date:20040811

> From: Davd Brin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> Alas, qbasic and xbasic were incomprehensible.  In
> trying to 'modernize', they made it impossible to
> figure out how to type a few lines and run them to see
> what happens.

Not really qbasic works very similarly to gwbasic.  The main difference
is that they removed the 'run' command, and replaced it with a menu
option (or f5).  You type in your code and press f5 and...it runs.  Also
use control-Break to break execution.  Not difficult or incomprehensible
at all.  Now if you are stepping through the code line-by-line using
breakpoints, you can use the 'immediate window' at the bottom of the
screen to 'type a few lines and run them to see what happens'.

In case you are wondering the basic interpreter that comes with ms-dos
6.2 is...Qbasic.  And qbasic works in windows just fine.

Furthermore Visual Basic can still do 99% of the things that qbasic /
gwbasic do, you just have wrap the code in functions.

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

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws


Alas, qbasic and xbasic were incomprehensible.  In
trying to 'modernize', they made it impossible to
figure out how to type a few lines and run them to see
what happens.

Ybasic has a friendly-looking intro page. (Thanks).

I shall look it over soon.

meanwhile, everybody thrive.  And visit JibJab.  It
seemed pretty accurate!

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

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

At 11:13 PM Wednesday 8/11/04, Julia Thompson wrote:
The Fool wrote:
>
> I used AppleBasic on Apple II's and gwBasic on DOS 3 when I was younger.
> And I'm one of the youngest members of brin-l.  I even took a class in
> applebasic in the seventh grade.  I know run.
>
Am I the only one flashing on "And you are no Jack Kennedy"?
Julia
whose father made her take Pascal before any major exposure to Basic

So you might have actually liked S-Basic . . .
I Wrote A Pascal Manual Once: Does That Count Maru
-- Ronn!  :)
"Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever."
-- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

2004-08-11 Thread Julia Thompson

The Fool wrote:

> 
> I used AppleBasic on Apple II's and gwBasic on DOS 3 when I was younger.
> And I'm one of the youngest members of brin-l.  I even took a class in
> applebasic in the seventh grade.  I know run.
> 

Am I the only one flashing on "And you are no Jack Kennedy"?

Julia

whose father made her take Pascal before any major exposure to Basic
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

> From: William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> On 12 Aug 2004, at 3:20 am, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> 
> > At 08:49 PM Wednesday 8/11/04, William T Goodall wrote:
> >
> >> On 12 Aug 2004, at 1:55 am, Davd Brin wrote:
> >>> There is nothing at all resembling a simple
> >>> place to write line by line code and simply typr
> >>> "run".
> >>
> >> And 'run' would come to mind for who?

Raises hand.

> >
> > Anyone old enough to know BASIC?
> >
> 
> I'd better point this out to my wife's 87 year old grandmother next 
> time I see her then :) "You're old enough to know BASIC! What do you 
> mean you don't know what run means!"
> 
> Silly!
> 
> "RUN" is a little tiny historical artifact that even when it was 
> current was known by a tiny percentage  of people. Personal computers 
> arrived in the mid 70's, but nobody really had them until the eighties.

> In '84 the Mac GUI came along and  by '94 Windoze had cloned it. 99% + 
> of everyone who ever used a computer used a GUI first and never saw 
> BASIC. Or wanted to.

I used AppleBasic on Apple II's and gwBasic on DOS 3 when I was younger. 
And I'm one of the youngest members of brin-l.  I even took a class in
applebasic in the seventh grade.  I know run.

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

Re: Interesting times . . .

2004-08-11 Thread Julia Randolph

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 22:34:56 -0500, Ronn!Blankenship
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <>
> 
> They've called off the search for the night after 7 hours . . .
> 
> Ronald W. ("Ronn!") Blankenship
> 1329 McCoy Street

Cheers.

( 
http://maps.yahoo.com/maps_result?ed=N9ELkOp_0TriBYxEny2KpJFUKMQfL785zDmkJw--&csz=Birmingham%2C+AL&country=us&new=1&name=&qty=
)

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

Interesting times . . .

<>
They've called off the search for the night after 7 hours . . .

Ronald W. ("Ronn!") Blankenship
1329 McCoy Street
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Format & Reinstall [was: Fight The Future: EncryptedScrews]

> From: Davd Brin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> I think you all miss the point.
> 
> I have dozens of old books with simple BASIC programs
> in them that tell the computer to compute or to move a
> dot in ways that show the vital importance of a simple
> algorithm at creating what appears on the screen.  If
> I had BASIC I could sit with my son and type in these
> examples and swiftly establish a sense of power at the
> gut level of the machine.
> 
> Most of the languages you mention are much higher
> level.  Some involve GUI drag and drop methods that
> bear NO relation to what I'm talking about.  Certainly
> none of them enable a dad to use the mountains of past
> experience sitting right here on our shelves.
> 
> Thanks.  But the only hope I seem to have is if this
> guy I know gets around to giving us an old machine
> with DOS aboard.
> 
> Utterly pathetic.

QBasic Will work in windows.  No need to downgrade.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

On 12 Aug 2004, at 3:20 am, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 08:49 PM Wednesday 8/11/04, William T Goodall wrote:
On 12 Aug 2004, at 1:55 am, Davd Brin wrote:
There is nothing at all resembling a simple
place to write line by line code and simply typr
"run".
And 'run' would come to mind for who?

Anyone old enough to know BASIC?
I'd better point this out to my wife's 87 year old grandmother next 
time I see her then :) "You're old enough to know BASIC! What do you 
mean you don't know what run means!"

Silly!
"RUN" is a little tiny historical artifact that even when it was 
current was known by a tiny percentage  of people. Personal computers 
arrived in the mid 70's, but nobody really had them until the eighties. 
In '84 the Mac GUI came along and  by '94 Windoze had cloned it. 99% + 
of everyone who ever used a computer used a GUI first and never saw 
BASIC. Or wanted to.

--
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: free trade and the balance of trade problem

2004-08-11 Thread Dan Minette

- Original Message - 
From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 5:17 PM
Subject: Re: free trade and the balance of trade problem

> On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 12:59:54PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> > Playing with numbers I took the accumulated balance of trade imbalance
> > in goods and services since 1960 and divided it by the GDP.  This is
> > akin to dividing the total household debt by the household income.
> > When we have a balance of trade deficit, money flows out to make up
> > the differences between goods sold and bought.
>
> I think it is more accurate to say that certificates (bonds, stock
> certificates, IOU's, etc) flow out, not money. The trade deficit is
> financed by foreign investment in the US -- most recently by countries
> like Japan and China buying US bonds, and before that by foreigners
> buying US equities.

I know that happens; I'm just looking at seperating the parts.  There are a
lot of dollars floating around the world; dollars is the currency of
convenience.  A worthwhile place to invest those dollars is in the US
national debt, or stock, as you said.  But, that investment isn't
permanant; stocks and bonds are bought and sold.

> > At what point does this become disturbing?  Is it when its 100% of
> > GDP, 200%? never?  If never, why?
>
> Basically, we are selling our assets for current consumption.

That's a way I was thinking about it too.  We are selling and mortagaging
our assets.

It seems, at some point, that the surplus of dollars might trigger a panic.
At some point, US bonds do not look like a good investment because intrest
rates are going up and stocks are not doing well.  When folks want to get
out of dollars, they find there is much less demand for dollars all of a
sudden.  Markets can overreact, as we all know.

>Foreigners own a certain percentage of US assets at any given time, and
that
> perecentage has been going up for quite a while. I vaguely remember
> Warren Buffett writing an interesting comment about this some time ago
> (if you are interested, I can try to dig it up).

I'd very much appreciate that.  One thing I keep recalling from history are
those countries that obtain a massive foreign debt often spend a lot of
money paying it off. The US is nowhere near that point, but it could
definately have an effect; and I'm wondering how it would manifest.

> So, a better way to ask your question might be, at what percentage
> of foreign ownership of US assets does a problem arise? At 100%,
> then we would all be working for foreigners to earn our room and
> board. Would that be a problem? Many people would consider it one. So,
> at what percentage less than 100% do we cross over from acceptable to
> unacceptable?

I wonder what the net assets of the US are.  I've looked for that number,
but it is not as easy a number to obtain as GDP or trade imbalance.  Maybe
I should look again.

Dan M.

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

Fwd: Gorilla asks for HELP!

2004-08-11 Thread Steve Sloan

Another link from LarryNiven-L, that's even more topical on Brin-L:
Gorilla Seeks Help Using Sign Language
   
http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=10&aid=809022602_5310_lead_story

Koko the gorilla makes very specific complaints about her toothache,
and gets excellent service.
[Insert HMO joke here] ;-)
__
Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama => [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org
Science Fiction-themed online store . http://www.sloan3d.com/store
Chmeee's 3D Objects  http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee
3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com
Software  Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links
Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Format & Reinstall

David Brin wrote:
>
> It's really much simpler than that.  I am a Mac user
> who reluctantly bought an XP/Vaio horror in order to
> run games and some other things for the kids.
>
Then it's not the end of the world. You probably can
give it a dual boot. Let the kids chose Windoze for
games, and Linux when they want to think! Again, my
4-year-old son _does_ know how to switch from one
to the other.

>
>> Right now, the installation of Linux requires almost
>> _no_ high-tech knowledge.
>
> Yes, but I need turn-key usability for programs/games
> my kids bring home.
>
Dual boot :-)

>> Uh? Do the Chinese own something of the Linux
>> Kernel?
>> Is Linus Tovalds the Manchurian puppet? :-)
>
> Worse.  They get the kernel for free ("Thanks you
> stupid western fools!")  Then they copyright a VARIANT
> and call it SINUX.  You CAN copyright a variant.
>
I think this goes against the GNU license.

> Now REQUIRE that a billion Chinese people use Sinux.
> You now have an operating system that required no R&D,
> whose future improvements come for free.  Yet all the
> Chinese innovators using SINUX will be writing
> programs that ONLY run on Sinux.
>
> Yes it is evil.  And it can work.
>
1 billion Chinese slaves of an Evil G*vernment, with the
_power_ to program whatever they want, and they will not
program freedom?

Also, a Sinux system would be as vulnerable to be beaten
down as a Windows system, by any free software that is
better and more free.

Alberto Monteiro

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

Fwd: Chances of aliens finding Earth disappearing

2004-08-11 Thread Steve Sloan

<>An interesting link posted to LarryNiven-L:
Chances of aliens finding Earth disappearing
   http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns6255
Frank Gasperik:
> A very narrow window here. Maybe that's why we can't find
> aliens, they all watch CABLE!
__
Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama => [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org
Science Fiction-themed online store . http://www.sloan3d.com/store
Chmeee's 3D Objects  http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee
3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com
Software  Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links
Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Format & Reinstall

--- Alberto Monteiro:
> David Brin wrote:
> >> >> I think YU miss the point. As I said, you can
> get> >> BASIC on Linux> >
> > Fascinating.  Except that it will be absurd for me
> to> > switch to Linux for that purpose. 
> >
> Why? You did switch from DOS to Windows 3.1, then
> from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95, then from Windows 98
> to Windows XP [I presume :-)], and at each point you
> _lost_ something, and you had to learn some totally
> useless> crap [things like Registry or how to force
Explorer> to _show_> the extension of the filenames].

It's really much simpler than that.  I am a Mac user
who reluctantly bought an XP/Vaio horror in order to
run games and some other things for the kids.

I know that I must put up with Windows and our next
machine will probably be another of the WinHorrors. 
But please don't blame me.

> Right now, the installation of Linux requires almost
> _no_
> high-tech knowledge.

Yes, but I need turn-key usability for programs/games
my kids bring home.

> Uh? Do the Chinese own something of the Linux
> Kernel?
> Is Linus Tovalds the Manchurian puppet? :-)

Worse.  They get the kernel for free ("Thanks you
stupid western fools!")  Then they copyright a VARIANT
and call it SINUX.  You CAN copyright a variant.

Now REQUIRE that a billion Chinese people use Sinux. 
You now have an operating system that required no R&D,
whose future improvements come for free.  Yet all the
Chinese innovators using SINUX will be writing
programs that ONLY run on Sinux.

Yes it is evil.  And it can work.
db
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: BASIC, Java Etc.

2004-08-11 Thread Jim Burton

On Aug 11, 2004, at 6:55 PM, Davd Brin wrote:

I shall try ybasic, thanks.
But after the horror of trying xbasic and qbasic and
all the others, I do not expect much success.  All
were created by techies who suffer from
techie-disease... an absolute assumption that
everyboddy who downloads their compiler will instantly
and miraculously know how to use it.  The manuals are
gibberish. There is nothing at all resembling a simple
place to write line by line code and simply typr
"run".
Hmm, if you use a "modern" BASIC be prepared for more frustration. 
There are many, many different flavors of BASIC and there's no 
guarantee they'll be compatible with your books.

On the other hand, there's only one flavor of Python and one flavor of 
Java...

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

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

At 08:49 PM Wednesday 8/11/04, William T Goodall wrote:
On 12 Aug 2004, at 1:55 am, Davd Brin wrote:
There is nothing at all resembling a simple
place to write line by line code and simply typr
"run".
And 'run' would come to mind for who?

Anyone old enough to know BASIC?

-- Ronn!  :)
"Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever."
-- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

At 07:55 PM Wednesday 8/11/04, Davd Brin wrote:
> There are many freely and easily  available
> compilers in many
> languages so this doesn't really disturb me.   I've
> heard Yet Another
> Basic is good (though I haven't used it myself):
> http://www.yabasic.de/
I shall try ybasic, thanks.
But after the horror of trying xbasic and qbasic and
all the others, I do not expect much success.

Ever tried S-Basic?  The "S" stands for "structured".  It was someone's 
idea of an illegitimate offspring of Pascal and BASIC.  Frex, you had to 
declare all your variables by type and size at the beginning of any 
program, then write your regular BASIC program . . .

  All
were created by techies who suffer from
techie-disease... an absolute assumption that
everyboddy who downloads their compiler will instantly
and miraculously know how to use it.

Not to mention frex in the case of S-Basic that the INT() function did not 
work normally for negative numbers, meaning that it took forever to make 
those calendar conversion (date <=> JD) routines I was trying to get to run 
on that machine to give correct answers rather than ones that gave results 
which were wrong by a day or two . . .

The manuals are gibberish.

Marketing guy:  "We're shipping the new system next week.  Maybe it's about 
time that we ought to run an ad for a tech writer to write a manual."

(I've been a tech writer.  I don't read manuals either, at least not until 
everything else fails . . . )

There is nothing at all resembling a simple
place to write line by line code and simply typr
"run".
>
> For your son, maybe you'd also want to try teaching
> him LOGO.  I
> googled up a free LOGO version for Windows here:
> http://www.softronix.com/logo.html
Thanks also for that.  But I did try to explain my
frustration.  I already know BASIC.  I have books.  I
have a zillion sample programs that are EXACTLY what I
want to teach.  Logo looks nice but I do not have the
time to learn another language and it definitely looks
"higher" than the algorithm-based level that I have
wanted to show to my son.
I want Z=2x, x=1, print Z.
I want to move a DOT using a simple mathematicall
algorithm.  I have examples in books.  Why can I not
show this to my son?  It is EXACTLY what Bill Gates
and Steve Jobs and Wozniak did.
Maybe that's why they have ensured that no one else can.

For some reason I am tempted to launch a lament over the fact that students 
can't do simple arithmetic without an electronic calculator.

(Me?  There have been times when I've brought my old "Pickett Plank" to 
class and raced the students to the answer . . . )

-- Ronn!  :)
"Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever."
-- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Indivisible (was: Karmic slappage)

2004-08-11 Thread Travis Edmunds

From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Indivisible (was: Karmic slappage)
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 15:49:07 -0700 (PDT)
> Travis Edmunds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Travis Edmunds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >There probably is either hypocrisy or a serious
case
> >of 'the masses can't understand this complexity,
> >therefore we will teach them black and white' at
> >the highest echelons.
> Is that not hypocritical by nature? Especially in
> conjunction with the topic at hand...
If done scornfully - "stupid idiot sheep!" - it is
hypocritical.  If done caringly - "they don't have the
time (from working in the fields all day) to become
educated on these matters, and will derive no comfort
from arcane minutiae, so we must simplify and make it
understandable" - it is at least arrogant, but not
inherently malign.
First of all, I'm not sure if hypocrisy is inherently malign. Are you? I 
mean hypocrisy can exist in a specific case without it being generally 
known. One can be a hypocrite without actually knowing it. The minds eye 
doesn't always see 20/20.

However I do see your point. And I understand that the arrogance of which 
you speak is quite commonplace. But in the administration simplifying the 
'mysteries' if you will, of God and such and such to the public, and 
concurrently approaching those same mysteries themselves as something that 
is deeply intricate, lies the very nature of hypocrisy. And it doesn't 
matter if it's done scornfully or arrogantly, or if one believes that 
hypocrisy is inherently malign. For it's still hypocritical, and begs the 
question of deservedness. Who is more worthy to know and contemplate the 
mysteries of God? Who gets to commune with the Almighty?

Now you might think that that's easy to downplay. It's not. For although 
it's taught that everyone can 'talk' to God through prayer, there still 
exists a hierarchal structure in the administration of the religion where 
people delve deeper into 'God' than any layperson practitioner of the faith. 
I would say that this in itself is hypocritical (as I said above). 
Especially when looking at it from the perspective of 'what the Church 
teaches versus what they practice'.

Of course another question remains - is a little hypocrisy perhaps needed in 
order to keep the machine running smoothly?

> >I'm not sure if it's true that so
> >many people want clear, unequivocal directions
> >I've heard this argued),
> Interesting, that premise. In terms of christianity
> however, wouldn't it be
> a blow to the general organized structure?
> Essentially speaking, faithful
> practitioners of a meticulously methodized system
> would be living a lie.
Semantics: I'd say they'd be living a partial truth.
(And of course I think that is not desirable...hence
my declaration of heretic deism. )
Fair enough. I'd even go so far as to say that the partial truth bit is 
actually more accurate than my 'lie'. But as interesting as I find the 
premise of - 'many people might not want clear, unequivocal directions' - I 
still think that not having and/or wanting those clear unequivocal 
directions is a blow to the very organized structure that we're talking 
about here. As far as I'm concerned it's more than 'not desirable'.

> I'm fairly certain that by living one's life within
> the imposing umbra of
> christianity, and by doggedly dedicating oneself to
> it's doctrine (being any
> specific faith within the realm of christianity),
> one's own ruminative
> tendencies simply must be repressed on some level.
Oooh, I'll let you and Dan slug that one out!  ;)
Does he hit hard? I wouldn't wanna ruin my pretty little face...
> Please note that my above statement is not intended
> as an all-encompassing
> look at human consciousness, but rather as a
> targeted assertionI actively maintain that God
> may indeed exist.
> Therefore in matters such as faith and organized
> religionI also maintain
> that religious thinking,
> while obviously holding back other ways of thought,
> may be quite prodigious in and of itself.
Could you clarify how 'religious thinking' holds back
other ways of thought?
Lets say some young bloke is abstaining from sex until he gets married. He's 
doing this because his faith endorses it. He's being faithful to his 
religion, it's 'way of thought', and to his particular god.

Another young fella is out there doing the horizontal polka with beautiful, 
lithe young women; and with no inhibition whatsoever, as he's simply doing 
what makes him (and I would hope, her) feel good. (The guy is not religious 
in this case...lol)

I could expand on those two cases a whole lot more, but that's not the 
essence of our 'conversation'. Besides, I've provided what you've asked for. 
And there are many, many examples to choose from. But I think yo

Re: Brin: Format & Reinstall

David Brin wrote:
>
>> I think YOU miss the point. As I said, you can get
>> BASIC on Linux
>
> Fascinating.  Except that it will be absurd for me to
> switch to Linux for that purpose. 
>
Why? You did switch from DOS to Windows 3.1, then
from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95, then from Windows 98
to Windows XP [I presume :-)], and at each point you
_lost_ something, and you had to learn some totally useless
crap [things like Registry or how to force Explorer to _show_
the extension of the filenames].

It wouldn't be too difficult to switch to something that is
_more_ intuitive than Windows, because you _know_
what the hell the computer is trying to do most of the
time.

Right now, the installation of Linux requires almost _no_
high-tech knowledge. The only catch is trying to configure
some hardware; I lost 3 months with one flavour of Linux,
but with a second flavour [Fedora Core] almost everything
was configured automatically [the only thing that still does
not work is the microphone, but it didn't work with Windoze
either]

Also, since your kids will be using your computer - where I
suppose you keep important files, like preliminary versions
of the Books - you may not like the idea of kids trying all kinds
of crazy experiments. Unlike Windows 98, where anyone 
can screw up everything, or Windows XP, where anyone 
can cause severe damage to the files in the HD, Linux 
has a _real_ separation of users.

I don't bother with what things Bernardo does with his 
account, because it does not "propagate" to anyone else.
[except when he tries to hack my password O:-)]

> Moreover, while
> Linux will save the world from the horrors of Windows,
> it will also set the stage for the Chinese to pull
> their infamous SINUX gambit, 
>
Uh? Do the Chinese own something of the Linux Kernel?
Is Linus Tovalds the Manchurian puppet? :-)

> under which we will all
> be paying THEM royalties for operating systems, within
> a few years.
>
AFAIK, China is the greatest piracy industry in the world.
I imagine they would have problem in trying to enforce
the payment of royalties!

BTW, notice that if you insist on using Windows tools to
learn BASIC, you probably will lose _everything_ when
our Evil Overlord Bill Gates releases the next version of 
Windows: each new version has the purpose of making 
all previous stuff obsolete. [and remember that by 2007 
there will no longer be any Windows or Bill Gates! :-)]

Alberto Monteiro

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

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

On 12 Aug 2004, at 1:55 am, Davd Brin wrote:
There is nothing at all resembling a simple
place to write line by line code and simply typr
"run".
And 'run' would come to mind for who?
I want Z=2x, x=1, print Z.
That is so	 obvious! Damn those computer elitists for their needless 
obfuscation!

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
Putting an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of keyboards
will _not_ result in the greatest work of all time. Just look at 
Windows.

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

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

2004-08-11 Thread Medievalbk

In a message dated 8/11/2004 1:58:57 PM US Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> I swear, I CANNOT GET A MACHINE WITH SIMPLE BASIC IN
> ORDER TO TEACH IT TO MY SON!

I'm reminded of the Art Bell time travelor who had to go back in time to get 
an older computer to fix the Y2K problem in his reality.

...and those old pencil mark cards made a great way to always have a deck of 
cards that couldn't be confiscated as contraband.

Vilyehm

Back in ye olden days
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws


> There are many freely and easily  available
> compilers in many
> languages so this doesn't really disturb me.   I've
> heard Yet Another
> Basic is good (though I haven't used it myself):
> http://www.yabasic.de/

I shall try ybasic, thanks.

But after the horror of trying xbasic and qbasic and
all the others, I do not expect much success.  All
were created by techies who suffer from
techie-disease... an absolute assumption that
everyboddy who downloads their compiler will instantly
and miraculously know how to use it.  The manuals are
gibberish. There is nothing at all resembling a simple
place to write line by line code and simply typr
"run".

> 
> For your son, maybe you'd also want to try teaching
> him LOGO.  I
> googled up a free LOGO version for Windows here:
> http://www.softronix.com/logo.html

Thanks also for that.  But I did try to explain my
frustration.  I already know BASIC.  I have books.  I
have a zillion sample programs that are EXACTLY what I
want to teach.  Logo looks nice but I do not have the
time to learn another language and it definitely looks
"higher" than the algorithm-based level that I have
wanted to show to my son.

I want Z=2x, x=1, print Z.

I want to move a DOT using a simple mathematicall
algorithm.  I have examples in books.  Why can I not
show this to my son?  It is EXACTLY what Bill Gates
and Steve Jobs and Wozniak did.

Maybe that's why they have ensured that no one else can.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

2004-08-11 Thread Dave Land

Folks,
First of all, thanks to The Fool for scouting this -- it's an 
interesting
read, and it jibes with the experience I'm having with the radio in my
Honda recently (the battery went dead due to a broken thermostat that
left the electric radiator fan running all night, now the "anti-theft"
radio won't play until I get the security code from a dealer).

Unfortunately, his analysis seems to reason from the conclusion that
greedy corporations will force us to buy products that they alone 
control
and that people will buy 'em anyway.

Imagine ford makes a car, where only ford authorized technicians are
capable of servicing, fixing, diagnosing problems with, or installing 
new
parts.

Ford 'owns' the car, and you use it as long as ford (or the government)
allows you to. Perhaps the next time you stop by the Toyota Car lot 
Ford
will decide to revoke your ability to use your car.
Ummm. So don't buy a Ford.
Intelligent fastening removes the physical link between the tool and
fastener. Designed with actuating mechanisms, intelligent fasteners
feature embedded microchips that control the fastening process through
digital instructions from a remote tool.
(Fool: Enabling The Manufacturer to have a complete monopoly on all
parts, all 'tools' to open, fix, modify, or release, any and all parts 
of
the vehicle.)
That is, until someone hacks the protocol. To some, a lock is an 
invitation
to be picked. First, you'll get spam advertising "Ford screw 
descramblers"
and be able to find them at the flea market. Six months later, you'll be
able to buy "Ford-compatible" smart-screw tools at Pep Boys.

Sensing. Integrated sensors within intelligent fasteners could be
programmed to detect, analyze and report urgent problems. As telematics
progress, fastener information could be transmitted in real time to
service centers, documenting product performance, status, wear and 
tear,
and maintenance procedures. Embedded sensors could signal impending
performance failure of critical parts or assemblies based on wear
parameters.

(Fool: And when a part malfunctions?  They could also have parts that
'Expire' after a certain date, no matter whether they work properly or
not.  And the manufacturer could force you to upgrade whether you want 
to
or not.)
Until, that is, they go out of business because people are too smart to
buy their stupid self-destructing cars.
Customization. Intelligent fasteners could allow easy part change-out 
in
aftermarket customization while giving OEMs greater control of genuine
parts.

(Fool: again like the printer manufactures, this technology is designed
for the express purpose of creating a parts monopoly, where competitors
are not able to make a competing part that work with the vehicle at 
all.)
That's certainly one view of what's going on here. Now, oddly, I'm going
to play the role of corporate apologist. Perhaps it is also possible 
that
they are trying to reduce their service costs from having to deal with
people who try to jerry-rig something together and get it all botched 
up.

I recall spending a lot more time rebuilding the carburetor in a 1976 
Land
Cruiser than it should have taken because some junkyard dog had put an 
F2
carb on an F1 engine...

The intelligent processor controls all fasteners and associated 
activity.
These include activating energy switches, receiving information from
sensors, and communicating with the network to which it is attached. 
The
processor can be configured to provide multiple levels of redundancy 
for
product reliability.

(Fool: What happens when some critical component of these 'intelligent'
fasteners break, like a controlling microchip?  When that happen the 
part
can no longer removed at all (at least not without seriously damaging 
the
part itself and its housing.  What happens when an EMP burst knocks out
all the microchips in all the fasteners?)
So we need to prepare ourselves to fend off an army of Ford vans armed
with EMP 'pinch' devices (a la "Ocean's Eleven") driving around trying 
to
find and foil garage mechanics?

Don't you hate that? You're up to your elbows in grease in the garage,
working on your car, when an EMP burst kills all your screws. And to
make matters worse, the radio goes out, so you don't even get to hear
who won the game. And then you bark your shins on the toolbox as you
try to make your way out of the garage in the dark.
Fastener Operating System
Proprietary electronics embedded in intelligent fasteners are 
controlled
by an operating system consisting of real-time executive input/output
(I/O) drivers. An applications programming interface provides a
connection between the intelligent fastener and application software.

(Fool: What happens when a security vulnerability allows a virus or a
hacker to compromise components?  A virus could be set to release at an
inopportune time, killing the passengers or assassinating someone.)
It sure would make a nice twist to the bomb-under-the-seat that's so
popular in spy and mafia movies, or t

Re: Objective Evil

> JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Deborah Harrell wrote:

> >Please explain, then, how any war can be "just,"
> >since
> >it is inevitable that innocents will be killed,
> >maimed and left bereft by.

> I could say the same thing about automobiles.
> does that mean that
> driving automobiles is an evil act, since it is
> inevitable that driving
> automobiles leaves innocents killed, maimed, and
> left bereft?

Cars are not designed to kill or maim humans.  Guns,
bombs, and other ordnance - the means of war - are. 
To put it in other terms, aspirin saves many lives WRT
heart disease, yet kills a few who are
overly-sensitive to it.  But cyanide tablets have one
purpose: to kill.  To give aspirin tablets to a person
is not evil (unless you know that they've already had
a bad reaction to it) -- to give cyanide tablets _is_.

> I use the same logic with a "just war" - intent
> matters.

But disregard of unavoidable collateral damage does
not?  I fail to see how any war can be called just --
although it can be the lesser of two evils.  The only
purpose I can surmise for calling a war "just" is to
convince young people that they are doing the right
thing in killing the 'enemy,' and excused for whatever
collateral non-coms happen to be in the way.  

Once I read that dividing sides into "them and us" is
blunter, but more honest.  I have no problem with
saying that I will kill an intruder in my home, as it
is extremely likely that er's intent to me is harm; I
also know that I will have nightmares about _taking
the life of another human being_ even so.  My action
would not be "just" before the Divine in my personal
belief system - but it would be necessary and the
lesser of evil outcomes -- at least as far as I, my
friends, and family would be concerned.

Deborah Harrell

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Every Single Sperm

On 12 Aug 2004, at 12:08 am, Russell Chapman wrote:
I have three children from 2 intentional breaks in contraception, and 
until very recently did not have the resources to raise them as I 
would have liked - I'd hate to think how a catholic family who 
genuinely avoided artificial contraception and enjoyed a healthy, 
loving, intimate relationship would cope.
Low child mortality in some countries is a recent development that 
millenia-old organizations haven't adapted to yet.

Long-term thinking and all that.
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it.
-- Donald E. Knuth
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

AIDS (was: Objective Evil)

> Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: "Damon Agretto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> > Yeah, but if the Church encourages the use of
> condoms
> > to check the spread of AIDS, it would also be
> > encouraging the practice of pre- or extra-marital
> > sex as well, which from a Catholic standpoint is
> bad...

> That might be a minor result; and I agree that is
> bad.  But, the fact is
> that a very high percentage of the men have
> extra-marital sex, and then
> infect their wives. If the use of condoms is
> socially sectioned, then these
> wives have a much better chance to save their own
> lives.
> 
> AIDs, in Africa, is horrid beyond belief.  IIRC, the
> mean life expectancy
> in Zambia is now down to about 32 years, as a result
> of the AIDS epidemic.

Horribly correct.  Not only in Zambia, but in 6 other
African countries, life expectancy has been reduced to
under 40 years.

http://www.unwire.org/UNWire/20040714/449_25824.asp
"The AIDS pandemic has reduced life expectancy in some
African countries to below 35 years, undermining
development gains made in the last decade, the United
Nations said today at the 15th International AIDS
Conference in Bangkok.  Thirteen sub-Saharan African
nations have recorded "dramatic reversals" in human
development since 1990, largely due to the disease,
the U.N. Development Program said in a statement.

Seven of those countries now have life expectancies
under 40 years, worst among them Zambia, where a child
born today can expect to live just 32.7 years  down
from 47.4 in 1990.  The country's HIV-infection rate
among adults is 16.5 percent.  Life expectancy in
Zimbabwe, where 25 percent of people have the disease,
has dropped from 56.6 years in 1990 to 33.9 years in
2002, and in Swaziland, which has an HIV-infection
rate of 38.8 percent, from 55.3 to 35.7 years.

The Central African Republic, Lesotho, Mozambique and
Malawi were also among the countries with life
expectancies below 40..."

As for the argument that 'a girl should just say no,'
not only do most wives have little-to-no control over
their own bodies, but as Dan has pointed out, it is
culturally accepted in many parts of Africa that a man
use prostitutes if he is away from his wife for an
extended time (not sure if that's a week or a month or
what).  Worse, there is a myth that sex with a virgin
can cure AIDS, and some men don't ask consent:

"...Veronica, like many other girls, was infected by a
man convinced that having sex with a virgin would cure
him. This cruel myth is being perpetuated across
Africa. In a bid either to avoid or to cure their HIV
infection, men are targeting younger and younger girls
as sexual partners, willing or not..."
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/aids/stories/women.children/

(A variant on a very old and tired myth...the Greeks
believed that gonorrhea could be cured by sex with a
virgin.  I'm sure that some idiots in the post-1492
world thought syphilis could be cured the same way.)

The orphan crisis:
"...More than 12 million children in sub-Saharan
Africa - equivalent to the UK's entire child
population - have been orphaned by Aids, the report
says. By 2010, this number will have risen to 43
million...

"...Youngsters are often orphaned two or three times
as their parents die to be replaced by aunts, uncles
and other relatives who also fall victim to the
disease.  Many are forced on to the streets and are
growing up in "an emotional and spiritual vacuum",
Christian Aid said.  The report states: "Villages are
becoming ghost towns, local economies are crumbling. 
"The orphaned children, as adults, will not be
equipped to drive the economic engine of Africa.  This
will make the struggle for development and growth on
the continent even tougher..." 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1328886.stm

WRT abstinence-only:

"...Uganda, touted as a model of HIV/AIDS
intervention, saw the infection rate among sexually
active adults drop from 30 percent to 5 percent.  The
key, according to Uganda's Institute of Public Health
Director, David Serwadda, was a multi-approach
prevention campaign in which condoms played a
substantial role.  "We must not forget that abstinence
is not always possible for people at risk, especially
(African) women," Serwadda said.  "Many women simply
do not have the option to delay initiation of sex or
limit their number of sexual partners."

The $15 billion, five-year U.S. campaign to fight
HIV/AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean contains a
provision inserted by conservative lawmakers requiring
one-third of the prevention component to be spent on
programs stressing abstinence until marriage.

In Ethiopia, where 9 percent of the world's HIV cases
exist, Tidwell wrote, DKT International has run a
prevention program combining abstinence and fidelity
messages with reduced-cost condom distribution.  In
May, Peter Piot, executive director of the Joint U.N.
Program on HIV/AIDS, praised the decline of infection
rates among teen-agers in Addis Ababa..."
http://www.unwire.or

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

On 11 Aug 2004, at 11:56 pm, Bryon Daly wrote:
For example: most DVDs are region-encoded and
can only be played on machines from their native area.
In the UK it is very easy to buy a multi-region DVD player which will 
ignore region-encoding and play any DVD. I bought one from Amazon.co.uk 
last week for £29.99 with free delivery (Yakumo XL2). And it plays VCD, 
SVCD, XSVCD, DVD (-R, +R, -RW, +RW) etc as well. And PAL/NTSC with an 
onboard converter if one's TV isn't dual standard (mine is anyway).

  VHS tapes had
no such restrictions.
Actually thanks to PAL/NTSC and other little TV differences around the 
world tapes mostly wouldn't play outside a region. Of course £30 VHS 
players are PAL/NTSC dual-standard nowadays, but not in the time before 
DVD.

There are many freely and easily  available compilers in many
languages so this doesn't really disturb me.   I've heard Yet Another
Basic is good (though I haven't used it myself):
http://www.yabasic.de/
For your son, maybe you'd also want to try teaching him LOGO.  I
googled up a free LOGO version for Windows here:
http://www.softronix.com/logo.html
LOGO was supposed to be a great educational language. And there is LOGO 
for Lego, to control the robotics stuff. Didn't seem to catch on 
though. I'm not sure if the educational theory behind it (Piaget's 
stuff I recall) is out of favour or for some other reason.

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"Mac OS X is a rock-solid system that's beautifully designed. I much 
prefer it to Linux." - Bill Joy.

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

Re: Irregulars question: Angel finale

At 01:41 PM Wednesday 8/11/04, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Uh? I saw it yesterday, and I didn't get the point. Wtf?
Also, brazilian Fox crippled the episode, by inserting commercials
in the middle of the scenes, then showing long intervals of
a black screen.
Did the series terminate just before a big fight, or was it another
screw up by Fox.br?

Yes it did, and that was a screw-up by FOX, period.

-- Ronn!  :)
"Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever."
-- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Format & Reinstall [was: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws]

At 05:55 PM Wednesday 8/11/04, Davd Brin wrote:
--- Erik  said:
> I think YOU miss the point. As I said, you can get
> BASIC on Linux
Fascinating.  Except that it will be absurd for me to
switch to Linux for that purpose.  Moreover, while
Linux will save the world from the horrors of Windows,
it will also set the stage for the Chinese to pull
their infamous SINUX gambit, under which we will all
be paying THEM royalties for operating systems, within
a few years.
I apopreciate the suggestion re PYTHON.  And yet... it
is most definitely YOU who miss the point.
1. I already know BASIC, so sitting with my son with
BASIC would be a straightforward thing.  Any
reasonable man would expect to be allowed/able to do
so.
2. I am awash in books that offer simple line-by-line
tutorial programs.
3.  All the rich guys at Microsoft got there via a
path that they have now closed to another generation.
It is insane that ANYONE should have to go hunting and
downloading in order to do simple things that anyone
with a PC could do ten years ago.
I shall probably hunt/download python sometime... and
I deeply resent that I must at my age learn a new
language that will be obsolete in no time, just to
replicate WHAT ALREADY EXISTED VASTLY MORE
CONVENIENTLY.
Again, this has been a 2 year search.  If you do not
see the irony and frustration, please do not ridicule
me for seeing it.

Um, just FWIW, on this Win 98 machine I have Visual Basic, C++, Fortran, 
and Smalltalk, as well as assembly language.  (Assuming I haven't forgotten 
anything . . .)  All but the Smalltalk are compatible with each other to 
the extent that I can if I so desire or need to frex stick in-line assembly 
code in the middle of a Fortran program.  And, while not a traditional 
programming language, Mathematica is pretty versatile, too.

Not as many as the couple of dozen languages I've learned and written stuff 
in on mainframes (and written manuals for and taught), but enough to get by 
with most days.  Not that I have the time to use more than a fraction of 
all that programming power . . . but it's nice to have it available when I 
wanna crunch some numbers . . .

-- Ronn!  :)
"Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever."
-- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Every Single Sperm

2004-08-11 Thread Russell Chapman

JDG wrote:
I was seriously asking how priests got involved in contraception. You 
have proven so knowledgeable about the Catholic religion, and been able 
to explain much that seemed a mystery to me in the past - I figured 
there was a good chance you knew the answer...

Basically, since the time of Moses, the clerical class has regulated all
sorts of aspects of Judaeo-Christian life.   Heck, opposition to abortion
goes as far back as Hippocrates, so it is unsurprising that Jews and
Christians would adopt it and until the scientific discovery of ovum
and sperm, there probably wasn't much theological difference between
abortion and contraception.
So, in essence, it comes back to the idea of contraception = abortion?
That traditionally the clerical class had this position, and as new 
forms of contraception became available, it has just sort of held the 
same position?
I can see how that might have happenned, but I'm curious how the 
Catholics see it different to all the other sects. Probably because only 
 the Catholics have retained a continuous line of leadership to adapt 
its teachings to societal changes, where the protestants have been left 
alone to do as they please? Just guessing...

Cheers
Russell C.

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

Re: Every Single Sperm

2004-08-11 Thread Russell Chapman

JDG wrote:
Come on, surely if God can regulate the eating of crustaceans and hoofed
animals, surely he can regulate contraception!
Not that I personally believe those parts of the bible were put there 
under a genuine divine inspiration, they are at least in the bible.
My question, as it has been the last four times I've asked it, is when 
and how did popes, bishops, priests etc get involved in contraception, 
because it is not in the bible. If they were talking about crustaceans 
and hoofed animals, they can point to specific passages to back up their 
position, but for contraception it's just Rome's edict.

The Catholic Church objects to calling children an impediment to the
quality of life.  
Tell that to the missionaries in Ethiopia, where it's an even bet 
whether overpopulation or AIDS is going to kill you.
Tell that to the missionaries in inner-city shelters working with 
crack-heads who are popping out babies that cannot care for, even if the 
baby wasn't doomed by a neo-natal addiction.

I have three children from 2 intentional breaks in contraception, and 
until very recently did not have the resources to raise them as I would 
have liked - I'd hate to think how a catholic family who genuinely 
avoided artificial contraception and enjoyed a healthy, loving, intimate 
relationship would cope.

Cheers
Russell C.

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

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

2004-08-11 Thread Bryon Daly

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:41:13 -0700 (PDT), Davd Brin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> But as a contrarian it is my job to ask people to step
> back.  In this case, The Fool needs to ponder whether
> his reaction to centralized control is unique.  Or
> whether, in fact, the future he describes will creep
> out other people, too.
> 
> Enough to ... maybe... reject the future he describes?

My concern is that the broad awareness of/concern for the issues won't
come until it is already too late to reject.  Legislation like the
DMCA was passed (with Democrat and Republican support, signed by
Clinton), with little argument/concern outside of the tech community -
and now we're stuck with it as it's used by companies to squash
competition, and ensure that things like these encrypted screws can't
be bypassed legally.

> Now, undercircumstances like that, how likely is it
> that people will put up with the "We control your
> television set" parts of TF's scenario?

It's incremental and often the loss of owner rights are candy coated
in other benefits so that people are willing to accept the negatives
to gain the benefits.  For example: most DVDs are region-encoded and
can only be played on machines from their native area.  VHS tapes had
no such restrictions.  People put up with it because they want the DVD
advantages and have no real recourse.

And also, the kind of legislation that enforces the "we control your
tv set" is tech-ish and doesn't fly high on many people's radars and
often gets portrayed as, say, anti-piracy laws, where the impact on
legitimate use isn't immediately apparent to most.

> My biggest example is the silent, unnoticed vanishing
> of any programming language from personal computers.
> 
> I swear, I CANNOT GET A MACHINE WITH SIMPLE BASIC IN
> ORDER TO TEACH IT TO MY SON!
> 
> It has taken 2 years, and I hope to get an old pentium
> machine soon with DOS 6.2 and BASIC aboard, so I can
> teach him the fundamentals of moving a dot via a
> simple algorithm.  Silently, unnoticed, this has
> happened and a new generation will be able to make web
> pages and fancy Flash digitals... but without any
> grasp of the line coding underneath.
> 
> Very disturbing.

There are many freely and easily  available compilers in many
languages so this doesn't really disturb me.   I've heard Yet Another
Basic is good (though I haven't used it myself):
http://www.yabasic.de/

For your son, maybe you'd also want to try teaching him LOGO.  I
googled up a free LOGO version for Windows here:
http://www.softronix.com/logo.html

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

Re: Brin: Format & Reinstall [was: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws]


--- Erik  said: 
> I think YOU miss the point. As I said, you can get
> BASIC on Linux 

Fascinating.  Except that it will be absurd for me to
switch to Linux for that purpose.  Moreover, while
Linux will save the world from the horrors of Windows,
it will also set the stage for the Chinese to pull
their infamous SINUX gambit, under which we will all
be paying THEM royalties for operating systems, within
a few years.

I apopreciate the suggestion re PYTHON.  And yet... it
is most definitely YOU who miss the point.

1. I already know BASIC, so sitting with my son with
BASIC would be a straightforward thing.  Any
reasonable man would expect to be allowed/able to do
so.

2. I am awash in books that offer simple line-by-line
tutorial programs.

3.  All the rich guys at Microsoft got there via a
path that they have now closed to another generation. 
It is insane that ANYONE should have to go hunting and
downloading in order to do simple things that anyone
with a PC could do ten years ago.

I shall probably hunt/download python sometime... and
I deeply resent that I must at my age learn a new
language that will be obsolete in no time, just to
replicate WHAT ALREADY EXISTED VASTLY MORE
CONVENIENTLY.

Again, this has been a 2 year search.  If you do not
see the irony and frustration, please do not ridicule
me for seeing it.  

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

Re: Brin: Format & Reinstall [was: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws]

On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 03:28:52PM -0700, Davd Brin wrote:

> I think you all miss the point.

I think YOU miss the point. As I said, you can get BASIC on Linux if you
insist (actually, I just spent 30 seconds looking at Debian packages and
Debian has 2 free choices: Bywater BASIC Interpreter and "Yet Another
BASIC interpreter").

The point was that there are better languages to learn. Python is an
ideal first language -- it can be as simple as BASIC if you like, but it
has room to grow and doesn't start you with bad habits. And if you know
any programming, you could pick up 50% of Python in an hour (the stuff
that it sounds like you want) and then teach your child a really useful
language.


-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Format & Reinstall [was: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws]

I think you all miss the point.

I have dozens of old books with simple BASIC programs
in them that tell the computer to compute or to move a
dot in ways that show the vital importance of a simple
algorithm at creating what appears on the screen.  If
I had BASIC I could sit with my son and type in these
examples and swiftly establish a sense of power at the
gut level of the machine.

Most of the languages you mention are much higher
level.  Some involve GUI drag and drop methods that
bear NO relation to what I'm talking about.  Certainly
none of them enable a dad to use the mountains of past
experience sitting right here on our shelves.

Thanks.  But the only hope I seem to have is if this
guy I know gets around to giving us an old machine
with DOS aboard.

Utterly pathetic.

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

Re: Brin: Format & Reinstall [was: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws]

On 11 Aug 2004, at 10:21 pm, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
David Brin wrote:
My biggest example is the silent, unnoticed vanishing
of any programming language from personal computers.
I swear, I CANNOT GET A MACHINE WITH SIMPLE BASIC IN
ORDER TO TEACH IT TO MY SON!
Format & Reinstall.
My computer runs Linux _most_ of the time, except when my
kids are playing some stupid games. All three of them use Linux
whenever they want to do something serious [*], and Linux
comes with all programming languages that you wish.
As does Mac OS X. Quite a few 'out of the box' - Applescript, C, 
Objective C, C++, Objective C++,  Java, Perl, Python, Ruby, PHP, Unix 
Shell scripting...and Lisp, Tcl and all those kind of things are a free 
download away. But I don't  think any of those languages are really 
suitable for teaching a young beginner.

There are free LOGO and Smalltalk implementations on most platforms, 
and they might make a good starting language.

REALbasic is a nice commercial environment with an educational version.
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it.
-- Donald E. Knuth
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: free trade and the balance of trade problem

On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 12:59:54PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:

> Playing with numbers I took the accumulated balance of trade imbalance
> in goods and services since 1960 and divided it by the GDP.  This is
> akin to dividing the total household debt by the household income.
> When we have a balance of trade deficit, money flows out to make up
> the differences between goods sold and bought.

I think it is more accurate to say that certificates (bonds, stock
certificates, IOU's, etc) flow out, not money. The trade deficit is
financed by foreign investment in the US -- most recently by countries
like Japan and China buying US bonds, and before that by foreigners
buying US equities.

> At what point does this become disturbing?  Is it when its 100% of
> GDP, 200%? never?  If never, why?

Basically, we are selling our assets for current consumption. Foreigners
own a certain percentage of US assets at any given time, and that
perecentage has been going up for quite a while. I vaguely remember
Warren Buffett writing an interesting comment about this some time ago
(if you are interested, I can try to dig it up).

So, a better way to ask your question might be, at what percentage
of foreign ownership of US assets does a problem arise? At 100%,
then we would all be working for foreigners to earn our room and
board. Would that be a problem? Many people would consider it one. So,
at what percentage less than 100% do we cross over from acceptable to
unacceptable?

-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Format & Reinstall [was: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws]

On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 09:21:20PM +, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> David Brin wrote:
> >
> > My biggest example is the silent, unnoticed vanishing
> > of any programming language from personal computers.
> >
> > I swear, I CANNOT GET A MACHINE WITH SIMPLE BASIC IN
> > ORDER TO TEACH IT TO MY SON!
> >
> Format & Reinstall.
> 
> My computer runs Linux _most_ of the time, except when my
> kids are playing some stupid games. All three of them use Linux
> whenever they want to do something serious [*], and Linux 
> comes with all programming languages that you wish.

Beat me to it. I second that recommendation. There is no better way to
teach someone about computers and programming than to get them started
with Linux. You can get BASIC if you must, but I would recommend Linux
and the Python language to start learning about programming.


-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Every Single Sperm

> Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> Situation is still very strict here, but there are
> many shades of the 
> religious. Refusing vaccination on grounds of
> religious believes is 
> allowed and still very much an issue. There have
> been numerous studies 
> to see if there is enough vaccination percentage
> (even in the very 
> religious reformed regions) in the country to keep
> the vaccination 
> program effective. So far it hasn't been a problem
> so the attitude is relaxed.

Herd immunity...I forget precisely what percentage of
vaccination will preserve herd immunity...I'm thinking
somewhere in the 65-75% range, but ought to look that
up at some point.

> The only exception to this is polio vaccinations. I
> believe that the 
> religious have backed down on that.

Here they changed polio vaccination requirements,
several years ago, to the dead (injected) variety as:
1) Outbreaks due to wild-type virus are extremely
rare.
2) More cases of rare vaccine-induced polio (from the
live-but-attenuated oral vaccine) occurred than any
naturally-aquired cases (almost always in children
with some type of immune defect; because of the oral
vaccine being live, a young child given it would
usually pass the vaccine virus on to the household,
unless hygeine was very exact {fecal-oral route of
transmission}, so a sibling being frex treated for
cancer could develop paralytic disease even from the
attenuated virus).

I think that the WHO is hopeful of eradicating
wild-type polio virus world-wide, within the next
decade (but I'd have to look that up to be certain
too!).

Debbi
Not My Generation Maru   ;)

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Irregulars question: Angel finale

On 11 Aug 2004, at 7:41 pm, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Uh? I saw it yesterday, and I didn't get the point. Wtf?

The Wild Bunch. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Some of them might 
survive...

Also, brazilian Fox crippled the episode, by inserting commercials
in the middle of the scenes, then showing long intervals of
a black screen.
Did the series terminate just before a big fight,
Yes.
or was it another
screw up by Fox.br?
Not this time. The very last line of the ep is Angel saying "Let's go 
to work."

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever 
that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the 
majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish 
than sensible."
- Bertrand Russell

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

Re: Every Single Sperm

2004-08-11 Thread Bryon Daly

The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Children are parasites.  Some species eat their own 'children'.

and elsewhere:

>  ...  Love is merely an illusion created by
> various feedback circuits and dopamine receptors in a human brain, the
> primary purpose of which is to ensure the survival and reproduction of
> the genome.   ...

So, I'm guessing it's safe to say you're not a "people person"?  :-)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: More on domestic mammal vision

I wrote:

> This site is more for the pet owner, and has some
> very nice color graphics

...but forgot to give the link!!!  Oh, the shame!!!

http://www.earthlife.net/mammals/vision.html

Debbi
I Thought I Checked Twice Before Sending Maru  :P

__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Horses

> Julia Randolph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Deborah Harrell wrote

> > That other grazing animals have this same type of
> > color vision (assuming the first site cited above
> is
> > correct) would certainly point to an evolutionary
> > advantage -- after all, how else to describe the
> > great green-grey Limpopo River (IIRC)?.   ;)

> You forgot "greasy".  :)  It was greasy.
> 
> Great green grey greasy Limpopo River, all set about
> with fever trees.  IIRC.

Oh, eeeuw...I just don't see how a river can be
'greasy' - unless it's from the fat of all those young
elephants fooled by the tears of a smiling
crocodile... 

Debbi
Most 'Scruciatingly Polite Maru:)

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Brin: Format & Reinstall [was: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws]

David Brin wrote:
>
> My biggest example is the silent, unnoticed vanishing
> of any programming language from personal computers.
>
> I swear, I CANNOT GET A MACHINE WITH SIMPLE BASIC IN
> ORDER TO TEACH IT TO MY SON!
>
Format & Reinstall.

My computer runs Linux _most_ of the time, except when my
kids are playing some stupid games. All three of them use Linux
whenever they want to do something serious [*], and Linux 
comes with all programming languages that you wish.

Alberto Monteiro

[*] of course "serious" is different for each one; 4-year-old
Bernardo's serious use of the computer is learning how to
move pieces in a chessboard.

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

Re: Spiritual development

> Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Deborah Harrell wrote:
> > > William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > > Sounds like you've got a long hard path to
> atheism.  Good luck.

> >  Sometimes you're really annoying, you know?

> It IS annoying when someone is continually right in
> pointing out one's foibles, isn't it?

So you're saying that William ought to be annoyed with
me?

Debbi
Word Games Maru   ;)

__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

More on domestic mammal vision

This is a 2002 veterinarian-oriented site, with stuff
about diopters and all that I only vaguely recall
anything about; the quotes below are from below the
advert about a vet tonometer (to measure pressure in
the eye - like checking for glaucoma in humans). 
Visual fields and blind spots, as well as binocular
vision, are quantified.  Effect of vertical (as in
cats) vs. horizontal (as in horses & goats) pupils
mentioned, as is tendency of near- or far-sightedness,
and how Siamese cross-eyed-ness might be compensatory
for other defects in that breed's visual system.

http://www.animaleyecare.com/for.htm
1. Small monocular visual fields of peripheral vision
in dogs and cats (~80°) as compared to the horse
(146°). The horse has a total field of vision of near
350°.  [So my guess of ~300o was too small!]

2. Large frontal binocular visual field of 85° in dogs
and cats, and 65° in horses. The posterior blind spot
of dogs and cats is ~80-120° while the blind spot of
the horse is ~3°...

...All evidence suggests that the dog is dichromat
with vision similar to a human who is red-green color
blind.. Cats are weak trichromats...They live in a
world of fuzzy pastelsIf normal human vision is
20/20, then that of the dog is 20/50, the horse 20/33,
and that of the cat is 20/100the dog should have
good motion detection and high temporal contrast
capabilities. Acuity is less than humans and horses,
but greater than the catThe lens of dogs and cats
has weak accommodative ability and therefore they have
limited near focus capability

13. Equine Vision: Very good motion detection but poor
acuity in the peripheral retina. The nasal extension
of the retina, the laterality of the eyes, and the
horizontal pupil facilitate tremendous peripheral
vision for the horse standing with its head up. The
horse utilizes both eyes until an object approaches
within 3-4 feet when it is forced to turn its head
continue to observe with one eye. Horses need
accommodate < 2D to maintain a focused image on the
retina...  [D = diopter, which I think is a measure of
accomodation, which involves changing the shape of the
lens and focal length to retina in order to focus on
objects be they near or far; in humans this ability
decreases as one ages, so that by the mid-forties,
many people begin to have to hold objects further away
in order to focus correctly.  Technically this is
called presbyopia; practically it means 'the age of
reading glasses!'  ;) ]

There are interesting links at the bottom dealing with
species- & breed-specific eye problems; frex
'pop-eyed' dogs (such as pugs) are very susceptible to
having an eye literally pop out of its socket from
trauma such as a hard fall or being struck on the head
[this from a dog-showing friend, not sure if this is
mentioned in any of the links.  This is of course
necessitates an emergency visit to an vet specialized
in ophthalmology, if there is to be any hope of saving
the eye.].

This site is more for the pet owner, and has some very
nice color graphics (including the spectrum of visible
light with wavelengths identified), with a neat one of
how a horse eye is asymmetric, allowing distant
objects to be focused on one part of the retina, while
nearby ones are focused on a different part. [I wonder
if this might be the source of the "magnifying lens"
comment Robert's friend made?  Note that there is some
controversy with this "ramped retina" theory, as
discussed in the next site about equine vision.]  I
would trust the vet-oriented site for accurate
field-of-vision figures - note that the "typical
herbivore"  clearly is not a horse, as a horse's eyes
are more set on the side than this diagram.

For the equine enthusiast (and these figures agree
well with the above vet site):
http://www.completerider.com/horsemanfeb2003.html

Debbi
No Wonder Cats Act Like The World Is Their
Oyster...They See With Pastel-Tinted Glasses! Maru



__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Irregulars question: Angel finale

Uh? I saw it yesterday, and I didn't get the point. Wtf?
Also, brazilian Fox crippled the episode, by inserting commercials
in the middle of the scenes, then showing long intervals of
a black screen.

Did the series terminate just before a big fight, or was it another
screw up by Fox.br?

Alberto Monteiro

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

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

2004-08-11 Thread Jim Burton

On Aug 11, 2004, at 1:41 PM, Davd Brin wrote:
My biggest example is the silent, unnoticed vanishing
of any programming language from personal computers.
I swear, I CANNOT GET A MACHINE WITH SIMPLE BASIC IN
ORDER TO TEACH IT TO MY SON!
It has taken 2 years, and I hope to get an old pentium
machine soon with DOS 6.2 and BASIC aboard, so I can
teach him the fundamentals of moving a dot via a
simple algorithm.  Silently, unnoticed, this has
happened and a new generation will be able to make web
pages and fancy Flash digitals... but without any
grasp of the line coding underneath.
Very disturbing.

Good 'ole BASIC has gone bye-bye -- there is Visual Basic of course, 
but it's certainly not for children.

There is a free GNU Java IDE that the writers claim to be good for 
teaching  programming. Versions are available for Windoze, Linix and 
OSX

http://judo.sourceforge.net/
Haven't used it myself, but if it can really give kids a good 
foundation in Java, that would be a Good Thing, IMHO

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

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

--- The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws
> > Imagine a world where you cannot take apart
> anything, or attempting to
> take apart devices, open computer cases, install 3rd
> party replacement
> parts or modifying an existing device was completely
> banned by greedy
> corporations through technology. 

I do not disagree with the fear expressed here. 
Certainly there are elites -- governmental, corporate,
aristocratic, criminal, technological and so on -- who
will want to accumulate control over our lives in the
manner described.

But as a contrarian it is my job to ask people to step
back.  In this case, The Fool needs to ponder whether
his reaction to centralized control is unique.  Or
whether, in fact, the future he describes will creep
out other people, too.

Enough to ... maybe... reject the future he describes?

We are all tempted to portray ourselves as just about
the only people who can see nefarious plots by
conspiring elites.  But in fact, this is EXACTLY the
theme that pervades nearly every movie and song.  It
is THE primary propaganda message of our era.

Now, undercircumstances like that, how likely is it
that people will put up with the "We control your
television set" parts of TF's scenario?

It is the OTHER part that frightens me... a
deterioration in skill.  

See
http://www.futurist.com/portal/future_trends/david_brin_empowerment.htm
where I talk about the need for average citizens to
take MORE power over their lives, not from nefarious
conspiring elites, but just from the trend toward the
PROFESIONALIZATION OF EVERYTHING.  This may be
undermined by a demolition of needed skills.

My biggest example is the silent, unnoticed vanishing
of any programming language from personal computers.

I swear, I CANNOT GET A MACHINE WITH SIMPLE BASIC IN
ORDER TO TEACH IT TO MY SON!

It has taken 2 years, and I hope to get an old pentium
machine soon with DOS 6.2 and BASIC aboard, so I can
teach him the fundamentals of moving a dot via a
simple algorithm.  Silently, unnoticed, this has
happened and a new generation will be able to make web
pages and fancy Flash digitals... but without any
grasp of the line coding underneath.

Very disturbing.

db

PS I still have thos MEMBERSHIPS TO WORLDCON IN
BOSTON for sale, if anyone is interested.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

[L3] Re: Horses as Prey Animals

2004-08-11 Thread Robert J. Chassell

Here is what I put together about horses based on various comments to
me from my first post.  I do not know anything about horses; this is
all new to me.  

The psychology of being a herd animal got me going.  However, I also
get carried away thinking about vision.  Incidentally, I never did
figure out what my friend meant when she said that horses eyes
magnify.  I thought she meant they were near sighted; but maybe not.
Maybe she meant that a part of a horse's field of view has a higher
resolution than other parts and that horses are more conscious of this
than humans are of theirs.  Or maybe something else.  Anyhow, I have
not said anything about that.

Ronn!Blankenship talked about bird's vision.  They see more colors
than humans!  I'll pull all that together soon.

I have put this up, more or less as you see it here, on my Web site.



Unlike cats and dogs, which are predators, horses are prey animals. This makes
horses different from cats and dogs. Humans are both predators and prey. 

A friend who is not on this list got me interested in this.  She said
that since horses are prey animals, their horses' reason for grouping
together is different from wolves.

For horses, the bigger the herd, the safer each is.

The limit is determined by the available grazing and the ability of a stallion
to keep mares from other males.

Herds in a desert or other harsh environments are quite size-limited, and may
be as small as one stud, one mare and their young offspring. (The sire will
have driven off the older colts, and another stallion may have enticed away
older fillies.)

Deborah Harrell says that

 ... one stallion can only 'claim' so many mares in the wild
state, and I have not heard of a single male holding more than ~
15 mares (although there are rare cases of an alpha stud
permitting a beta male to be part of the herd, which can then be a
little larger; the beta may or may not be permitted to breed any
of the mares, however. The presumed advantage to a younger male
who holds beta status but is not allowed to breed: if the alpha is
injured or dies, he can take over without a dangerous fight, and
having been part of the herd he is already known and acceptable to
the mares.)

For wolves, on the other hand, an overly large pack provides little food for
each member. An appropriately sized pack can bring down an elk and feed
comfortably. Too few wolves, the elk escapes and the wolves do not eat. Too
many wolves, and the dead elk does not provide enough for all.

My friend also said that both dogs and horses are hierarchical, but
horses are less hierarchical than dogs.

In a herd, stallions protect the others and breed, but the individual horse who
finds good grass is often the lead mare. She also decides when to move to
various parts of the herd's range. The lead mare will discipline rowdy
youngsters and keep the other mares `in line' as well. There have been
documented cases in which the lead mare actively helped maintain an injured or
ill herd stallion's status until he recovered.

Deborah Harrell says that

Unlike elk or deer, long-term emotional (or for the purists,
preferential) bonds can be formed between a stallion and the mares
of his herd; I recall reading somewhere of one pair being together
for ~15 years (with other mares varying), and of another mare
escaping, after a year, from the winning stallion and successfully
finding her previous mate. (This from studies of American mustangs
- I think these were in Montana.)

Unlike dogs in packs, in a herd, every mare in a herd breeds, but not
every stallion.

Horses have the equivalent of left and right handedness. That is to say, they
have different acuities on the left side and the right. Some horses prefer to
be approached and mounted on the right rather than the left. Some prefer the
rider to sit during a trot with either the right or left hind foot, start a
cantor with either the left or right hoof first.

Horses have color vision that is different from humans': they see blue and
yellow.

In a `just so story' mode, I can remind you that yellow is the color of the
direct sun and blue predominates in shade. The contrast usefully helps you
determine whether you are in shade or not.

Moreover, I would think that blue in association with yellow enables a horse to
distingish among different shades of green, and therefore among different
qualities of grass. Both sensor capabilities would cause those horses, or
proto-horses, that possessed yellow/blue vision to reproduce better than those
which lacked them.

Is there any evidence that this `just so story' is true?

Moreover, while horses enjoy overlapping sight, or binocular vision, they also
have a 3 foot blind spot right in front. If you approach a horse in its blind
spot, you may startle it.

The angles covered by horses' binocular vision are small compared to humans',
since the eyes are set more on the sides of the head than in front, as in

Weekly Chat Reminder

As Steve said,
"The Brin-L weekly chat has been a list tradition for over six
years. Way back on 27 May, 1998, Marco Maisenhelder first set
up a chatroom for the list, and on the next day, he established
a weekly chat time. We've been through several servers, chat
technologies, and even casts of regulars over the years, but
the chat goes on... and we want more recruits!
Whether you're an active poster or a lurker, whether you've
been a member of the list from the beginning or just joined
today, we would really like for you to join us. We have less
politics, more Uplift talk, and more light-hearted discussion.
We're non-fattening and 100% environmentally friendly...
-(_() Though sometimes marshmallows do get thrown.
The Weekly Brin-L chat is scheduled for Wednesday 3 PM
Eastern/2 PM Central time in the US, or 7 PM Greenwich time.
There's usually somebody there to talk to for at least eight
hours after the start time.
If you want to attend, it's really easy now. All you have to
do is send your web browser to:
  http://wtgab.demon.co.uk/~brinl/mud/
...And you can connect directly from William's new web
interface!
My instruction page tells you how to log on, and how to talk
when you get in:
  http://www.brin-l.org/brinmud.html
It also gives a list of commands to use when you're in there.
In addition, it tells you how to connect through a MUD client,
which is more complicated to set up initially, but easier and
more reliable than the web interface once you do get it set up."
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my 
telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my 
telephone." - Bjarne Stroustrup

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

Re: Every Single Sperm

The Fool wrote:
>
> Whatever popists may believe--or say they believe--It is mathematically
> impossible to prove the existence of Dog.  Therefor any and all things
> attributed to said deit(y|ies) is supposition.  Because their no
> mathematical way to prove the existence of said deit(y|ies) it is
> mathematically impossible to prove any thought, action, feeling, belief,
> attribute, desire, or speech, of the unproven deit(y|ies).  
>
You have never dealt with any advanced mathematics, have you?

It's perfectly normal in mathematics to suppose something - without
proving its existence - and then inferring properties for such mathematical
object.

In fact, it's the most straightforward way to prove the _non-existence_
of something if we start by assuming its existence, and then drawing
absurd results from that.

What religious atheists should be doing right now is this, to turn Atheism
from just another theology into Science :-P

  "Let's define "god" as (A1), (A2),  Lemma: If there are infinite
   gods, then (L1), (L2), ... Lemma: if there are two gods G1 and G2,
   then (L3), (L4), ... etc"

Alberto Monteiro

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

Re: Every Single Sperm

The Fool wrote:
>
>> there were anti-conception herbs.
>
> ...That very worked so well they very quickly went extinct.
>
Not so quickly. The Roman Empire lasted for about 500 years
[counting from the time they won the 1st Punic War to the fall
of the Western Empire].

But maybe, like the USA Empire, its vitality required a constant
flux of immigrants.

Alberto Monteiro

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

free trade and the balance of trade problem

2004-08-11 Thread Dan Minette

While I am for free trade, there is one arguement that I've never been able
to figure out: the arguement that the balance of trade deficit doesn't
really matter because its so small.   I can understand why debts that
remain small, when expressed in terms of total income, are not a problem.
But this isn't the case.

Playing with numbers I took the accumulated balance of trade imbalance in
goods and services since 1960 and divided it by the GDP.  This is akin to
dividing the total household debt by the household income.  When we have a
balance of trade deficit, money flows out to make up the differences
between goods sold and bought.

In 1980, this deficit was 3.2% of GDP.  In 1990 it was 19.2%.  In 2000 it
was 32.4%.  In 2003, just three years later, it was 42.2%.  Unless the
trade imbalance for June and July drop precipitously, we now have a deficit
of 45%.

Now, I know other numbers, such net interest and dividends in and out of
the country need to be added to this to make it more accurate, but that
would have made it worse in 2003.

At what point does this become disturbing?  Is it when its 100% of GDP,
200%?  never?  If never, why?

Dan M.


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

A pox on both your houses

2004-08-11 Thread Dan Minette

I just saw this "pox on both your houses" commentary by Sebastian Mallaby.
I don't fully agree with it.  In my opinion, there is too wide a range of
things that have gone wrong in exactly the
same way to attribute it to pure bungling.  I am looking at expressing the
problem as two parts of a dilemma that must be solved being advcocated by
two groups in the US.  What we need is a synthesis between the two views.

This idea isn't fully developed yet, but I do think Mr. Mallaby is just a
bit off the mark, but close enough to be worth considering.



Bush smashed the Taliban in Afghanistan, even though large parts of the
Democratic foreign policy establishment opposed any strategy involving
boots
on the ground. Bush announced the biggest expansion in foreign assistance
in
recent memory and designed a smart way of dispensing it. Bush ousted Saddam
Hussein, whereas the Democratic establishment, which also believed that
Iraq
had weapons of mass destruction and also talked the talk of regime change,
would never have done anything so risky.

John Kerry, on the other hand, is a lot more timid. He's fudging the
question about whether he would have gone into Iraq, but his record
suggests
that his appetite for foreign policy risk is between small and zero. He
voted against stationing intermediate nuclear missiles in Europe in the
1980s, against the Nicaraguan contras and against the Persian Gulf War.
Seared by the experience of Vietnam, he is on the risk-averse wing of the
risk-averse party. But the United States does not have the option of
withdrawing from the war on terrorism in the way that it withdrew from
Saigon. Kerry's inclinations seem wrong for the times that we live in.

Now I'll flop the other way. Bush's clear foreign policy principles are
matched by clear foreign policy incompetence. After routing the Taliban,
Bush's Pentagon insisted, against all experience and good sense, that the
country could be rebuilt with a peacekeeping force of only 5,000 troops
confined to the capital. At one point a senior State Department official
mooted a fivefold expansion in that force, and just about every outside
expert on nation-building agreed. But these voices were ignored. As a
result, Afghanistan is descending into the hands of drug-dealing warlords.

Then came the Iraq mess. Bush and his officials over-interpreted the
evidence on weapons of mass destruction, treating suppositions as hard
facts. They failed to plan for the postwar operation, and they acted
surprised when the power vacuum caused by the regime's implosion triggered
looting and mayhem. They needlessly alienated allies with taunts about "old
Europe." And they permitted the Abu Ghraib abuses, which have damaged
America's reputation and influence for years to come.

By going into Iraq, Bush showed a welcome willingness to take risks and
preempt threats; he showed that the United States could project force
aggressively. But by going into Iraq, Bush showed an inability to calibrate
risk and preempt possible setbacks; he has damaged America's ability to
project force aggressively.

Now take economic policy. Despite early steel and farm protectionism, Bush
has turned out to be good on trade and globalization. His team launched the
Doha round of global trade talks, which will focus on liberalization that
helps poor countries. It has kept them moving ahead, despite the
protectionist pressures generated by a weak economy. It has resisted
turning
China into a trade whipping boy, despite pressure to do so from both
business and labor.

Again, Kerry is not so forthright. He refuses to support the Central
American Free Trade Agreement because he says it has inadequate labor
protections, even though there are real labor protections in the deal and
even though the best protection for workers is the economic growth to which
free trade contributes. Kerry cannot bring himself to issue a statement
welcoming progress in the Doha talks, even though global free trade could
lift 500 million people out of poverty, according to William Cline of the
Center for Global Development, and even though it could enrich the United
States to the tune of $200 billion annually, according to Harvard's Jeff
Frankel, a former Clinton official.

On the other hand you have domestic economic policy. Bush's tax cuts are
regressive, even though technology and globalization are already increasing
inequality. Bush's tax cuts are enormous, even though we face a baby bust
and terrifying long-term trends in health care inflation. And Bush has
presided over an explosion of government spending. He has never once
wielded
his veto to block pork-barrel waste, and his efforts on entitlements
consist
of ignoring the recommendations of his own Social Security commission, plus
creating a brand new entitlement to prescription drugs for retirees.

So which should I prefer? A candidate whose foreign policy instincts are
wrong? Or one whose implementation discredits his good policy? A candidate
who lacks the guts to be

Re: Every Single Sperm

2004-08-11 Thread JDG

At 12:44 AM 8/11/2004 + Alberto Monteiro wrote:
>JDG wrote:
>>
>> ... and until the scientific discovery of ovum
>> and sperm, there probably wasn't much theological difference between
>> abortion and contraception.
>>
>I _think_ I read somewhere about roman condoms, made of some
>animal internal body parts. I don't know how effective they were. And
>there were anti-conception herbs.

Yes, but if you don't know that an "ovum" and a "sperm" exists, and rather
think of things in terms of "seed" and "soil" - it can be easy to imagine
why a theological distinction between abortion and contraception never
really developed.

JDG

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

Re: Every Single Sperm

2004-08-11 Thread Julia Randolph

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 06:25:03 -0500, The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: Alberto Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > JDG wrote:
> > >
> > > ... and until the scientific discovery of ovum
> > > and sperm, there probably wasn't much theological difference between
> > > abortion and contraception.
> > >
> 
> > I _think_ I read somewhere about roman condoms, made of some
> > animal internal body parts. I don't know how effective they were. And
> 
> Lamb?

Sounds about right.  I'd heard something like "sheep intestines". 
Sheep, lamb -- all the same, just different ages.

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

RE: Objective Evil

2004-08-11 Thread Damon Agretto

> Seeing the above, I am beginning to see why you hate
> religion so
> much...

Yes, it explains a lot. I remember working with a JW
and EVERY day she tried to "convert" me, etc. As much
as I wanted to deconstruct her beliefs and illustrate
false assumptions, I resisted.

Still, if the Fool is defining ALL of religion based
on JW, its still incorrect. I guess that would be like
defining Germans based on the Nazis, or somesuch.

Damon.

=

Damon Agretto
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum."
http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html
Now Building: 




__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Every Single Sperm

> From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> At 09:44 AM Wednesday 8/11/04, The Fool wrote:
> > > From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > At 06:41 AM Wednesday 8/11/04, The Fool wrote:
> > > > > From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > >
> > > > > If there is a God, why is it inconceivable?
> > > >
> > > >First prove the existence of a deity.
> > >
> > > Not necessary to answer that question.
> >
> >If their is a deity, it is an alien.
> 
> Non responsive and incorrect besides.

Whatever.  I can find no other way of classifying such a being that is
more accurate.  Such a being is not human in any way, it won't think or
act like a human.  It won't have the needs, or desires, or pleasures, or
really anything in common with human.  What does a tiny bit of entropy
that calls itself human have in common with such a being?  Nothing.  Why
would a being that is so completely and utterly alien to us care about
how we transmit our entropy?

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

RE: Objective Evil

2004-08-11 Thread Horn, John

> Behalf Of The Fool
> --
> According to my entire extended family on both sides, you are
wrong. 
> Also according to the 'literature' (propaganda) they try and 
> pawn off on me, they do indeed call themselves 'christians' and
consider 
> themselves to be the only true 'christians' and that everyone else
who calls
> themselves a 'christian' are false 'christians'.

OK.  I stand corrected.  I've been fortunate that my in-laws have
never tried to convert my wife or me so I'm not as intimately
familiar with their beliefs.  I must have misunderstood something
they said in passing.

Seeing the above, I am beginning to see why you hate religion so
much...

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

Re: Every Single Sperm

At 09:44 AM Wednesday 8/11/04, The Fool wrote:
> From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> At 06:41 AM Wednesday 8/11/04, The Fool wrote:
> > > From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > If there is a God, why is it inconceivable?
> >
> >First prove the existence of a deity.
>
> Not necessary to answer that question.
If their is a deity, it is an alien.

Non responsive and incorrect besides.
-- Ronn!  :)
"Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever."
-- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Fwd: D-Day, 2004.

2004-08-11 Thread Damon Agretto

> the habitat of the spineless French crab was

Oooh...bad, BAD Ronn!!

Damon. :P


=

Damon Agretto
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum."
http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html
Now Building: 





__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Every Single Sperm

> From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> At 06:41 AM Wednesday 8/11/04, The Fool wrote:
> > > From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > If there is a God, why is it inconceivable?
> >
> >First prove the existence of a deity.
> 
> Not necessary to answer that question.

If their is a deity, it is an alien.  An alien that thinks and acts in
ways that are, alien.  It's not going to have a 'brain' in same way a
human does.  It's thinking center is not likely to have clumps of cells
that act as feedback circuits determining gender identity.  It's not
going to have clumps of cells that act as feedback circuits determining 
hunger or keeping a heart beating, or lungs breathing, or that work to
have the deity reproduce.  It's thinking center won't have dopamine
receptors at various centers that give it 'pleasure' as a feedback. 
Their is no reason to believe that such a being would think in any way
like a human does.  Their is no reason to believe that such a being would
act, or care about any thing that a human does.  People want to describe
this being as a being of love.  Love is merely an illusion created by
various feedback circuits and dopamine receptors in a human brain, the
primary purpose of which is to ensure the survival and reproduction of
the genome.  Their is no reason to believe that a deity would have such
mechanisms.  Their is absolutely no reason to believe any alien deity
would act or care about anything that a human does.

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

Fwd: D-Day, 2004.

How Would the D-Day Invasion be Reported today?
(This is what you would hear if today's media reported on D-Day at Normandy)
June 6, 1944. -NORMANDY- Three hundred French civilians were killed and 
thousands more wounded today in the first hours of America's invasion of 
continental Europe. Casualties were heaviest among women and children. Most 
of the French casualties were the result of artillery fire from American 
ships attempting to knock out German fortifications prior to the landing of 
hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. Reports from a makeshift hospital in 
the French town of St. Mere Eglise said the carnage was far worse than the 
French had anticipated and reaction against the American invasion was 
running high. "We are dying for no reason," said a Frenchman speaking on 
condition of anonymity. "Americans can't even shoot straight. I never 
thought I'd say this, but life was better under Adolph Hitler."

The invasion also caused severe environmental damage. American troops, 
tanks, trucks and machinery destroyed miles of pristine shoreline and 
thousands of acres of ecologically sensitive wetlands. It was believed that 
the habitat of the spineless French crab was completely wiped out, 
threatening the species with extinction. A representative of Greenpeace 
said his organization, which had tried to stall the invasion for over a 
year, was appalled at the destruction, but not surprised. "This is just 
another example of how the military destroys the environment without a 
second thought," said Christine Moanmore. "And it's all about corporate 
greed." Contacted at his Manhattan condo,  member of the French 
government-in-exile who abandoned Paris when Hitler invaded said the 
invasion was based solely on American financial interests. Everyone knows 
that President Roosevelt has ties to big beer," said Pierre LeWimp. "Once 
the German beer industry is conquered, Roosevelt's beer cronies will 
control the world market and make a fortune."

Administration supporters said America's aggressive actions were based in 
part on the assertions of controversial scientist Albert Einstein, who sent 
a letter to Roosevelt speculating that the Germans were developing a secret 
weapon, a so-called "atomic bomb." Such a weapon could produce casualties 
on a scale never seen before and cause environmental damage that could last 
for thousands of years. Hitler has denied having such a weapon and 
international inspectors were unable to locate such weapons even after 
spending two long weekends in Germany. Shortly after the invasion began 
reports surfaced that German prisoners had been abused by Americans. 
Mistreatment of Jews by Germans at so-called "concentration camps" has been 
rumored but so far, remains unproven.

Several thousand Americans died during the first hours of the invasion and 
French officials are concerned that uncollected corpses pose a public 
health risk. "The Americans should have planned for this in advance," they 
said. "It's their mess and we don't intend to clean it up."
 

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

Re: Every Single Sperm

At 06:41 AM Wednesday 8/11/04, The Fool wrote:
> From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> If there is a God, why is it inconceivable?
First prove the existence of a deity.

Not necessary to answer that question.

-- Ronn!  :)
"Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever."
-- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: the new Bush ad : I don't see any morphing...

2004-08-11 Thread Ritu

JDG wrote:

> First, let me reiterate that there are simply no excuses for
> this security breach (if indeed the facts we have our true - 
> which of course is the only possible means of discussion, but 
> it should be kept vaguely in the back of our heads that 
> anything having to do with intelligence could be
> misinformation.)   
> 
> Still, there were a *lot* of Democrats who were loudly
> suggesting that the most recent terror alert was essentially 
> made up by the Bush Administration
> for political purposes.   This is a particularly craven sort 
> of political
> argument during a time of war.Due to this security 
> breach, however, we
> now know that the terror alert was real, and based on 
> breaking information.

First of all, I thank you for the explanation. And now, I am request
another. :) I don't understand the bit about 'particularly craven sort
of political argument during a time of war'. Would this argument be fine
if the war was over, and which war are you talking about - the one in
Iraq, on the one against terror? And do you really mean to imply that if
one were not craven, and/or politically motivated, one would not have a
reason to doubt/question the actions and motives of the Bush
administration?

I agree with you completely about the seriousness of this breach, and I
am less than sanguine about the possibility of this being a planned
misinformation campaign. Reactions from London and Islamabad seem to
belie these hopes. And as for this being a validation for the alerts,
nothing that has surfaced points in that direction. 

> Thus, given that the incredibly insulting allegations of
> these Democrats have now proven to be demonstrably false in 
> short order, in polite society an apology would be in order.

*g*

Even if they *are* proven wrong, do you seriously expect them to
apologise? In an election year? With the polls a few months away?

Might as well expect the Republicans to apologise for leaking the name
of a covert operative in an attempt to score political points. :)

Ritu

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

Re: Every Single Sperm

> From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> At 02:59 PM 8/8/04, The Fool wrote:
> > > From: JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > At 10:32 AM 8/7/2004 +0200 Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote:
> > > >When it threatened to decrease the number of flock considerably or
> >more
> > > >to the point when contraception started interfering with the power
> >base
> > > >of the holy church.
> > >
> > > Is it so inconceivable that maybe - just maybe - they sincerely
believe
> > > that God does not want us to engage in contraception?
> >
> >Yes.  Yes it is.
> 
> If there is a God, why is it inconceivable?

First prove the existence of a deity.

> 
> (I am not saying I agree or disagree with the Catholic position on 
> contraception.  I am asking the very specific question:  "Why it is 
> inconceivable that if it is the case that God exists, then He has told 
> Catholics that He does not approve of contraception?"  Please address
all 
> responses to answering that question.  And yes, I'm still serious, and 
> still have a point here.)

Whatever popists may believe--or say they believe--It is mathematically
impossible to prove the existence of Dog.  Therefor any and all things
attributed to said deit(y|ies) is supposition.  Because their no
mathematical way to prove the existence of said deit(y|ies) it is
mathematically impossible to prove any thought, action, feeling, belief,
attribute, desire, or speech, of the unproven deit(y|ies).  JDG's
position is ignorant and superstitious at best, malicious or servile at
worst.  Just because somebody believes something to be true, that does
not make it true.  JDG can believe what he wants, but he cannot prove his
belief's true.  

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

Re: Every Single Sperm

> From: Alberto Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> JDG wrote:
> >
> > ... and until the scientific discovery of ovum
> > and sperm, there probably wasn't much theological difference between
> > abortion and contraception.
> >

> I _think_ I read somewhere about roman condoms, made of some
> animal internal body parts. I don't know how effective they were. And

Lamb?

> there were anti-conception herbs.

...That very worked so well they very quickly went extinct.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

Imagine a world where you cannot take apart anything, or attempting to
take apart devices, open computer cases, install 3rd party replacement
parts or modifying an existing device was completely banned by greedy
corporations through technology.  A kind of tamper-proof palladium for
all devices including cars, TV's, and any appliance that uses technology.

Imagine that TV's have technology that tracks eye movements and records
the reflection in your eyes (they already have technology that can figure
out what you are looking at solely from reflections on eyes).  Now
imagine that you cannot disable this big-brother device without disabling
the TV completely.  Now imagine that in order to get the TV to show you
the programming you want, the device must first record you watching
twenty minutes of advertising propaganda, and that the TV won't show you
the programming you want to watch unless you do watch all twenty minutes
of the propaganda first.  Now extend this to everything that the TV
shows, all programming, all games, all DVD movies, everything.  All these
things described are likely to come about over the next few years.  Most
of the technology I just described is in development.

Imagine ford makes a car, where only ford authorized technicians are
capable of servicing, fixing, diagnosing problems with, or installing new
parts.  Imagine that every part of the car was connected in such a way
that it is impossible to open without having a ford authorized technician
open it.  Imagine that when a head light breaks, you have to go to ford
to have them install a new one.  You can't remove the existing one with
out fords permission.  You can't install one made by a competitor (The
car will simply refuse to use it).  You can't even use an existing
perfectly good working head-light taken from another car, from a junk
yard or elsewhere.  Ford would have a perfect monopoly, and cars and car
parts would be very expensive.  Now image that ford makes it so that cars
will no longer work after 5 years, and have to be recycled after that
time period.  Further imagine that ford could for any reason whatsoever
deny any user of their cars the ability to fix their car, or upgrade
their car, or even run their car.  Even Further imagine that the car
always keeps track of your position, speed, and other data, and transmits
this data to ford every hour.  Ford 'owns' the car, and you use it as
long as ford (or the government) allows you to. Perhaps the next time you
stop by the Toyota Car lot Ford will decide to revoke your ability to use
your car.

Think that these scenario's can't happen?  Printers already do a lot of
the things I described in the above paragraph.

Enter The Encrypted Screws:

(My commentary will be in Parentheses.)

-
<>
Intelligent Fastening for Automotive Electronics
 
Automotive OEMs and suppliers share a drive to enhance assembly
efficiency and productivity, reduce time-to-market, produce
higher-quality products at competitive prices, and meet regulatory
standards for mileage, safety and the environment. The industry also must
meet demand for increased vehicle performance, comfort, convenience,
communications and security. 
 
By Seshu Seshasai 
Content and complexity of automotive semiconductor technology for various
uses continue to grow. Allied Business Intelligence predicts that the
worldwide automotive semiconductor market will expand to more than $17
billion annually by 2007, up from $12.3 billion last year. Strategy
Analytics reports that electronic systems will grow to more than 30
percent of typical car cost, vs. today's 20 percent. 
 
Intelligent fastening removes the physical link between the tool and
fastener. Designed with actuating mechanisms, intelligent fasteners
feature embedded microchips that control the fastening process through
digital instructions from a remote tool. 

(Fool: Enabling The Manufacturer to have a complete monopoly on all
parts, all 'tools' to open, fix, modify, or release, any and all parts of
the vehicle.)
 
Fasteners typically account for only 5 percent of vehicle production
costs. Yet using fasteners in assembly systems can reach 40 percent of
production overhead. Intelligent fastening potentially can reduce these
costs through a new approach to automobile production and service. 

Design. Designers can focus on performance requirements of products,
subassemblies and component parts rather than assembly. Joints can be
shifted away from high-force transfer areas, allowing different fastening
options. This new capability could help marry form to function. 

Assembly. Subassemblies in conventionally manufactured products include
arrays of fasteners that dictate sequencing requirements of production,
maintenance and service procedures. With intelligent fasteners integrated
within components, a network of intelligent fasteners c

Re: the new Bush ad : I don't see any morphing...

On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 11:45:57PM -0400, JDG wrote:

> Due to this security breach, however, we now know that the terror
> alert was real, and based on breaking information.

We do?

How do you know the terror alert was based on information resulting
from using Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan? From what I have read, it is quite
possible that the terror alert was based on years old information, AND
that releasing Khan's name was yet another mistake by the incompetent
and/or dishonest Bush administration, but unrelated to the terror alert.

***

"No evidence" of imminent attack on US
Published: August 9 2004 18:56 | Last updated: August 10 2004 00:15
Financial Times

A senior Democrat who was briefed on the intelligence behind the US
government's latest terrorist alert came away largely unimpressed by its
quality, he said on Monday.

Joseph Biden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate foreign relations
committee, said he was not shown anything during an FBI briefing that
made him think there was an imminent threat to the US.

US government officials have hailed the recent capture of a computer
belonging to a suspected al-Qaeda operative in Pakistan as a big
breakthrough in the war against terrorism. White House officials said
arrests made around the world based on the information it contained had
disrupted current terrorist plots in the US and elsewhere.

But the White House's handling of the new intelligence came under
further attack on Monday following reports from London and Pakistan that
it had compromised operations by prematurely leaking the captive's name.

According to Pakistani intelligence officials cited by Reuters, Mohammad
Naeem Noor Khan had been co-operating with authorities there, sending
e-mails to operatives who could have uncovered dozens of al-Qaeda cells.

On Monday, Senator Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, asked the White
House whether the reports were true.

"I respectfully request an explanation to me, and any other Member of
Congress who might wish one, of who leaked this Mr Khan'sname, for what
reasonit was leaked, and whether the British and Pakistani reports that
this leak compromised future intelligence activity are accurate,. Mr
Schumer wrote to the White House.

"I have not seen any hard evidence that there was an active moment that
was contemplated in the very near term,. Mr Biden said on NBC television
on Monday.

"If there was a smoking gun that said we know for certain that was going
to occur, I didn't see it..

Find this article at:
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/4d52d796-ea2d-11d8-a22e-0e2511c8,ft_acl=.html?uuid=4d52d796-ea2d-11d8-a22e-0e2511c8&ft_acl=
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Every Single Sperm

JDG wrote:
>
> ... and until the scientific discovery of ovum
> and sperm, there probably wasn't much theological difference between
> abortion and contraception.
>
I _think_ I read somewhere about roman condoms, made of some
animal internal body parts. I don't know how effective they were. And
there were anti-conception herbs.

Alberto Monteiro

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

Re: Democrats

JDG wrote:
>
> It seems to me that this poll indicates that 36% of Democrats are seriously
> detached from reality, and that a majority of Democrats favor surrendering
> to the terrorists.
>
And why would USAns be different from Spaniards? :-P

Alberto Monteiro

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

Study Shows Why Republicans Are Desperate to Ratchet Up the Fear Level

<>

Fear of Death Wins Minds and Votes, Study Finds

Thu Jul 29,11:13 AM ET
 

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush ( - ) may be tapping into solid
human psychology when he invokes the Sept. 11 attacks while campaigning
for the next election, U.S. researchers said on Thursday. 
   

Talking about death can raise people's need for psychological security,
the researchers report in studies to be published in the December issue
of the journal Psychological Science and the September issue of the
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 


"There are people all over who are claiming every time Bush is in trouble
he generates fear by declaring an imminent threat," said Sheldon Solomon
of Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, New York, who worked on the
study. 


"We are saying this is psychologically useful." 


Jeff Greenberg, a professor of psychology at the University of Arizona in
Tucson, said generating fear was a common tactic. 


"A lot of leaders gain their appeal by helping people feel they are
heroic, particularly in a fight against evil," Greenberg said in a
telephone interview from Hawaii, where he presented the findings to a
meeting of the American Psychological Association. 


"Sometimes that may be the right thing to do. But it is a psychological
approach, particularly when death is close to peoples' consciousness." 


For their first study, Solomon, Greenberg and colleagues asked students
to think about either their own death or a neutral topic. 


They then read the campaign statements of three hypothetical candidates
for governor, each with a different leadership style. One was
charismatic, said Solomon. 


"That was a person who declared our country to be great and the people in
it to be special," Solomon, who worked on the study, said in a telephone
interview. 


The others were task-oriented -- focusing on the job to be done -- or
relationship-oriented -- with a "let's get it done together" style,
Solomon said. 


FEARING DOOM, TURNING TO CHARISMA 


The students who thought about death were much more likely to choose the
charismatic leader, they found. Only four out of about 100 chose that
imaginary leader when thinking about exams, but 30 did after thinking
about death. 


Greenberg, Solomon and colleagues then decided to test the idea further
and set up four separate studies at different universities. 


"In one we asked half the people to think about the September 11 attacks,
or to think about watching TV," Solomon said. "What we found was
staggering." 


When asked to think about television, the 100 or so volunteers did not
approve of Bush or his policies in Iraq ( - ). But when asked to think
about Sept. 11 first and then asked about their attitudes to Bush,
another 100 volunteers had very different reactions. 


"They had a very strong approval of President Bush and his policy in
Iraq," Solomon said. 

 
Solomon, a social psychologist who specializes in terrorism, said it was
very rare for a person's opinions to differ so strongly depending on the
situation. 

Another study focused directly on Bush and his Democratic challenger,
Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry ( - ). 

The volunteers were aged from 18 into their 50s and described themselves
as ranging from liberal to deeply conservative. No matter what a person's
political conviction, thinking about death made them tend to favor Bush,
Solomon said. Otherwise, they preferred Kerry. 

"I think this should concern anybody," Solomon said. "If I was speaking
lightly, I would say that people in their, quote, right minds, unquote,
don't care much for President Bush and his policies in Iraq." 

He wants voters to be aware of psychological pressures and how they are
used. 

"If people are aware that thinking about death makes them act
differently, then they don't act differently," Solomon said. Solomon says
he personally opposes Bush but describes himself as a political
independent who could vote Republican. 

-
"That all these things have been done with the knowledge, sanction, and
procurement of the present National Administration; and that for this
high crime against the Constitution, the Union, and humanity, we arraign
that Administration, the President, his advisers, agents, supporters,
apologists, and accessories, either before or after the fact, before the
country and before the world; and that it is our fixed purpose to bring
the actual perpetrators of these atrocious outrages and their accomplices
to a sure and condign punishment thereafter." --Republican Party Platform
1856 (should be adopted as the Democratic platform)

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

Re: the new Bush ad : I don't see any morphing...

> From: JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> At 08:52 AM 8/11/2004 +0530 Ritu wrote:
> >> Apologies from Democrats for playing politics with the Terror 
> >> Warnings were not forthcoming.
> >
> >Could kindly explain this comment please?
> >Try as I might, I fail to see how the topic of a Democrat apology came
> >up when the issue under discussion was a serious security breach by
the
> >Republican administration.
> 
> First, let me reiterate that there are simply no excuses for this
security
> breach (if indeed the facts we have our true - which of course is the
only
> possible means of discussion, but it should be kept vaguely in the back
of
> our heads that anything having to do with intelligence could be
> misinformation.)   
> 
> Still, there were a *lot* of Democrats who were loudly suggesting that
the
> most recent terror alert was essentially made up by the Bush
Administration
> for political purposes.   This is a particularly craven sort of
political
> argument during a time of war.Due to this security breach, however,
we
> now know that the terror alert was real, and based on breaking
information.
>   Thus, given that the incredibly insulting allegations of these
Democrats
> have now proven to be demonstrably false in short order, in polite
society
> an apology would be in order.

Lets see: ShrubCo, in order to justify their rise in terror alert level
right after the DNC, outed the best single intelligence asset they had
against al-qaida.  They had a Fncking _*Mole*_ inside al-qaida, who was
actively helping us.  This outing caused the British to have to close in
on their terror suspects they were tracking early, in which several might
have got away.  Other al-qaida members in Pakistan _did_ get away.  The
outing of this Mole is _*TREASON*_.  Pure and simple, and was done to
justify a terror alert, the purpose of that alert to ratchet up the fear,
and help elect Shrub in November.  You notice how they didn't do anything
about the intelligence of terrorists planning attacks in Las Vegas.  No
Las Vegas Terror Alert Level was raised.  And the casing of the Las Vegas
Targets was much more recent than the targets in the current alert.

-
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, right or
wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to
the American public," said President Theodore Roosevelt. 

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

Re: Avian Magnetic Vision (was Re: Horses)

> From: Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> On Aug 10, 2004, at 3:33 PM, Travis Edmunds wrote:
> 
> >
> >> From: "Robert J. Chassell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 21:25:13 + (UTC)
> >>
> >> Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> >>
> >> ... some types of birds have five types of cone cells,
suggesting
> >> that they can see colors we can't.
> >>
> >> Can you tell us more?  This is deep.
> >
> > Just asking a question here. Does anyone know or remember which type 
> > of bird navigates by actually 'looking at' the Earth's magnetic
poles? 
> > Apparently they can actually see something like a red orb which they 
> > use as a landmark of sorts.
> 
> This  appears to be 
> the source
> of the image showing the "red orb" (the image appeared in the document 
> labeled
> "Graphs and Stuff" in Ronn's "Birds, was Horses" message of a couple of

> days ago.
> 
> I don't think the image was intended to suggest that birds actually see

> a red orb,
> but to suggest that some kind of visual indication of magnetic 
> orientation may be
> incorporated into avian vision.

I was under the impression that certain reptiles had 4 cones, one for
infrared.  And that mammals who evolved from these reptiles, lost most of
their color vision cones because they became nocturnal rodent like
burrowing creatures (which is why they survived the massive fireball when
a certain meteor hit the earth killing the dinosaurs some 65m years ago).
 Also as mammals took over and diversified some of them reevolved limited
color vision (which is not as good as the reptilian color vision).  In
fact certain primates only reevolved the cones for red a short while (15m
years) ago.  Indeed humans have trouble with color blue, as their eyes
cannot resolve details in blue (try reading darkblue text on a black
background).  Evolution doesn't usually make perfect optimizations, it
makes good-enough-jerry-rigged-from-existing-parts optimizations.

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

Re: Every Single Sperm

> From: JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> At 04:51 PM 8/9/2004 +1000 Russell Chapman wrote:
> >JDG wrote:
> >> Is it so inconceivable that maybe - just maybe - they sincerely
believe
> >> that God does not want us to engage in contraception?
> >
> >Well, yes - if there's no basis for it.
> >No scriptures, no tablets handed down from on high.
> 
> Come on, surely if God can regulate the eating of crustaceans and
hoofed
> animals, surely he can regulate contraception!

Don't forget figs.  Dog hates figs.
 
> >Do they sincerely believe we shouldn't take vitamins? That we
shouldn't 
> >have remedial surgery. Why is some meddling with the body to improve 
> >quality of life OK but other meddling not OK?
> 
> The Catholic Church objects to calling children an impediment to the
> quality of life.  

Children are parasites.  Some species eat their own 'children'.
 
> >I was seriously asking how priests got involved in contraception. You 
> >have proven so knowledgeable about the Catholic religion, and been
able 
> >to explain much that seemed a mystery to me in the past - I figured 
> >there was a good chance you knew the answer...
> 
> Basically, since the time of Moses, the clerical class has regulated
all
> sorts of aspects of Judaeo-Christian life.   Heck, opposition to
abortion
> goes as far back as Hippocrates, so it is unsurprising that Jews and
> Christians would adopt it and until the scientific discovery of
ovum
> and sperm, there probably wasn't much theological difference between
> abortion and contraception.

Proving yet again that science always trumps religion.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Objective Evil

> From: JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> At 10:53 PM 8/8/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote:
> >
> >From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >> At 10:14 PM 8/8/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote:
> >> >> >>And dropping bombs on Saddam Hussein's armies was not evil.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >So, the action of killing conscripts of Hussein, many of whom
are
> >there
> >> >> >because they had no choice, in inherently an acceptable action?
> >> >
> >> >> You are changing the subject.   Not once have I ever said that it
was
> >> >> "inherently acceptable", I merely said that it was *not*
"inherently
> >> >> evil."
> >> >
> >> >but you also said:
> >> >
> >> >The killing of innocent people is an objective evil.   (True)
> >> >
> >> >So, the logical conclusion is that you believe that the soldiers in
> >> >Hussein's army are not innocent because they accepted their
conscription
> >> >instead of death or torture.  Is that it?
> >>
> >> Yes, I do not believe that they are "innocent."   I think that even
you
> >> would describe them as having chosen the "lesser evil", would you
not?
> >In
> >> which, case, they are still engaging in evil.
> >
> >As I would think of anyone who engages in killing.  Killing another
human
> >being is an inherently evil act.  You are arguing that the end
justifies
> >the means.  War cannot be justified as an end in itself, it must be
> >justified by another end.
> 
> I disagree that killing anorther human being is an inherently evil act.
> Killing an innocent human being directly (murder) is an inherently evil
act.
> 
> If, however, killing another human being is an inherently evil act,
then I
> would be guilty of a mortal sin by taking a vacation and ordering
> take-out-pizza instead of sending all of my consumption spending to
assist
> refugees in Darfur or fund mosquito nets in Congo.   

Indeed isn't that what this false deity jebus you supposedly follow said
his followers should do?  Give away all possessions, feed the poor, help
the week?  Why do you disobey your so-called deity?


Of course we all know JDG puts the Republican Party Above the Pope, and
the Pope above the words of a half-deity no-one can prove lived, and the
words of a half-deity no-one can prove lived above science.


shepherds are predators who FOOL sheep into a false sense of security
they fleece and slaughter sheep for their own benefit...even in sincerity
-posted somewhere
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Objective Evil