400 Jon Gabriel wrote:
> > >Then again, CA
> > >Dems aren't coming across as geniuses in general these days.  Did
you
> > >see the report yesterday about the CA state legislators (Dems
again)
> who
> > >were caught on tape suggesting that the state's fiscal crisis be
> > >extended over time for political gain?
> >
> >Do you have a link?
> >
> >JDG
> 
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
> bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/07/22/MN309441.DTL
> 
> Demos caught in budget gaffe
> Open mike picks up faction's talk of profiting from a crisis

Thanks Kevin.

I saw it on a local newscast a couple of nights ago.

Jon




Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Gray Davis Recall Election Set for Sep-Oct

[Kevin Tarr]

At 07:51 AM 7/25/2003 -0700, you wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of pencimen
...

> Enron _and_ the Bush administration.
>
> Or is that what you meant?
Sort of.  Except that there's some superset that they're both part of, which
I dare not name.  ;-)
Nick


But the problem is, Bush accepted Enron's money and did not give them 
anything in return,while Clinton gave them concessions. The state's energy 
problems didn't suddenly appear Jan 2001.

And I truly don't know about this: were there energy problems last year, or 
so far this year? Yes the price may still be astronomical, but supply 
should be the more pressing concern. I may have this completely wrong, that 
the 2001 energy problems weren't supply, but was from California not 
willing to pay for the energy it needed, and this is directly related to an 
Enron deal.

Kevin T. - VRWC
I'll stick to COBOL and beer
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Gray Davis Recall Election Set for Sep-Oct

[Kevin Tarr]

At 02:13 PM 7/26/2003 -0400, you wrote:
At 01:38 AM 7/25/2003 -0400 Jon Gabriel wrote:
>Then again, CA
>Dems aren't coming across as geniuses in general these days.  Did you
>see the report yesterday about the CA state legislators (Dems again) who
>were caught on tape suggesting that the state's fiscal crisis be
>extended over time for political gain?
Do you have a link?

JDG
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/07/22/MN309441.DTL

Demos caught in budget gaffe
Open mike picks up faction's talk of profiting from a crisis
Kevin T. - VRWC

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Computer Voting Is Open to Easy Fraud, Experts Say

[Kevin Tarr]

At 11:07 AM 7/27/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> From: John D. Giorgis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> At 01:23 PM 7/24/2003 -0500 The Fool wrote:
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/24/technology/24VOTE.html?ex=1059710400&en
=
> >d989a69c518293a6&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
> >
> >Computer Voting Is Open to Easy Fraud, Experts Say By JOHN SCHWARTZ
>
> Wouldn't a fail-safe answer be to have each computer terminal print a
paper
> "receipt" for each voter, which is then placed in a backup-system paper
> voting box?These receipts could then be used for any official
recounts
> - or even frivolous recounts, which are billed to the challenging
party..
Which is exactly the point I'm making.  Thes machine do not print or
other wise provide a paper trail, and republicans from several states
have crafted laws that prohibit the use of machines that provide paper
trails.  And some of these machines keep several accounting books, that
different programs access.  These machines were designed for fraud.


So your name is John Schwatz?

I agree with you about the problem, but I don't think John's solution is 
perfect and wonder about all schemes.

Let me back up ten steps. Are we going to assume that the 100% best method 
would have the voter mark a dot on a large print paper ballot? And the 
voter has access to an unlimited supply of paper ballots, until he marks 
one correctly? See there can already be problems. What if the vote counters 
get a paper ballot with two candidates selected with the same mark? Same 
marks, one with an X through it, or one circled. Different marks, but 
obviously both marked? Make up your own situation, but my point is, if you 
are looking for problems you can find them. I'm not making a snide remark, 
isn't there a saying "Only a fool thinks he has a foolproof system?"

With John's separate paper receipt. It has to be big enough for the voter 
to know his votes were marked correctly, it can't just be a bar code. 
Assuming the voter puts it in a separate box: it may be easy for the poll 
workers to see that the voter only puts in one receipt, but how to know 
it's the correct receipt, that he didn't pull a false one out of his 
pocket? Enough people do this by targeting a polling place, then challenge 
the results and demand a re-vote when their side doesn't win.

You can say: the printout comes from the back or side of the machine 
pre-folded. The voter has to get the paper slip, check it, or not, and put 
it into the box in front of all the poll workers. It would take a select 
group of magicians to perform a slight of hand to stuff in bad receipts, 
but we only need it to happen once for the whole system to be questioned.

Kevin T. - VRWC

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

[Listref] Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined

[Robert Seeberger]

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/materials-03w.html

Space elevators have an image problem, mainly due to two prominent science
fiction novels. They appear either ungainly impossible, or so potentially
dangerous to the planet itself you would never dream of building one. With
the science now indicating that they are potentially near-term transport
systems, it's time to review the fiction in relation to the possible
reality.
Three publications by Pearson in 1975/6/7 and work done by Moravec and
published in the Journal of the Astronautical Sciences in 1977 were enough
to prompt Arthur C Clarke to write "The Fountains of Paradise" and Charles
Sheffield "The Web Between the Worlds" - both published in 1979.

Clarke wrote of a world developed to a point where the weather systems could
be controlled to produce designer-sunsets. A lone architect designs a
40,000km elevator consisting of four tubes. With a pair each for up and down
travel, and regenerative breaking used to minimize the power losses.

The first attempt to lower a wire to Earth fails when it gets entangled, and
the design is changed to that of an inverted square tower. A small iron
asteroid is moved into Earth orbit to act as a counterweight. The four sides
of the track will feature superconducting cables backed by fusion power
generators.

Ultimately, the tower stands for 1500yrs, growing to be 500m on a side with
a city built at the 1500km level. Half a billion people eventually settle in
orbit for a zero-g lifestyle.

In a later printing, Clarke claims his inspiration came from much earlier
articles from 1966, but the resurgence of interest and writing prior to 1979
was timely. He also says that he may have been too conservative, and that
the tower may be a 21st century achievement. The latest research proposes
'early' 21st century.

Red Mars
The next great opinion-forming novel was "Red Mars", by Kim Stanley Robinson
in 1992. A captured asteroid is mined using nanotechnology to extend a
graphite cable 37,000km down to the surface.

Elevator cars take several days to make the journey, and are thirty stories
high. But the main image from this incarnation is when the cable is brought
down by revolutionary action. It twists around the planet at 21,000km per
hour, with horrific consequences.

"Red Mars" was part of a trilogy. In "Green Mars", a replacement cable is
made using Carbon Nanotubes from another captured asteroid. Cars travel up
and down the cable at the same time to minimize energy losses. It's no
coincidence that both these cables are called 'Clarke'.

The "The Fountains of Paradise" elevator is used to promote the concept that
many people would wish to travel to, and even live-in, low Earth orbit. In
"Red Mars", the cable is the main transport system, and seen as an essential
'umbilical cord' for the new colony.

Tower of Babel
Space tethers have been discussed in international workshops annually since
1983, and by the time that "Red Mars" was written had identified the issues
of material strength and production.

However, even as late as 1999, these workshops were becoming confused in
their own clouds of science and fiction. The Advanced Space Infrastructure
Workshop on Geostationary Orbiting Tether "Space Elevator" Concepts, held in
June 1999 at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, for instance. The
history section of the conference report tries to claim that the origins of
space elevators could be traced back to Genesis 11.3 and references to the
Tower of Babel.

They also concentrated on the non-fixed tethers, which do not go all the way
to the Earth's surface and consequently require mach 16 aircraft vehicles to
reach them. Even more worryingly, they considered the idea of building tall
towers - up to 50km in height.

The significant point here is that as late as 1999, the materials issue had
been acknowledged, but the thought processes had been allowed to dream back
into 1950's style fiction. Basic desk research shows that the Tower of
Babylon dates back to the time of King Nebuchadnezzar II who lived from
605-562 BC and rebuilt it to stand 295 feet high. It was nothing more then a
ziggurat, honoring the god Marduk.

Clearly, the scientific thinking on space elevators had broken down and a
more rational appraisal of the technology was long overdue.

Tapes and Lifters
The NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC) commissioned Dr Bradley C
Edwards to study all aspects of the construction and operation of a space
elevator, and Phase I of the report was published in late 2002.

The report very specifically addresses design and operations, which had
until then escaped close scrutiny.

Firstly, the elevator would not be a cable. It starts as a 1-micron thick
piece of tape 91,000km long, tapering from 5cm wide at the Earth's surface
to 11.5cm wide near the middle. This tape would be taken up by shuttle
together with some booster rockets. It would then be 'flown-down' to the
surface whilst the booster rockets provide the required counte

Re: Computer Voting Is Open to Easy Fraud, Experts Say

[The Fool]

> From: John D. Giorgis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> At 01:23 PM 7/24/2003 -0500 The Fool wrote:
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/24/technology/24VOTE.html?ex=1059710400&en
=
> >d989a69c518293a6&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
> >
> >Computer Voting Is Open to Easy Fraud, Experts Say By JOHN SCHWARTZ
> 
> Wouldn't a fail-safe answer be to have each computer terminal print a
paper
> "receipt" for each voter, which is then placed in a backup-system paper
> voting box?These receipts could then be used for any official
recounts
> - or even frivolous recounts, which are billed to the challenging
party..

Which is exactly the point I'm making.  Thes machine do not print or
other wise provide a paper trail, and republicans from several states
have crafted laws that prohibit the use of machines that provide paper
trails.  And some of these machines keep several accounting books, that
different programs access.  These machines were designed for fraud.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: TI interpreation of QM

[Robert Seeberger]

- Original Message - 
From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: TI interpreation of QM


>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Reggie Bautista" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 5:07 PM
> Subject: Re: TI interpreation of QM
>

> > Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate you taking the time to cover
the
> > pros and cons.
>
> Did what I say make sense to you?  Do my posts on QM make sense?  Or are
> you just being polite? There are times I get very frustrated with my own
> ability to communicate ideas that are fairly clear to me. ;-)
>

Actually, even I was able to follow that kind of explanation.
And I don't have much of a physics or mathematics background.
(I find most physics concepts digestible even without the math concepts,
though I understand the maths lead to a more cogent understanding.)

What I have a hard time understanding is the (real long term) problem with
"backwards in time signals".
I see it repeated that you cannot violate causality, but most of the
examples I've seen given (perhaps they were oversimplifications) seem to
illustrate what amounts to an optical illusion. (In discussions about FTL)

I understand the principle that states that cause cannot precede effect.
*That* is quite easy to understand.
And I seem to recall that there is some axiom that says there are no
privileged frames or points of view.

But couldn't it be that "backwards in time signals" are part of an
underlying backbone or framework that underlies reality, normally
unobservable?
And that, like in most of the QM I have read, observation would change those
signals, therefore they would be inaccessible?

I guess my real question is "why cant there be a channel for backwards in
time signals?"

And I suppose my proposal is "if the simpler explanations have not worked,
perhaps trying a higher level of complexity might".

I really wish I had a greater understanding of QM and how it differs from
relativistic theory.

xponent
Ignorant Savage Maru
rob



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: SC2 Music (was Re: I have returned from paradise)

[Andrew Crystall]

On 27 Jul 2003 at 17:23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> I tried to play the MOD files in my WinAmp 2.81 and I'm not sure if
> all sounds are as they should be but I heard some songs... Sounded
> rather synthetic but that's probably as designed?

WinAmp is an awful MOD player. But basically think of a MOD file as a 
MIDI with it's instruments embedded rather than relying on those on 
the sound card.

Before MP3's came in, I liked them because they allways sounded the 
same on any system (unlike MIDI's), and are small compared to WAV's.

Many can sound synthetic (many deliberately so), but I have a few 
great .s3m (Screamtracker 3) files which don't.

Andy

> Regards
> Armin
> 
> 
> > --
> > From:   Jim Sharkey[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Reply To:   Killer Bs Discussion
> > Sent:   Samstag, 26. Juli 2003 04:10
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject:SC2 Music (was Re: I have returned from paradise)
> > 
> > 
> > Bryon Daly wrote:
> > >http://home.comcast.net/~bryon.daly/M4win240.zip
> > >http://home.comcast.net/~bryon.daly/SC2_MODS.ZIP
> > 
> > The installer for M4win20 doesn't seem to be working.  Any
> > suggestions?
> > 
> > Jim
> > 
> 
> ___
> http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
> 
> 


Dawn Falcon

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: SC2 Music (was Re: I have returned from paradise)

[Andrew Crystall]

On 25 Jul 2003 at 22:10, Jim Sharkey wrote:

> 
> Bryon Daly wrote:
> >http://home.comcast.net/~bryon.daly/M4win240.zip
> >http://home.comcast.net/~bryon.daly/SC2_MODS.ZIP
> 
> The installer for M4win20 doesn't seem to be working.  Any
> suggestions?

I'm guessing that's Mod4Win referenced there. Working link to Mod4Win 
unlimited:

http://pjeantaud.free.fr/mod4win/m4w-2_40.exe

I think the one referenced there is a bad install, as it's what 800K, 
the correct one is 2.4MB.

Andy
Dawn Falcon

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: SC2 Music (was Re: I have returned from paradise)

[Jim Sharkey]

Armin Freiberg wrote:
>I tried to play the MOD files in my WinAmp 2.81 and I'm not sure if 
>all sounds are as they should be but I heard some songs... Sounded 
>rather synthetic but that's probably as designed?

Yeah, that's how they are supposed to sound.  I actually got the MOD player up and 
running after I made that post; sometimes I give up and ask for assistance too easily. 
 It's a character flaw I'm still trying to hammer out.

Jim

___
Express Yourself - Share Your Mood in Emails!
Visit www.SmileyCentral.com - the happiest place on the Web.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words

[Doug Pensinger]

Erik Reuter wrote:
On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 06:04:49AM -, pencimen wrote:


How about Dustin Hoffman getting holes drilled in his teeth in
Marathon Man?


I had forgotten about that one. Did he talk? I think he didn't know
anything, right?

No, he was completely in the dark.

Doug

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: SC2 Music (was Re: I have returned from paradise)

[A . Freiberg]

I tried to play the MOD files in my WinAmp 2.81 and I'm not sure if all
sounds are as they should be but I heard some songs... Sounded rather
synthetic but that's probably as designed?

Regards
Armin


> --
> From: Jim Sharkey[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Reply To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Sent: Samstag, 26. Juli 2003 04:10
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  SC2 Music (was Re: I have returned from paradise)
> 
> 
> Bryon Daly wrote:
> >http://home.comcast.net/~bryon.daly/M4win240.zip
> >http://home.comcast.net/~bryon.daly/SC2_MODS.ZIP
> 
> The installer for M4win20 doesn't seem to be working.  Any suggestions?
> 
> Jim
> 

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Robotic Singularity

[Jim Sharkey]

While there is an element of hysteria in this article, I too find the American 
fascination with automating *everything* disturbing.  However, I find it disturbing 
for an additional reason.

First off, I agree that it seems that no one has really thought this automation thing 
through.  I still think the author of this essay is a little over the top, but I 
wonder what's going to happen to the people in this country that lack the intelligence 
and skills to do anything but low wage jobs here as we autmate everything.

This may tag me as some kind of Luddite, but I find it appalling that people can't 
wait to excise as much human contact from their lives as possible.  I know people that 
would rather eat nails than actually have to go to the bank for three whole minutes.  
No one's time is really that important, is it?

Jim

___
Express Yourself - Share Your Mood in Emails!
Visit www.SmileyCentral.com - the happiest place on the Web.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words

[Nick Arnett]

I would agree, if I thought you were saying that the government should never
be entirely, or even mostly, in the hands of the Left.  I'd say the same
about the Right.  It seems quite clear to me that diversity and criticism
(of the positive kind) have been proven to be the most effective means of
achieving fair and just government.  And I do believe that's what the
founders of this country were aiming to put in place.  And thus I'm not
pleased at all with the current situation, in which the government is
dominated by one faction, even though quite a few of them claim to be
liberal.

--
Nick Arnett
Phone/fax: (408) 904-7198
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of John D. Giorgis
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 7:28 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
>
>
> At 07:52 AM 7/24/2003 -0700 Nick Arnett wrote:
> >Setting aside sarcasm now... I think that you may be mistake in
> *expecting*
> >the left to come up with a coherent war plan against terrorism.
>
> I think that's Gautam's point.   If, as you seem to agree, the Left is
> simply incapable of coming up with a coherent war plan against terrorism,
> then the Left is inherently unqualified and unworthy to hold high
> political
> office in the United States for the future as far as we can see.
>
> JDG
> ___
> John D. Giorgis   - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>"The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world,
>it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
> ___
> http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: I have returned from paradise

[A . Freiberg]

I would propose Irfanview, which has a nice Batch Process utility and is
freeware for private use (I use it for my shkrinking of images for the
website)...

Regards
Armin


> --
> From: Ronn!Blankenship[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Reply To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Sent: Freitag, 25. Juli 2003 23:54
> To:   Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject:  RE: I have returned from paradise
...
> > > I have to figure out how to shrink the pics we took, though.  My wife
...
> And if Jon can't help you with that, I can make some suggestions for 
> freeware programs you can download from the 'net which will do the 
...

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l