Re: Star Wars Quiz
At 12:35 AM Saturday 5/14/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: 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 Are we back to generating factorials again? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Lucas Film Business Model
Robert J. Chassell wrote: 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. The USA _is_ doing that: currently the greatest world producers in ethanol to replace gasoline are Brazil and the USA. We started the program in 1974 (or so - but back in the 30s we already had alcohol cars), but the USA started it quite recently. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
possible aurora this weekend
Space Weather News for May 14, 2005 http://spaceweather.com A coronal mass ejection (CME) is heading for Earth following a strong solar flare on May 13th. Sky watchers should be alert for auroras when the cloud arrives on May 14th or 15th. The display, if it materializes, will be best over high latitudes--e.g., Alaska and Canada. But CMEs sometimes spark auroras over lower latitudes, too, so everyone should keep an eye on the sky this weekend. Visit http://spaceweather.com for updates. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Lawrence Lindsey on SS reform
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=printfriendlyid=2627 House Committee on Ways and Means Statement of The Honorable Lawrence B. Lindsey, President and Chief Executive Officer, The Lindsey Group, Fairfax, Virginia Testimony Before the House Committee on Ways and Means May 12, 2005 Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I am honored to have been asked to testify today on the issue of Social Security reform. It is surprising that the issue of promoting national saving is not at the center of the current debate over Social Security reform, and that will be the focus of my comments today. Last year Americans spent . on consumption, investment, and government -- $1.06 for every dollar they earned. We balanced our collective checkbook only by selling assets we owned and by borrowing directly from foreigners, including institutions like the People.s Bank of China, to whom one might prefer not to be increasingly indebted. This borrowing is directly tied to an ever growing trend for us to consume foreign-produced goods at the expense of American production. Done right, the reform process offers enormous potential for improving our national saving rate and thus reducing the amount we will be borrowing from foreigners over the next century. The first part of any credible Social Security reform plan is to permanently eliminate the actuarial deficit in the system. Currently the system has promised to pay out, in present value terms, $11 trillion more than it will collect in revenue. There are a number of ways of closing this gap, but with different implications for national saving. For example, it would take a 28 percent increase in payroll taxes to make sure that the government collected all the money it needed to meet benefit promises over time. This would, if three conditions were met, temporarily increase saving. First, the government, in contrast with historical evidence, must not spend the extra revenue on non-retirement spending. Second, the adverse effects of the tax increase on the economy must not lower government revenue from non-payroll tax sources. Third, private citizens, faced with declining disposable incomes, must cover the entire shortfall from reduced consumption, not by reducing their saving. Even if these three conditions were met, the saving reduction would be temporary. Once Social Security payments caught up with the enhanced revenue, the plan would forever be moving money from one set of people who would spend the money . workers . to another set of people who would spend the money . retirees. So, even in the best case, a tax increase would do nothing to increase national saving over the long run. But, because these conditions are unlikely to be met, a tax hike would not produce the intended amount of increased national saving even in the short run, and would likely lower national saving in the longer run. The combined adverse effects on existing personal saving and the disincentive effects on working and on entrepreneurship, are likely significant. This would be particularly true of ideas to raise or eliminate the wage cap that determines both Social Security taxes and Social Security benefits. Martin Feldstein calculated that eliminating the cap would reduce net federal revenue since the behavioral response by entrepreneurs to a tax hike that took their tax rate back up to nearly 50 percent would reduce federal income tax revenue as well as produce lower than expected payroll tax receipts. Moreover, much of the entrepreneurial income that would be taxed would have funded business fixed investment. Thus, this particular tax idea would likely lower both national saving and economic growth. The second way of bringing the system into balance is to change the formula for determining benefits now, in a way that gradually reduces the current growth rate in real benefits. Currently Social Security projects a 50 percent increase in benefits, even after inflation, over the next half century. The system could be brought into balance by limiting future benefits to the level of benefits enjoyed by those retiring from the system now, while fully indexing those benefits to inflation. This could even be coupled with a generous minimum Social Security benefit, thus making the system both more progressive and providing a better safety net, with little adverse effect on national saving. The $11 trillion saving to the Social Security system of doing this could be viewed as a one-time improvement in the federal government.s balance sheet of the same amount, but with an equivalent reduction for future retirees, as benefits would not rise as fast as they might now expect. But, national saving would likely rise as a result. In order to maintain the level of consumption in retirement that the government previously promised, but could not deliver, individuals would have to gradually increase their personal saving during their working lives. This may not be easy for
Re: Lawrence Lindsey on SS reform
On 5/14/05, Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=printfriendlyid=2627 House Committee on Ways and Means Statement of The Honorable Lawrence B. Lindsey, President and Chief Executive Officer, The Lindsey Group, Fairfax, Virginia Testimony Before the House Committee on Ways and Means May 12, 2005 Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I am honored to have been asked to testify today on the issue of Social Security reform. It is surprising that the issue of promoting national saving is not at the center of the current debate over Social Security reform, and that will be the focus of my comments today. Last year Americans spent . on consumption, investment, and government -- $1.06 for every dollar they earned. We balanced our collective checkbook only by selling assets we owned and by borrowing directly from foreigners, including institutions like the People.s Bank of China, to whom one might prefer not to be increasingly indebted. This borrowing is directly tied to an ever growing trend for us to consume foreign-produced goods at the expense of American production. Done right, the reform process offers enormous potential for improving our national saving rate and thus reducing the amount we will be borrowing from foreigners over the next century. The first part of any credible Social Security reform plan is to permanently eliminate the actuarial deficit in the system. Currently the system has promised to pay out, in present value terms, $11 trillion more than it will collect in revenue. There are a number of ways of closing this gap, but with different implications for national saving. Anyone who starts out this badly falsely representing the state of Social Security is pursuing a different agenda I am not interested in. He and other Republicans make the shortfall seem as big as possible by using dollar figures and estimates for an infinite horizon. Instead of emphasizing that the shortfall over seventy-five years is 1.92 percent of payroll, which can obviously be eliminated by any combination of income increases or benefit reductions that are equivalent to a 1 percent increase in the contribution rate for employees and employers each, the GOP talks about a present value shortfall of $11.1 trillion figured over an infinite horizon, adding up shortfalls decade after decade for hundreds of years after the program's financing could quite easily have been fixed. $11.1 trillion sure sounds big! But it is not pointed out that estimates using the infinite horizon approach would show a gross domestic product so huge that the total future shortfall in Social Security would weigh in at only about 1.2%. Let us contrast that with a Dem plan to balance Social Security and not just for the next 75 years. The Robert Ball plan. 1. Gradually raise the cap on earnings covered by Social Security so that once again 90 percent of all such earnings would be taxed and counted for benefits. 2. Beginning in 2010, dedicate the proceeds of the revised estate tax to Social Security. (Hey, someone else thought this was a good idea.) This would make the 2009 $7 million dollar exemption for couples permanent instead of the GOP plans to abolish the estate tax entirely. 3. Improve the return on Social Security funds by gradually investing part of them in equities, These three steps bring Social Security to with actuarial defined acceptable risk/close balance previously used for Social Security and long term pensions but let us go further. 4. Replace the present COLA with the chained CPI inflation factor. 5. Make the program universal - bring all state and local employers under it. This puts the plan in a slight surplus using the GOP Social Security governors accounting This does only protect Social Security for the next 75 years or more. So make a future automatic correction. 6. If in 2023 or later when the ratio of the trust funds at the beginning of a year to the benefits in the following year starts to decline increase the employer and employee contribution by 0.5%. Result a plan in balance or surplus for over a century and perhaps to infinity and beyond. Robert M. Ball served as Commissioner of Social Security under Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon, served on many statutory advisory councils, and on the bipartisan commission that produced the 1983 amendments. His latest book is Insuring the Essentials: Bob Ball on Social Security, (New York: The Century Foundation Press, 2000). http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp I am not in complete agreement with this plan. The chained CPI uses a lot of subtle and difficult to quantify estimates of the value of improvements in new merchandise and I think a CPI index for seniors and people actually receiving Social Security is needed. Still this is for those wanting a Democratic alternate to all the plans proposed which reduce benefits more and
Re: Star Trek signs off tonight....
The hot Vulcan was right - she was also right about the poor scripts for most of the first two seasons. So much potential, so much... 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: The American Political Landscape today
--- Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's nice to know that, despite the opinions of some among our august body, we liberals are *not* out of the mainstream, we *are* the mainstream. Dave A hypothetical...there are four groups in a population. Each with 20% of the population. We can set them up this way: 20% very conservative 20% conservative 20% moderate 20% liberal Now, where would the mainstream be in that block of four, exactly? Note that this is actually not a bad approximation of what the American public looks like. It's not that you're not in the mainstream, Dave, it's that you're so detached from it _you don't even know where it is_. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com Discover Yahoo! Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
reality based thinking
Some of you have been dropping by my blog where a lively discussion of The Enlightenment and its Enemies has been going on. Here's a few items just sent to me by a (admittedly radical) friend. 1. an article that, while liberal, analyses this administration in conservative terms. Alas, the author ignores an additional fact... that Al Gore reduced the actual number of pages and words of federal law for the 1st time in US history. http://www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20050516s=chait051605 EXCERPT: None of these accounts, though, goes very far toward explaining what Bush has done and why he has done it. If government has expanded under Bush because of hostile currents of public opinion, then it should have expanded even faster under President Clinton, who was less conservative than the current president. But, in fact, non-defense spending as a percentage of the economy actually declined under Clinton, from 17 percent of gross domestic product to 15.5 percent, before rising smartly under the present administration from 15.5 to 16.5 percent. (Did homeland security contribute to the rise in spending under Bush? Just a bit: It accounts for about one-seventh of the domestic spending hikes.) Conservatives haven't explained why a moderate liberal like Clinton had an easier time than Bush in resisting popular demand to spend. For a more lengthy, empirical analysis of Borrow and Spend Big Government Republican policies, be sure to check out this Cato study: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa543.pdf And when the Cato Institute goes against the GOP, you know that something has gone so rotten that it makes even THEIR heads turn. 2/ Oh, for the good old days. Could you imagine comments like these coming from a Republican politician in 2005? Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid. - President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54 However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.' Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), 9/16/81 Well, I admit that Ike and Goldwater are two of my conservative heroes. Real intellects and patriots. Eisenhower also warned against the acquisition of unwarranted influence... by the military industrial complex. remember? He went on to say this - a pro-transparency statement if there ever was one. Only an alert and knowledgable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. THIS is why I am so steamed at the ACLU for the WAY that they oppose the #$#@@$# Patriot Act. They oppose the small, incremental ways that the FBI can now surveil a little better... chickenfeed! Meanwhile they ignore (almost) the really scary parts of that law. The parts letting our paid protector caste operate in the dark, without supervision or oversight. eeek. 3/ Finally Breaking News (lightening up) RUMSFELD UPGRADES IRAQ FROM QUAGMIRE TO MORASS Situation Disastrous But Not Catastrophic, Defense Sec'y Says After taking a look at what is going on there on the ground, it is my judgment that it is time to upgrade Iraq from quagmire to morass, Mr. Rumsfeld said, adding that he was very confident in making the new assessment. 4/ Speaking of lightening up, be sure to check
Re: Brin: Lucas Film Business Model
Robert J. Chassell wrote: 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 Alberto Monteiro said, The USA _is_ doing that: currently the greatest world producers in ethanol to replace gasoline are Brazil and the USA. We started the program in 1974 (or so - but back in the 30s we already had alcohol cars), but the USA started it quite recently. No, the US government is not spending US$200 billion per year on biomass work, such as genetic research and development. At least not to my knowledge. In any event, with current plants, if people starve, the US can provide 5 - 10 % of its energy from biomass. That is all. (I hope some genetic engineers create a plant or bacterium whose growth is properly controllable, that converts ten times as high a percentage of the sun's energy as any now do. But meanwhile ... ) According to http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html a target bioenergy crop yield might be: 5.0 US tons/acre (10,000 lb/acre) = 11.2 tonnes/hectare (1120 g/m2) Energy content of agricultural residues (range due to moisture content) = 10-17 GJ/t (4,300-7,300 Btu/lb) or 110 - 200 GJ/hectare or 11 - 20 Megajoules/sq meter According to http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/us.html US land area is only about 2.3 billion acres of which 1/5 is arable, or about 440 million acres (~178 million hectares) (A hectare is ~2.47 acres; conversely, an acre is ~0.4 of a hectare.) So, to repeat myself, if people starve, the US can provide 5 - 10 per cent of its energy from biomass. -- 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: Fare thee well my beautiful Vulcan, was RE: Star Trek signs off tonight....
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Edmunds Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 12:01 AM To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Fare thee well my beautiful Vulcan,was RE: Star Trek signs off tonight From: Gary Nunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' brin-l@mccmedia.com 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 _ The Travis and I have discussed this on many occasions, and a future jump some 50-100 years into the future would be great as Travis said a la voyager. Personally I would not mind something out the back door of the federation... a la mirror universe. You could do a 4-5 season run and start at first Contact and complete somewhere near the end of DS9. Yes I know it is around 300-400 years to cover but a lot of that time is spread out under occupation by the alliance so you can cover some human uprisings and such. Do the whole rise and fall of the Terran Empire, its occupation, persucation and the start of its new rise to strength and power with the starting of the New Federation or it good mirror self. Nick... good bye T'pol I shall miss you ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape today
On May 14, 2005, at 4:38 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: It's not that you're not in the mainstream, Dave, it's that you're so detached from it _you don't even know where it is_. I'm clearly out of *your* main stream... Main stream of what, I'm not entirely sure, but I am happy to be out of it. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
Gautam, et al, I'm writing to retract my previous message. I reject your categorization of me as being out of the mainstream. Moreover, I found your message a little short on what I'll call intellectual honesty. First, you admittedly pulled your numbers out of your ... um ... head, whereas this thread was discussing *actual* numbers from a poll that has been conducted for 15 years by the Pew Research Center. Guess which ones I consider to have more weight? Second, your four groups of 20% are skewed to the right. Why didn't you have five groups: Very Conservative 20% Conservative 20% Moderate 20% Liberal 20% Very Liberal 20% -- Source: My Ass Using the above categories, which at least provide a centered spectrum, feel free to provide your own numbers. Third, I don't understand why your four categories only added up to 80%, leaving out 20% of the population. Do you think that the opinions of 20% of Americans don't count, or that 20% don't have any opinions? That is certainly heading in the direction of at least one finding in the Pew report: 63% of respondents feel that Most elected officials don't care what people like me think. Perhaps your story would be better served with these groupings (with no bullshit numbers): Extremely Conservative, Very Conservative, Moderately Conservative, Mildly Conservative, Lunatic Fringe. Returning to meaningful results of an actual poll, the categories and percentages under discussion are: Right-leaning: Enterprisers 9% Social Conservatives 11% Pro-Government Conservatives 9% Centrist/Unaffiliated: Upbeats 11% Disaffecteds 9% Bystanders 10% Left-leaning: Conservative Democrats 14% Disadvantaged Democrats 10% Liberals 17% As you can see, the Liberals *as defined by the Pew report* are the largest bloc. The mainstream, one might say. For the three general groupings that the Pewsters created, the percentages are: Right-leaning 29% Centrist/Neither 30% Left-leaning 41% Thanks, Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 07:15 PM 5/14/2005 -0700, you wrote: Liberals 17% As you can see, the Liberals *as defined by the Pew report* are the largest bloc. The mainstream, one might say. Shirley, you can't be serious? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
