Re: von Neumann machines

[Robert J. Chassell]

   When we talk about Von Neumann, is he the same Von Neumann that
   developed the theory of games? By the way, in some of his novels
   Gregory Benford was somehow talking about the same theory?

Yes, and yes.  John von Neumann was a great mathematician.  Moreover,
his temperament was sociable and he was famous for getting along with
people.  Besides inventing game theory, the merge sort algorithm for
computers and the like, he made a mathematical formulation for quantum
mechanics.

A story has it that he would go on long train rides, such as across
the United States and back, in order to get uninterrupted time to
work.

-- 
Robert J. Chassell 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com  http://www.teak.cc
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: US Pensions

[JDG]

At 10:29 PM 5/12/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote:
>> And what happens if the company goes bankrupt?
>>
>The pension fund wasn't owned by the company...it was not considered a
>company asset.  The problem was not that the pension obligations went to
>other creditors (the employees were creditors after all).  It was that the
>company was able to use vodoo ecconomics to fund the pensions.

Wow, how surprising.   It really all always comes back to bashing
Republicans with you, doesn't it?

First, we are talking about companies in bankruptcy.I find it very
difficult to believe that everything would be hunky-dory if the company had
just made even *more* payments in the past.

Second, many of these funds are invested heavily in the company's own stock
- perhaps not in the case of United - but it does exist, and this practice
should be discontinued.

Third, if the pension plan is based upon providing defined benefits, then
these benefits are based upon the continued survival of the company.
Again, if the company goes under, that is a huge risk for the employee.

>>> If the money were spent to fund SS instead of paying for part of Bush's
>>> tax cuts,
>>
>> "Paying for tax cuts" is a non-sequitur.
>
>It's all income transfer. 

No, it is not a transfer.   It is the forgoing of income.

> What happened in reality is that taxes went from
> slightly progressive to virtually flat above, roughly, a 40k family income.

This is another matter entirely from your original proposition that tax
cuts must be "paid".And why are you definiing progressivity here only
in terms of payments and not in terms of payments and benefits, if that is
the definition that you want to use?

>> Social Security is also fully funded this year, so that is a non-sequitur
>> as well.
>
>So, you are saying that  Reagan lied to me, but it's no big deal?

Surprise, surprise, it all comes back to bashing Republicans for you.
What does Reagan have to do with anything here?   Did Reagan make some sort
of unique statement about Social Security that Democrats did not? Did
the *data* cause you to just pull Reagan's name out of the dark here?

And when did I say that anything is "no big deal"?Your comment is so
snippy its hard to pick out exactly what the substance is here, but I am
not aware of having ever said that much of anything in regards to Social
Security is "no big deal".

>> > Look at the taxes _and_ the benefits and
>> > see if, on average, SS is progressive or regressive.
>>
>> You're playing word games.
>
>No.  I just like to look at data.

I would be very surprised to learn that you used *data* to define the
concepts of "progressive" and "regressive."Perhaps you have a source
for this?

>> A poor person making minimum wage is paying a 15.3% tax rate.
>>
>> A CEO making $22 million this year is paying a 0.06% tax rate.
>
>> That's regressive under anybody's definition of economics.
>
>How much does the CEO as a fraction of what he pays?  How much does the
>poor person get?

I am presuming that the word "get" is missing after "CEO".

At any rate, what the CEO or the poor person "gets" does not factor into
the definitions of "progressive" and "regressive" with which I am familiar.  

Otherwise, one could pass tax cuts for the rich and call them "progressive"!

And heck, using your logic we could raise taxes on welfare recipients and
call it "progressive" too - after all, they're *getting* more than rich
people, are they not?   

You can see how this logic is a recipe for absurdity.It also does not
change the fact that the tax burden for making government pension payments
to retirees falls vastly disproporitionately on the working poor.

>> And oh yeah, that CEO earning $22 million is going to get a
>> taxpayer-funded
>> check when he retires.
>
>And, if he didn't, the poor person would have gotten nothing. Look at how
>we look to cut Medicaid but expand Medicare.  Programs that only favor the
>poor are on the bottom of the priority list.

Mularkey.The CEO is making $22 million in a single year, and he is
going to support Social Security because the government is going to write
him a check for a couple thousand dollars a month when he retires
You are surely kidding me.   And if he didn't get this check, we would
have *no* government program to support poor retirees???

So, by your logic, I can presume that you favored the Bush tax cuts, as
cutting taxes for the rich surely builds support among the rich for helping
the poor - without which we'd be leaving our grandparents to eat dog food

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

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

[JDG]

At 10:43 PM 5/12/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote:
>> Then again, you recently offered to compare economic growth
>> during the Great Depression to that of World War II.. so I'm not sure
>> what you are thinking here.
>
>I'm thinking data are.  We should fit theory to data, not pidgen hole data
>into what we already know is true.

So, proposing absurd tests, like comparing economic growth during the Great
Depression to economic growth during World War II is "fitting theory to
data"???   To me it smacks of doing precisely the opposite, pigeon-holing
the data to support what you already know to be true. That's the danger
of baiting of people with proposed tests of validity when you already know
the results of those tests - we can reasonably assume that you would not be
proposing those tests if they directly contradicted your positions.

>The time frame is a bit ambiguous, but I think that it is reasonable to
>assume that people consider the biggest changes of the last couple of years
>when they answer this.   If most people thought the country was going in
>the wrong direction, then it would be hard to say that people consider
>things a lot better.

I disagree.   If the results of the survey had not supported my
proposition, would it have been reasonable to assume that things are worse
in Iraq than under Saddam Hussein?Or reasonable to assume that things
are worse in Iraq than at some intermediate point in the past?I would
think the latter.

In fact, I think that is exactly what we see in comparing the poll
following the formation of the new Iraqi government with the poll during
the assault on Fallujah.

Thus, even though the data arguably supports my position, I don't think
that it is valid.

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

Re: Re: von Neumann machines

[Johan Huizinga Gottingen]

When we talk about Von Neumann, is he the same Von Neumann that
developed the theory of games? By the way, in some of his novels Gregory
Benford was somehow talking about the same theory?

-
¿Es posible hacerse millonario sin salir de casa?  Ahora sí: 
http://sorteos.ya.com
ADSL + Llamadas 24 horas: desde 28,95 €/mes + IVA. Navega y habla de forma 
ilimitada. Sin compromiso de permanencia. http://acceso.ya.com/ADSLllamadas/

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

Re: Please edit quotations

[Alberto Monteiro]

Dave Land wrote:
> 
>> What you write is more important.
>
> Evidently, you haven't read much of what I've written :-).
>
When I only see quotations in the first page or two, I skip
the message. Too much noise, and USA politics suckz
anyway [who fcares about the diff between GOP and
Dems? Both are evil imperialists!]

Alberto Monteiro

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

Fwd: Top5 Science Fiction - 5/13/05

[Ronn!Blankenship]

==
 TOPFIVE.COM'S LITTLE FIVERS  --  SCIENCE FICTION
 http://www.topfive.com/fivers.shtml
==
May 13, 2005
  NOTE FROM DAVE:
Soon we'll be seeing the end of the
latest incarnation of the Star Trek
 franchise, "Enterprise."
   The Top 10 Surprises in the "Star Trek: Enterprise"
  Series Finale
10> Captain Archer, failing to sustain the interest of either
Hoshi or T'Pol, gives in to Dr. Phlox's incessant begging
and decides to explore his "dark side."
 9> Special guest star R2-D2 as the plucky, lovable Photon
Torpedo Mark I.
 8> It was all a holodeck adventure! Wouldn't that be great? I bet
the fans would just love that idea!
 7> They finally perfect transporter technology, and T'Pol
materializes naked.
 6> Hoshi like totally breaks her alliance with Tripp at Tribal
Council.
 5> Gene Roddenberry stops spinning.
 4> Sam Beckett Leaps out of the trekkie he Leaped into and
realizes it was all just a dream.
 3> Someone utters the phrase "Lasers and phasers and Tazers, oh
my!"
 2> T'Pol retires to live happily ever after with Porthos, Captain
Archer's beagle.
  and the Number 1 Surprise in the
  "Star Trek: Enterprise" Series Finale...
 1> The ship's engineer is replicated thousands of times in a
freak accident in "The Trouble With Tripples."
  [   Copyright 2005 by Chris White]
  [   http://www.topfive.com   ]
==
Selected from 44 submissions from 13 contributors.
Today's Top 5 List authors are:
--
Doug Crews, Oceanside, CA -- 1, 7
Mary Ann McDonald, Sacramento, CA -- 2, 10
James Knowles, Bellingham, WA -- 3
Laura Oberst, Columbus, OH-- 4
Bruce Kane, Bentonville, AR   -- 5
Chris Woodall, Dayton, KY -- 6, 9
Eric Akawie, Annandale, VA-- 8
Dave Oberhart, Durham, NC -- Starfleet Academy,
 Class of '87
==
[  TOPFIVE.COM'S LITTLE FIVERS   ]
["Top 10" lists on a variety of subjects ]
[http://www.topfive.com  ]
==
[  Copyright 2005 by Chris White   All rights reserved.  ]
[   Do not forward, publish, broadcast, or use   ]
[  in any manner without crediting "TopFive.com" ]
==
[   To complain to the moderator: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  ]
[ Have friends who might like to subscribe to this list? ]
[  Refer them to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
==
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Fwd: Top5 Science Fiction - 5/13/05

[Julia Thompson]

Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
  and the Number 1 Surprise in the
  "Star Trek: Enterprise" Series Finale...
 1> The ship's engineer is replicated thousands of times in a
freak accident in "The Trouble With Tripples."
And this would be bad how?
Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: von Neumann machines

[Damon Agretto]

Yes, and yes.  John von Neumann was a great mathematician.  Moreover,
his temperament was sociable and he was famous for getting along with
people.  Besides inventing game theory, the merge sort algorithm for
computers and the like, he made a mathematical formulation for quantum
mechanics.
Is there a source on the net with regards to his game theory? Or a 
published source?

Damon.

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.9 - Release Date: 5/12/2005
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Top5 Science Fiction - 5/13/05

[Warren Ockrassa]

On May 13, 2005, at 9:53 AM, Julia Thompson wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
  and the Number 1 Surprise in the
  "Star Trek: Enterprise" Series Finale...
 1> The ship's engineer is replicated thousands of times in a
freak accident in "The Trouble With Tripples."
And this would be bad how?
It wouldn't be, necessarily, unless they all manifested as the kid 
version from the "clone" episode.

But I mean come on. Why should T'Pol have all the fun?
--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: von Neumann machines

[Warren Ockrassa]

On May 13, 2005, at 10:02 AM, Damon Agretto wrote:
Yes, and yes.  John von Neumann was a great mathematician.  Moreover,
his temperament was sociable and he was famous for getting along with
people.  Besides inventing game theory, the merge sort algorithm for
computers and the like, he made a mathematical formulation for quantum
mechanics.
Is there a source on the net with regards to his game theory? Or a 
published source?
Well, there's this:

The entire site is devoted to game theory and looks fairly surfable.
As for published sources, a search of Amazon for "John von Neumann" 
yields more than a few results as well.

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

[Gary Denton]

Republican libertarian Ron Paul answered the question is Iraq better off on 
the floor of Congress.

Whenever the administration is challenged regarding the success of the Iraq 
war, or regarding the false information used to justify the war, the retort 
is: "Aren't the people of Iraq better off?" The insinuation is that anyone 
who expresses any reservations about supporting the war is an apologist for 
Saddam Hussein and every ruthless act he ever committed. The short answer to 
the question of whether the Iraqis are better off is that it's too early to 
declare, "Mission Accomplished." But more importantly, we should be asking 
if the mission was ever justified or legitimate. Is it legitimate to justify 
an action that some claim yielded good results, if the means used to achieve 
them are illegitimate? Do the ends justify the means?

The information Congress was given prior to the war was false. There were no 
weapons of mass destruction; the Iraqis did not participate in the 9/11 
attacks; Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were enemies and did not 
conspire against the United States; our security was not threatened; we were 
not welcomed by cheering Iraqi crowds as we were told; and Iraqi oil has not 
paid any of the bills. Congress failed to declare war, but instead passed a 
wishy-washy resolution citing UN resolutions as justification for our 
invasion. After the fact we're now told the real reason for the Iraq 
invasion was to spread democracy, and that the Iraqis are better off. Anyone 
who questions the war risks being accused of supporting Saddam Hussein, 
disapproving of democracy, or "supporting terrorists." It's implied that 
lack of enthusiasm for the war means one is not patriotic and doesn't 
support the troops. In other words, one must march lock-step with the 
consensus or be ostracized.

However, conceding that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein is a 
far cry from endorsing the foreign policy of our own government that led to 
the regime change. In time it will become clear to everyone that support for 
the policies of pre-emptive war and interventionist nation-building will 
have much greater significance than the removal of Saddam Hussein itself. 
The interventionist policy should be scrutinized more carefully than the 
purported benefits of Saddam Hussein's removal from power. The real question 
ought to be: "Are we better off with a foreign policy that promotes regime 
change while justifying war with false information?" Shifting the stated 
goals as events unravel should not satisfy those who believe war must be a 
last resort used only when our national security is threatened.

How much better off are the Iraqi people? Hundreds of thousands of former 
inhabitants of Fallajah are not better off with their city flattened and 
their homes destroyed. Hundreds of thousands are not better off living with 
foreign soldiers patrolling their street, curfews, and the loss of basic 
utilities. One hundred thousand dead Iraqis, as estimated by the Lancet 
Medical Journal, certainly are not better off. Better to be alive under 
Saddam Hussein than lying in some cold grave.

Praise for the recent election in Iraq has silenced many critics of the war. 
Yet the election was held under martial law implemented by a foreign power, 
mirroring conditions we rightfully condemned as a farce when carried out in 
the old Soviet system and more recently in Lebanon. Why is it that what is 
good for the goose isn't always good for the gander? 
 
and more here
http://www.freeliberal.com/archives/000973.html

Gary Denton
Easter Lemming Blogs
http://elemming.blogspot.com
http://elemming2.blogspot.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 12:13 PM Friday 5/13/2005, Gary Denton wrote:
Republican libertarian Ron Paul answered the question is Iraq better off on
the floor of Congress.

Does it fit?
They Might Have To Remove Some Of The Representatives' Desks Maru
-- Ronn!  :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The American Political Landscape today

[Dave Land]

On May 12, 2005, at 10:33 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
I'm not sure if it was clear that they were the largest group in the
telephone poll (unless I misunderstood).  They may also have been the
largest in the Internet group as well, but that's not the point.
Perhaps I can clear this up. From the report, page 4:
At the other end of the political spectrum, Liberals have swelled
to become the largest voting bloc in the typology. Liberals are
opponents of an assertive foreign policy, strong supporters of
environmental protection, and solid backers of government assistance
to the poor.
Page 64:
Results for the main Political Typology Survey are based on
telephone interviews conducted under the direction of Princeton
Survey Research Associates International among a nationwide sample
of 2,000 adults, 18 years of age or older, during the period Dec.
1-16, 2004.
Liberals are the largest group *in the telephone poll results*, making
up about 17% of the general public and 19% of registered voters (stats
from table, page 5).
The internet poll is like any personality quiz: more of a curiosity than
anything else. I believe that the percentages on the "You are a ..."
results are from the main report, based on the telephone poll.
The fact that the Liberals are the largest group does not indicate
they are considered mainstream.
If being the largest group doesn't make one mainstream, what does?
Agreeing with the person who is speaking, I think. Anything else puts
you way out on the fringe. That, I think, would explain why certain
list members consistently write off certain other members' messages
as liberal nonsense or typical progressive claptrap.
I believe that in polls, a majority of Christians self-identify as
liberal or progressive, though you'd never think that from the news.
From the report, page 39, "Views of ‘Christian Conservative’ Movement":
Despite ... the predominance of the Christian tradition among
personal religious choices, public opinion is divided regarding the
Christian conservative movement. About four-in-ten (41%) have a
favorable view of the movement, while 34% have an unfavorable view.
Republicans are strongly favorable (61% vs. 16% unfavorable), while
opinion among Democrats tilts negative (35% vs. 45%).
The Democratic groups are divided in their views of the Christian
conservative movement, with Conservative Democrats favorably
disposed (53% positive, 18% negative), and Liberals sharply negative
(78% unfavorable – of those, 46% very unfavorable).
On the other hand, the real majority doesn't fit into these silly
ideological labels.
From Zogby:
'... 42 percent of voters cited the war in Iraq as the "moral issue"
that most influenced their choice of candidates, while 13 percent cited
abortion and 9 percent same-sex marriage. Asked to name the greatest
threat to marriage, 31 percent said "infidelity," 25 percent cited
"rising financial burdens" and 22 percent named same-sex marriage.'
Are those liberal or conversative opinions?  Or sumpin' else?
The report suggests that they are issues that both correlate to (Iraq,
military intervention) and divide (abortion, homosexuality, financial
stress) party-affiliated groups. In other words, sumpin' else.
I was disappointed at how much the report was organized along party
lines, despite its title. Regardless of how much we would like to see
there be more resolution in the political world than red vs. blue,
those do end up being the choices we're offered on election day.
Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Please edit quotations

[Dave Land]

On May 12, 2005, at 5:46 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
[who fcares about the diff between GOP and
Dems? Both are evil imperialists!]
I am guessing that "who fcares" is a typo, but I like the way
it sort of suggests "who f***ing cares," at least to me.
Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: US Pensions

[Dave Land]

On May 13, 2005, at 4:36 AM, JDG wrote:
At 10:29 PM 5/12/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote:
And what happens if the company goes bankrupt?
The pension fund wasn't owned by the company...it was not considered a
company asset.  The problem was not that the pension obligations went 
to
other creditors (the employees were creditors after all).  It was 
that the
company was able to use vodoo ecconomics to fund the pensions.
Wow, how surprising.   It really all always comes back to bashing
Republicans with you, doesn't it?
There are a lot of folks on this list about whom you could say this, but
Dan is not one of them. Think of the many times that Dan has taken Nick
to task w/r/t Iraq.
Then again, where's the Republican-bashing in that message? Is it Dan's
use of the phrase "voodoo economics?" I know that it was used to 
criticize
a Republican presidential candidate, but perhaps you recall that it was
used *by* a Republican presidential candidate (G. H. W. Bush, of Ronald
Reagan's "supply-side economics," in the 1980 primaries).

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

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

[Dave Land]

On May 13, 2005, at 10:47 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 12:13 PM Friday 5/13/2005, Gary Denton wrote:
Republican libertarian Ron Paul answered the question is Iraq better 
off on
the floor of Congress.
Does it fit?
An Iraqi's place is in the house.
Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: US Pensions

[Gary Denton]

On 5/13/05, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> At 10:29 PM 5/12/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote:
> >> And what happens if the company goes bankrupt?
> >>
> >The pension fund wasn't owned by the company...it was not considered a
> >company asset. The problem was not that the pension obligations went to
> >other creditors (the employees were creditors after all). It was that the
> >company was able to use vodoo ecconomics to fund the pensions.
> 
> Wow, how surprising. It really all always comes back to bashing
> Republicans with you, doesn't it?

Maybe

I was trying to find something logical in your rant to respond to and that 
seems as good a place as any.

>From the passage of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) in 
1974 up until 2003, more than 160,000 Defined Benefit plans have gone under 
in the U.S.. 

65,000 of these plans failed between 1975 and 1985, most of which occurred 
in the Reagan period of 1981-85. From 1986 to 2002 another additional 95,000 
plans failed, Courts and legislatures throughout the 1990s made 401Ks more 
attractive with tax breaks and other advantages--as they simultaneously 
continued to screw traditional group pension plans. 
According to the Government's Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC), 
there were 112,000 Defined Benefit pension plans in 1983. Today there are 
less than 31,000 such plans. 

Today pension benefits worth $1.5 trillion insured by the PBGC are at risk 
because the PBGC itself is about to go broke.

The Corporate-Government strategy of the last 20 years has succeeded in 
eliminating so many Defined Benefit plans that too few may exist today to 
keep the PBGC afloat. The PBGC is not backed by the 'full faith and credit 
of the US government' and receives no federal tax dollars. The 31,000 
pension plans still participating in the PBGC have to pay a fee to the PBGC 
fund that insures pension payments to workers in the 3200 plans it still 
supports, or to other pension plans that may also soon go broke. And as the 
number of plans participating in the PBGC shrinks, the costs get higher for 
those pension plans remaining. But they can opt out of the PBGC and 
increasingly have. In 1980 nearly 80% of all defined benefit pension plans 
participate in the PBGC. By 2000 only 53% participated.
 
In contrast to Social Security, a real crisis does exist for Group Pension 
Plans today. And Bush's plan here, we predict, will be similar to that for 
Social Security. First, the current crisis in Defined Benefit Pension Plans 
will be allowed to worsen further. Indeed, the Bush administration has been 
passing rules the past two years that won't resolve the crisis but are 
designed actually to make it worse. For example, its most recent ruling was 
to allow corporations with Defined Benefit plans in financial trouble to 
avoid making additional necessary contributions to their funds for two 
years. Another recent Bush rule prohibits unions from negotiating changes to 
their plans if they are in financial trouble. And not least, there are the 
new arbitrary rules concerning 'Cash Balance Plans'. 
Cash benefit plans are new plans that companies can push that enables them 
to cash out defined benefits and convert them to the more advantagaeous for 
the corporations 401Ks. This weakens the remaining defined benefit plans 
more.

Recent rules passed by the Treasury Dept. of the Bush Government have been 
designed to encourage 'Cash Balance' plans, and thus the shift to 401Ks and 
the weakening of remaining Union negotiated Defined Benefit Plans. 
 Prediction, Bush will attempt to save defined benefit plans the same way he 
is trying to save Social Security - legislate it out of existence. He will 
borrow money to eliminate the PBGC and force the defined benefit plans to be 
cashed out and converted to 401Ks.

-- 
Gary Denton
Easter Lemming Blogs
http://elemming.blogspot.com
http://elemming2.blogspot.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The American Political Landscape today

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 12:34 AM Friday 5/13/2005, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2005 22:33:12 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote
> Are those liberal or conversative opinions?  Or sumpin' else?
Hmm.  Saw that intriguing misspelling just as I clicked the send button.
I think I'm going to start a conversative party.  We'll just talk about stuff
and do nothing about it.  Say, that sounds familiar... where have I heard 
that
before?

Sounds like the vast majority of those who are registered as members of 
_any_ currently existing political party.  And probably the vast majority 
of the remainder of the members when it comes to issues other than the one 
or a handful which are hot-button issues for those individuals 
personally.  The adage "When all is said and done, there's a lot more said 
than done," is at least as applicable in politics as it is in any other 
field of human endeavor . . .

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

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

[Nick Arnett]

On Fri, 13 May 2005 12:13:35 -0500, Gary Denton wrote

> we were not welcomed by cheering Iraqi crowds as we were 
> told; 

Not quite.  Wes (who was with the very first troops into Baghdad and later, 
Tikrit) told me that in Baghdad they were greeted with cheers from small 
groups... at first.  However, he said that one of the difficult things was 
that as soon it was dark, they were sure that some of those cheering people 
became their enemies.

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

Re: The American Political Landscape today

[Nick Arnett]

On Fri, 13 May 2005 13:22:57 -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote

> Sounds like the vast majority of those who are registered as members 
> of _any_ currently existing political party.  And probably the vast 
> majority of the remainder of the members when it comes to issues 
> other than the one or a handful which are hot-button issues for 
> those individuals personally.  The adage "When all is said and done, 
> there's a lot more said than done," is at least as applicable in 
> politics as it is in any other field of human endeavor . . .

As long as we're talking about talking...  It seems that sometimes on the list 
we assume that all we do is talk.  Speaking for myself, I try to remember that 
even though all I know about most of the rest of you is what you say here, it 
would be a mistake to assume that all you do is talk.

Seems to me that this list is *about* ideas, not action, so we can't take it 
for granted that we are not people of action.

But, goodness do I get tempted to start ticking off what I have done and am 
doing to back up my words.  And I've done that sometimes, in fits of self-
righteous defensiveness.

It is not without irony that I note that the folks who pose "you're all talk, 
what have you done" sort of challenges seem to be the more academic ones.

Nick
Son of Academics
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The American Political Landscape today

[Gary Denton]

On 5/13/05, Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 13 May 2005 13:22:57 -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote
> 
> > Sounds like the vast majority of those who are registered as members
> > of _any_ currently existing political party. And probably the vast
> > majority of the remainder of the members when it comes to issues
> > other than the one or a handful which are hot-button issues for
> > those individuals personally. The adage "When all is said and done,
> > there's a lot more said than done," is at least as applicable in
> > politics as it is in any other field of human endeavor . . .
> 
> As long as we're talking about talking... It seems that sometimes on the 
> list
> we assume that all we do is talk. Speaking for myself, I try to remember 
> that
> even though all I know about most of the rest of you is what you say here, 
> it
> would be a mistake to assume that all you do is talk.
> 
> Seems to me that this list is *about* ideas, not action, so we can't take 
> it
> for granted that we are not people of action.
> 
> But, goodness do I get tempted to start ticking off what I have done and 
> am
> doing to back up my words. And I've done that sometimes, in fits of self-
> righteous defensiveness.
> 
> It is not without irony that I note that the folks who pose "you're all 
> talk,
> what have you done" sort of challenges seem to be the more academic ones.




I have been working for a Republican candidate in a non-partisan local 
election. Actually more fun than when I have been working as an election 
judge. Yesterday I found out that after some questionable handling of the 
ballots their will be a runoff between the same two candidates as last time. 
My candidate went from 1-up to tied.

- 
Gary Denton
Easter Lemming Blogs
http://elemming.blogspot.com
http://elemming2.blogspot.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Top5 Science Fiction - 5/13/05

[Medievalbk]

My only entry to the contest was:
 
Written by Ronald D. Moore.
 
Probably above the head of many a troglodyte trekie.
 
Vilyehm.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The American Political Landscape today

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 01:44 PM Friday 5/13/2005, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2005 13:22:57 -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote
> Sounds like the vast majority of those who are registered as members
> of _any_ currently existing political party.  And probably the vast
> majority of the remainder of the members when it comes to issues
> other than the one or a handful which are hot-button issues for
> those individuals personally.  The adage "When all is said and done,
> there's a lot more said than done," is at least as applicable in
> politics as it is in any other field of human endeavor . . .
As long as we're talking about talking...  It seems that sometimes on the 
list
we assume that all we do is talk.

Remember what happens when you ass_u_me . . .

Speaking for myself, I try to remember that
even though all I know about most of the rest of you is what you say here, it
would be a mistake to assume that all you do is talk.
Seems to me that this list is *about* ideas, not action, so we can't take it
for granted that we are not people of action.
But, goodness do I get tempted to start ticking off what I have done and am
doing to back up my words.  And I've done that sometimes, in fits of self-
righteous defensiveness.

Me, too, although I, too, have learned to at least try to resist the 
temptation.

(Not always successfully.)

It is not without irony that I note that the folks who pose "you're all talk,
what have you done" sort of challenges seem to be the more academic ones.
Nick
Son of Academics

Note that my message referred to "the vast majority of those who are 
registered as members of any currently existing political 
party."  Presumably that includes all those who are frex registered 
Republicans because "my daddy was a Republican all his life and my daddy's 
daddy was a Republican all his life and . . . " and those who live in 
places where one pretty much has to declare a party preference when 
registering to vote.  If I were to venture a guess (without taking the time 
to take a poll or anything like that), I would guess that the fraction of 
regular participants on this list who are actively involved in off-list 
areas, including politics, would be significantly higher than that shown by 
a truly random sample of the populace at large . . .

Or Maybe I Should Just Point To The Disclaimer Maru
-- Ronn!  :)
I Am A Trained Professional Smart-Aleck.  Do Not Attempt This On Your 
Own.  Neither The Author Of This Message Nor Any Organization He Represents 
Or Is A Member Of Assumes Any Liability Whatsoever For Any Consequences In 
The Event You Fail To Heed This Warning.


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

Re: Top5 Science Fiction - 5/13/05

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 02:03 PM Friday 5/13/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My only entry to the contest was:
Written by Ronald D. Moore.
Probably above the head of many a troglodyte trekie.

I recall once watching the opening minutes of a TNG episode and wondering 
"Who is Ronald D. Moore and when did he read the opening chapter of that 
novel I started while I was an undergraduate?"

There Were Good Reasons It Never Got Finished, Much Less Published Maru
-- Ronn!  :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Top5 Science Fiction - 5/13/05

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 02:03 PM Friday 5/13/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My only entry to the contest was:
Written by Ronald D. Moore.
Probably above the head of many a troglodyte trekie.

I recall once watching the opening minutes of a TNG episode and wondering 
"Who is Ronald D. Moore and when did he read the opening chapter of that 
novel I started while I was an undergraduate?"

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

Re: Top5 Science Fiction - 5/13/05

[Ronn!Blankenship]

I did not intend to send this twice.  Apparently somehow the unfinished 
message got queued and sent.  I think I figured out how, but sorry for the 
inconvenience . . .


At 02:12 PM Friday 5/13/2005, I wrote:
At 02:03 PM Friday 5/13/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My only entry to the contest was:
Written by Ronald D. Moore.
Probably above the head of many a troglodyte trekie.

I recall once watching the opening minutes of a TNG episode and wondering 
"Who is Ronald D. Moore and when did he read the opening chapter of that 
novel I started while I was an undergraduate?"

There Were Good Reasons It Never Got Finished, Much Less Published Maru
-- Ronn!  :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
-- Ronn!  :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: US Pensions

[Warren Ockrassa]

On May 13, 2005, at 4:36 AM, JDG wrote:
At 10:29 PM 5/12/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote:
And what happens if the company goes bankrupt?
The pension fund wasn't owned by the company...it was not considered a
company asset.  The problem was not that the pension obligations went 
to
other creditors (the employees were creditors after all).  It was 
that the
company was able to use vodoo ecconomics to fund the pensions.
Wow, how surprising.   It really all always comes back to bashing
Republicans with you, doesn't it?
How exactly does that (inaccurate) observation either help resolve the 
current discussion or show your position to be worthy of note?

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Honoring soldiers on Mothers Day

[Deborah Harrell]

> Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I just read a bit about people honoring soldiers
> today because it is Mothers' Day.
> 
> How about if we honor them by not cutting the VA
> budget by $2.4 billion?  How
> about if we honor them by not putting them into
> battle shorthanded with an unclear mission?  
> 
> But now, some words from Julia Ward Howe's Mother's
> Day proclamation in 1870.
>  Show of hands, please -- how many of us realized
> that Mother's Day is an
> anti-war holiday, inspired by the carnage of the
> Civil War 

I had no idea -- but must admit that I was
disappointed by the recent unimpressive voting turnout
by women.  War, even necessary war, is antithetical to
what "we" are taught as girls.  
 

 
> Arise all women who have hearts, whether your
> baptism be that of water or of fears!
 
> "Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn all
> that we have been able to
> teach them of charity, mercy, and patience.
> 
> "We women of one country will be too tender of those
> of another country to
> allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs."
 
> The sword of murder is not the balance of justice!
> Blood does not wipe out
> dishonor nor violence indicate possession.
 
> As men have often forsaken the plow and the anvil at
> the summons of war, let
> women now leave all that may be left of home for a
> great and earnest day of counsel.
 
> Let them then solemnly take counsel with each other
> as the means whereby the
> great human family can live in peace,
> 
> And each bearing after her own time the sacred
> impress, not of Caesar, but of God.

This makes me think of _The Postman_'s Dena's shock,
that women pre-WWIII hadn't taken up the reins more
eagerly.

Not a comfortable thought.

Debbi
Perhaps Too Moderate A Synthian Maru



Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html

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

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

[Deborah Harrell]

> Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >Deborah Harrell wrote:

 

> > > >Agreed, but if one is going to claim _moral_
> > > >justification in pursuing war, one had better
> > > ensure
> > > >that citizens and foreign states will agree
> with
> > > >one's assertions.  Otherwisethat destroys 
> > > >the credibility of that government.

> > > As others have pointed out, there is no reason
> > > why any of the above should be true.

> > ... a 'moral imperative'
> > should be essentially unimpeachable, because it is
> > a softer reason than, say, the other guy has
> > missiles pointed at your capital.

> > > ...Deborah, you have suggested that the US
> > > should be doing more
> > > in Sudan.   The rest of the world believes that
> > > the US should *not*
> > > intervene militarily to protect the Darfuris.   
> > > If Bush were to advocate
> > > such an intervention, would the morality of this
> > > intervention be based upon
> > > the opinion of the rest of the world?

> > ... he _is_ calling for action
> > WRT Darfur, which is laudable.  From what I've
> > learned, it is not possible for the US alone to
> > intervene there militarily, as our forces are
> > stretched too far elsewhere.  Getting ANC (?)
> > countries to be major participants in such an
> > intervention would probably be morally better than
> > going it alone But
> > because the Rwanda massecres (sp!!) happened so
> > quickly, sole intervention then would have been
> > justifiable to me.

> But, AFAIK the African intervention is illegal,
> because it is not approved by the UN.  

If your moral reasons are 'unimpeachable,' yet you are
unable to get a concensus b/c other countries are fine
with the (in this case) genocide going on, you can go
ahead and do it alone.  I already agreed in the past
that the UN is far from perfect, so while I prefer
concensus, I would not let its lack hinder me in
taking necessary action.  

>  ...NATO has been asked to help with
> logistics, and France
> is arguing against saying yesas one might
> expect.   If France can stop
> NATO from helping, the US will have to go alone in
> providing help.

If we can - 

> As far as needed other countries because the US is
> stretched thin, my
> understanding is that the main non-African country
> that could help would be
> Great Britain.  As far as I can tell, the Africans
> are sort of a trip wire,
> but would be hard pressed to fight the government of
> Sudan straight up.
> With logistical help, that may be enough.  If not,
> the only chance they
> have might be a credible threat from the US.

Which would have to be soon.
 
> In short, it seems to me that moral arguments have,
> to first order, zero
> weight at the UN, and little weight with some
> traditional allies, such as
> France.  Persuading other countries that action is
> morally required doesn't
> appear to be effective in this type of environment.

???  Using "morality" as sole justification for
intervention is exactly what I have said is
problematic; but nowhere have I stated that one needs
a "permission slip" from the UN to act when one sees a
clear need to do so.  BUT we'd better be damn sure
that we're *right* -- in the case of smacking down the
janjuin (sp), we also better have help from Sudan's
neighbors.  And a very clear mission statement, such
as "any armed forces in this interdicted area [Darfur]
will be asked to surrender immediately -- or be
shot/bombed/otherwise eliminated."

Debbi
Nastily Pragmatic Indeed Maru



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: US Pensions

[Robert J. Chassell]

On 2005 May 13, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

When a worker relies upon an employer's pension plan, that worker
is essentially putting his or her savings nest egg ... into the
hands of the managers of a single corporation. ...

This is one of the stronger arguments I have seen for the current
mechanism for social security.

The argument could be made even stronger by pointing out the higher
risk aversion of people who are poorer compared to those who are
richer, at least with regard to late-in-life income.  A person who
expects a late-in-life income of one million US dollars per year is
likely to be less averse to the risk of losing $5,000 per year of that
income than a person who expects a late-in-life income of $20,000 per
year.

To answer Bob's question, I don't think that the question is how
can Congress make employer's pension plans illegal.

I did not ask that question, or anything near it.  I asked

... how well can non-bankrupt companies can make competitive
financial returns ...

In other words, the question is what kind of political arrangements
will be needed?

That is very different.

However, JDG is correct when he says that (I presume he means in
practice, rather than possible theories)

... the government is the ultimate insurer against catastrophic
risk,

This is also an argument for the current mechanism for social
security.

(This leaves aside the questions of whether the tax ought to be
regressive or whether the rich should benefit from the poor, which are
different from the question of which entity should bear the risks,
each individual or all taxpayers as a group.)

--
Robert J. Chassell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com  http://www.teak.cc
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The American Political Landscape today

[Warren Ockrassa]

On May 13, 2005, at 11:44 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
As long as we're talking about talking...  It seems that sometimes on 
the list
we assume that all we do is talk.  Speaking for myself, I try to 
remember that
even though all I know about most of the rest of you is what you say 
here, it
would be a mistake to assume that all you do is talk.
Depends on the forum too. I'm prone to playing Magic, and that often 
means I'm facing teens in card competition. In a small, rural and very 
conservative community, I find that sometimes a good discussion can 
help some people review their outlook on life a little. It's harder to 
be pro-Bush (just like Dad is) when someone points out that the draft 
-- which I think is inevitable unless things change very quickly -- 
will be affecting some of these kids in just a couple more years.

(Is that a trend, BTW? I mean the way Bush's admin seems blind to both 
borrow-and-spend tax cuts and what they do to the economy while at the 
same time allocating $300bln to Iraq ... and also the tendency to be in 
denial about the state of the US military, which is overtaxed, 
overstretched and understaffed. Is the attitude, "Well, whatever -- 
leave the mess for the *next* administration to clean up"? That might 
not be the stated rationale, but from where I sit it's one explanation 
for the admin's policies. That or complete irresponsibility.)

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Lucas Film Business Model

[Robert J. Chassell]

Note also that although the US imports ~55% of its oil, 45% still
comes from domestic sources.  Every time the world price goes up
... owners of petroleum sources in the US get richer.

I have heard it suggested that the current US government will try to
increase use of US domestic sources by converting heavy oil and coal
(which the US has in large quantities) to light oil and gasoline.

This could be done with the help of more old technology nuclear
reactors and refineries.

For light oil, many expect the world-wide Hubert peak will come
shortly.  Few expect it for heavy oil and hydrocarbons with even more
carbon in them, at least, not for another generation or two.

Carbon-rich hydrocarbons can be extracted using prodigious quantities
of steam and converted to light oil and gasoline with hydrogen.

Thus, to become less dependent on foreign oil and to increase the
riches of domestic owners, the US could

  * build nuclear reactors to provide steam and hydrogen, and,

  * build refineries.

Recently, I heard that the US government is talking of building new
refineries in locations that do not require civilian US environmental
or other permits.  I do not know what this means either to the cost or
the likelihood of these refineries being built.  As far as I know, a
new refinery costs about as much as the US spends in Iraq in 5 days.

This solution would be expensive.  The solution depends on
successfully sequestering a great deal of carbon each year for long
periods of time as well as agreeing on how to sequester nuclear waste.
In any event, this solution could succeed for a generation or so, but
not permanently.

Rather than do this, I think that a government of either the US, or
Western Europe, or Japan, or China should spend 2% or more of its
gross domestic product each year on researching and developing
alternative sources of energy, and plan to do so for the next 20 years
(although the time might be less).  A government should do this if
only for the military benefits of possible independence.

Presumably, lots of money would be wasted, at least as much as in the
current military.  However that need not be the case.  (Elsewhere, I
have suggested funding mechanisms to avoid the "single wrong decider"
problem the Soviets faced.  Indeed, I have suggested mechanisms for
avoiding the "six or ten wrong deciders" problem.)  Over the next 20
years, I expect that the countries immediately concerned, and then
others, would benefit.

Consider high magnetic field superconductors: perhaps they cannot be
built.  If such magnets cannot be built, then smaller and cheaper
hydrogen-boron fusion reactors cannot be built.

(I happen to like the notion of hydrogen-boron fusion reactors.  I
hope they can be built.  Hydrogen-boron reactions do not generate
radioactive waste, although such reactors can be converted to burning
hydrogen and generating neutrons.  They would probably be big enough
for the needs of a modern industrial society.  They might have an
energy to mass ratio that enables them to power earth to orbit
vehicles as well as deep space ships.)

We do not know whether high magnetic field superconductors are
possible.  That is what research is for.  There is such a high pay off
from success that if there are enough people to do the work, this
research should be funded by at least 0.2% of GDP for years.

Even if one endeavor fails, I expect that with this kind of research
and development funding some other technology or set of technologies,
such as wind or solar voltaics or insulation, would become cheaper.

-- 
Robert J. Chassell 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com  http://www.teak.cc
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

[Deborah Harrell]

> Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


> > As... noted already, a 'moral imperative'
> > should be essentially unimpeachable, because it is
> > a softer reason than, say, the other guy has
> >  missiles pointed at your capital. 
 
> Yeah, but his argument didn't make any sense,
> because
> it was just a wholesale abrogation of moral judgment
> to other people - people who have an interest in
> acting in an immoral fashion.

No, it isn't!  How did you transmute 'best be an
unimpeachable reason' to 'requiring others permission
to [excuse me] take a piss?'  

>  All of the arguments
> you and he make _completely ignore_ that fact.  We
> have many, many examples of different ways in which
> the countries whose sanctions you advocate us
> seeking
> have showed that moral concerns have little or no
> claim on their stated beliefs.  Ignoring that fact
> doesn't make it less true.

Gautam, seeking concensus doesn't mean that you will -
or have to - get it, although it makes things easier
in public, and in the long run.  How has my stated
'necessity of under-the-table-arm-twisting' or 'strike
immediately if you have proof of imminant threat' (in
posts before GWII) been transformed into 'whine that
you can't do anything unless everybody agrees?'  Which
part of "nastily pragmatic" (used WRT myself in
several prior posts) is unclear to you?

> > As others have pointed out, he _is_ calling for
> > action
> > WRT Darfur, which is laudable.  From what I've
> > learned, it is not possible for the US alone to
> > intervene there militarily, as our forces are
> > stretched too far elsewhere.  Getting ANC (?)
> > countries to be major participants in such an
> > intervention would probably be morally better than
> > going it alone But
> > because the Rwanda massecres (sp!!) happened so
> > quickly, sole intervention then would have been
> > justifiable to me.  
 
> But, in fact, whether or not our forces were
> stretched
> thin, other countries won't really be helping much,
> because they don't have the military capacity to
> engage in a wholesale intervention.

I think African countries need to be seen as
supporting intervention, even if they can't help much.

>Anyways, yes, getting them to intervene is
> good, but their intervention has been illegal and
> unapproved by the UN.  You can be in favor of
> intervention to stop genocide in Rwanda/Darfur _or_
> you can say that intervention on moral principles is
> contingent on international consensus.  You _cannot_
> do both.  

  Do you really live in such a
black-and-white, either/or world?   Who are you to
tell me I shouldn't go ahead and act if I can't get
agreement because somebody(s) being weaselly, when I
see clearly that action is needed?  

>They are fundamentally inconsistent positions.  

According to you.  I did my best to stay on the
"right" side of policy and law, but do you think that
ANY physician practicing hasn't had to twist, finesse,
or outright slip the system in order to get at least
one of their patients needed care?  Is there ANY
medical intervention that might not have negative
consequences?  No and no.  

>The French government, which has veto
> power in the UN, _aided_ in the Rwandan genocide and
> denies that there is a genocide happening in the
> Sudan.  

So they suck.  (Did they really _aid_ in that
genocide?  Do you have a link, or might it be in the
archives? TIA)

>As long as they do that, UN approval is
> impossible, therefore legal intervention is
> impossible.  You can either stand on international
> law or on the necessity of humanitarian
>intervention.  You cannot do both.

As so many have pointed out (including you, IIRC), the
UN is not a particularly good keeper of justice or
fairness.  Unfortunately, it's what we have, until we
can contrive something better.  Work with what you've
got, yet if it flat won't do, then do what you think
is right.  But be prepared to face the consequences of
that decision, whether you were correct or not.
 
Debbi
who has made difficult choices, when a life was in the balance



Discover Yahoo! 
Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Star Trek signs off tonight....

[Gary Nunn]

As most of us know, Star Trek Enterprise signs off tonight with two back to
back episodes. ... I wonder what the next incarnation of Star Trek will be?
Gary
 
"Star Trek: Enterprise"
8 p.m., UPN
The time has come to wish "Star Trek: Enterprise" farewell, as it warp
speeds into the sunset. In the first of two episodes, Archer (Scott Bakula),
Reed (Dominic Keating) and Travis (Anthony Montgomery) join forces to stop
Paxton (guest star Peter Weller, "RoboCop") -- a "human isolationist" leader
from Mars -- from destroying Starfleet Command unless all aliens leave Earth
immediately. The finale flashes ahead six years, as an emotional Archer and
the crew return to Earth to face the decommissioning of the Enterprise and
the signing of the Federation charter. Meanwhile, far in the future, Troi of
"The Next Generation" (guest star Marina Sirtis) suggests that Riker (guest
star Jonathan Frakes) use the Holodeck to recreate this exact moment in
"Star Trek" history to search for command insights.  
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Br!n: Re: more neocons

[Deborah Harrell]

> Andrew Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > --- Deborah Harrell wrote:

 
> > > As others have pointed out, he _is_ calling for
> > > action
> > > WRT Darfur, which is laudable.  From what I've
> > > learned, it is not possible for the US alone to
> > > intervene there militarily, as our forces are
> > > stretched too far elsewhere.*  
 
> To use an argument style that really peed me off,
> does this inability to
> intervene in Darfur because the US is stretched out
> in Iraq, mean that
> support for the Iraq war is functionally, tacit
> approval of the slaughter in Darfur?

  Huh, I hadn't actually reached or intended
to imply that conclusion, FWIW...

  That tactic has been used by others,
however.

Debbi
*But Perhaps Those Who Think We Could Effectively
Intervene 'Cause It Wouldn't Be All-Out War Are
Correct Maru

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: von Neumann machines

[Robert J. Chassell]

Is there a source on the net with regards to [John von Neumann's]
game theory?  Or a published source?

John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern co-authored a book in 1944
called `Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour'.  (Perhaps it would
have been better had they called it `a theory of conflict and
cooperation'.)

In the Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Games_and_Economic_Behavior

(This is a short entry.)

Also, take a look at the longer entry on John von Neumann himself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann

Another phrase often used is `evolutionarily stable strategy':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy

(This is good entry; also, it talks about Nash Equilibria and the
Prisoner's Dilemma.)

I don't know what you might find using Google or one of the other
search engines.

I talk about game theory and an evolutionarily stable strategy for
software licenses in

http://www.teak.cc/softfree/software-freedom.html

(which is also available in that directory in Info and in formats for
printing, DVI, Postscript, and PDF, as well as in its Texinfo deep
representation.)

--
Robert J. Chassell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com  http://www.teak.cc
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The American Political Landscape today

[Nick Arnett]

On Fri, 13 May 2005 14:48:43 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote

> It's 
> harder to be pro-Bush (just like Dad is) when someone points out 
> that the draft -- which I think is inevitable unless things change 
> very quickly -- will be affecting some of these kids in just a 
> couple more years.

Yep.  In my recent experience, high-school kids pay very close attention to 
the possibility of a draft.  And their parents even more so.  And their 
mothers most of all.

There are a number of people in the peace movement who would actually like to 
see a draft, as they think it would energize people against this war.

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

Hard decisions (Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

[Nick Arnett]

On Fri, 13 May 2005 15:26:50 -0700 (PDT), Deborah Harrell wrote

> who has made difficult choices, when a life was in the balance

That certainly hit me.

I find myself feeling a bit angry.  Nothing like a few triage decisions or 
mistakes to make one realize that life throws us decisions that are painful to 
make, even traumatic, when we're helpless to do all that we'd like to.

In fact, it seems crazy that anyone would accuse me of being unwilling to make 
hard decisions, given that like you, I've had to make some very hard ones.  
And for me, they were in the field, in the midst of chaos.  I'm not sure I 
have something to learn about that from anybody who hasn't experienced that.

Lest it sound as though I think hardly anybody understands, I'll add that I'm 
sure there are many who have had to make difficult decisions about the care of 
loved ones, etc.  On the other hand, it's only been lately that I've realized 
that part of the pain of witnessing death as a professional is that death is 
so incredibly intimate and personal that I feel as though I didn't belong 
there, that it should have been their loved ones with them at that moment.

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

Re: Hard decisions (Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

[kerri miller]

--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 May 2005 15:26:50 -0700 (PDT), Deborah Harrell wrote
> 
> > who has made difficult choices, when a life was in the balance

I have.  Twice.

-k-

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Alien Planet on Discovery channel

[Gary Nunn]

Interesting pictures on the website
 
 
"Alien Planet" Premieres Tomorrow Night, May 14th, 8PM ET/PT on the
Discovery Channel 

"Alien Planet", which airs tomorrow, May 14th, 8PM on the Discovery Channel
, takes you to visit the fictional Darwin IV, a world where life has evolved
6.5 light years from Earth. Darwin IV has two suns and 60% of the gravity of
Earth so when we send an unmanned exploratory mission to investigate the
possibility of life there, the three probes, Balboa, Da Vinci and Newton,
are equipped to collect microscopic life-forms.

What they encounter is significantly different. "Alien Planet" also includes
interviews with real-life scientists such as Stephen Hawking and Jack
Horner. We have the photos and the link to the official site for the show.
"Alien Planet" premieres tomorrow night, May 14th, 8PM ET/PT on the
Discovery Channel.

http://tinyurl.com/a7bmu
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C3C11231B
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/alienplanet/splash.html

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

Star Wars Quiz

[Travis Edmunds]

http://www.cbc.ca/cgi-bin/quiz/quiz.cgi?quiz=arts_starwars
***
-Travis "4 outta 10" Edmunds
_
Scan and help eliminate destructive viruses from your inbound and outbound 
e-mail and attachments. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 
 Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the 
first two months FREE*.

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

Fare thee well my beautiful Vulcan, was RE: Star Trek signs off tonight....

[Travis Edmunds]

From: "Gary Nunn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion 
To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" 
Subject: Star Trek signs off tonight
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 18:35:03 -0400
As most of us know, Star Trek Enterprise signs off tonight with two back to
back episodes. ... I wonder what the next incarnation of Star Trek will be?
Hard to say. Personally though I'd like to see a jump to the not so distant 
future. Similar to the TOS - TNG transition in essence; i.e. far enough 
ahead to evoke the sense of progression for this universe, yet close enough 
to be easily connected with "present day" Trek a la the conclusion of 
Voyager.

-Travis
_
Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen 
Technology  
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 
 Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the 
first two months FREE*.

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

Re: Fare thee well my beautiful Vulcan, was RE: Star Trek signs off tonight....

[Warren Ockrassa]

On May 13, 2005, at 7:30 PM, Travis Edmunds wrote:
From: "Gary Nunn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

As most of us know, Star Trek Enterprise signs off tonight with two 
back to
back episodes. ... I wonder what the next incarnation of Star Trek 
will be?
Hard to say. Personally though I'd like to see a jump to the not so 
distant future. Similar to the TOS - TNG transition in essence; i.e. 
far enough ahead to evoke the sense of progression for this universe, 
yet close enough to be easily connected with "present day" Trek a la 
the conclusion of Voyager.
I have been hoping for a while that we'd see a darker Federation. A Fed 
from the perspective of colony worlds who had not joined it, who didn't 
want (necessarily) to join it. Set it in the Kirk era, when tensions 
were at their all-time high.

I mean -- OK, so the Federation features high tech, highfalutin 
philosophies and of course lean hardbodied crew. Wouldn't it be 
magnificent to see the story of a world that didn't want to get 
barcoded and look exactly like FedVolken? These people, maybe, have had 
to eke out a living for decades on some barely survivable rock at the 
farthest fringe of almost-forgotten space. They have traded with the 
Ferengi, the Klingons and even the Romulans on more or less even terms, 
and they've managed over the years to develop their own culture and 
sense of independence.

Along comes some guy in a big shiny vessel with a command shirt and a 
brief to standardize the planet to Fed guidelines. But they don't 
*want* those guidelines. To them the Fed is little different from the 
Borg. And because of strategic position or planetary reserves, the Fed 
wants them badly, but the Ferengi, Klingons and Romulans would all 
benefit from seeing this world retain its non-Federation affiliation.

What happens then?
And suppose these people have access to Fed history (current events?) 
... and often quote one James Tiberius Kirk regarding the values of 
independence, internal ethics and so forth?

Use the Trek model to interrogate the values of the Federation, IOW. 
That to me would be interesting, particularly if there was no reset 
button. Wouldn't it be cool to see a Fed captain saying something like, 
"Prime Directive be damned! We MUST have this planet! We WILL have this 
planet! Disable their shield and arm the torpedoes!"

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Fare thee well my beautiful Vulcan, was RE: Star Trek signs off tonight....

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 09:59 PM Friday 5/13/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On May 13, 2005, at 7:30 PM, Travis Edmunds wrote:
From: "Gary Nunn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

As most of us know, Star Trek Enterprise signs off tonight with two back to
back episodes. ... I wonder what the next incarnation of Star Trek will be?
Hard to say. Personally though I'd like to see a jump to the not so 
distant future. Similar to the TOS - TNG transition in essence; i.e. far 
enough ahead to evoke the sense of progression for this universe, yet 
close enough to be easily connected with "present day" Trek a la the 
conclusion of Voyager.
I have been hoping for a while that we'd see a darker Federation. A Fed 
from the perspective of colony worlds who had not joined it, who didn't 
want (necessarily) to join it. Set it in the Kirk era, when tensions were 
at their all-time high.

I mean -- OK, so the Federation features high tech, highfalutin 
philosophies and of course lean hardbodied crew. Wouldn't it be 
magnificent to see the story of a world that didn't want to get barcoded 
and look exactly like FedVolken? These people, maybe, have had to eke out 
a living for decades on some barely survivable rock at the farthest fringe 
of almost-forgotten space. They have traded with the Ferengi, the Klingons 
and even the Romulans on more or less even terms, and they've managed over 
the years to develop their own culture and sense of independence.

Along comes some guy in a big shiny vessel with a command shirt and a 
brief to standardize the planet to Fed guidelines. But they don't *want* 
those guidelines. To them the Fed is little different from the Borg. And 
because of strategic position or planetary reserves, the Fed wants them 
badly, but the Ferengi, Klingons and Romulans would all benefit from 
seeing this world retain its non-Federation affiliation.

What happens then?
And suppose these people have access to Fed history (current events?) ... 
and often quote one James Tiberius Kirk regarding the values of 
independence, internal ethics and so forth?

Use the Trek model to interrogate the values of the Federation, IOW. That 
to me would be interesting, particularly if there was no reset button. 
Wouldn't it be cool to see a Fed captain saying something like, "Prime 
Directive be damned! We MUST have this planet! We WILL have this planet! 
Disable their shield and arm the torpedoes!"

Presumably you would suggest that the planet in question be a former 
Klingon world whose name rendered into Roman characters looks a little like 
iRaQ'  . . . ?  And the captain's name might be, oh, maybe "George" something?

Subtle Political Statements Were Always Star Trek's Specialty Maru
-- Ronn!  :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Fare thee well my beautiful Vulcan, was RE: Star Trek signs off tonight....

[Warren Ockrassa]

On May 13, 2005, at 8:12 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
Presumably you would suggest that the planet in question be a former 
Klingon world whose name rendered into Roman characters looks a little 
like iRaQ'  . . . ?  And the captain's name might be, oh, maybe 
"George" something?
Actually no. More appropriate might be a planet named "Mah'b'DEK", a 
captain named "Al Habb", and a light dreadnought called "Pequod".

There's something to the classical in many real-life situations. And 
that's why the classics remain classic.

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: What's Your Seduction Style?

[Warren Ockrassa]

On May 10, 2005, at 7:21 PM, Robert G. Seeberger wrote:
http://www.blogthings.com/seducerquiz/
Mine:
Your Seduction Style: Ideal Lover
Mine too.
xponent
Does this Mean I'm A Scumbag? Maru
rob
No. It means we're great socially and phenomenal in bed. Duh.
--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Star Wars Quiz

[Warren Ockrassa]

On May 13, 2005, at 7:18 PM, Travis Edmunds wrote:
http://www.cbc.ca/cgi-bin/quiz/quiz.cgi?quiz=arts_starwars
***
-Travis "4 outta 10" Edmunds
6 out of 10.
Minus  
3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 
0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 
0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 
0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 
0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 for wasting four minutes of my life  
on the goddamned stupid quiz.

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l