Re: Defeat in Victory

[Doug Pensinger]

Robert wrote:


It is not something substantiated.
The quote comes from an unnamed source who purportedly heard it in a
WH staffing meeting and subsequently blogged.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

IMO, it should be noted, but not passed along as fact.


The guy who wrote the article is a long time reporter and congressional 
staffer.  Regarding his sources he said: "I’ve talked to three people 
present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President 
of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.”


So three unnamed sources, all of whom would have been Republicans.

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

Re: Defeat in Victory

[Robert Seeberger]

- Original Message - 
From: "Steve Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 10:34 PM
Subject: Re: Defeat in Victory


> Doug Pensinger wrote:
>
> > These are the kinds of things that characterize the President;
> > reckless disregard for the law.  We hear about a man that calls
> > the principals that have built this nation and to some extent
> > have made the world what it is today "a goddamned piece of paper"
>
> What is the reference for that quote? I saw someone mention
> that he said that about the US Constitution in an earlier
> post, but I think I missed the post giving an actual reference
> for that. If he actually said that, then that's really scary.
>

It is not something substantiated.
The quote comes from an unnamed source who purportedly heard it in a 
WH staffing meeting and subsequently blogged.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

IMO, it should be noted, but not passed along as fact.

xponent
Originator Maru
rob 


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

Re: Wal-Mart efficiency (was Re: My annual Xmas tirade...)

[The Fool]

> From: Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> From: "The Fool" 
> 
> > --
> > From: Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > And no, I don't want us to be communist or something else,
> > I just don't want my economy destroyed by rapacity.
> >
> > 
> > Since most products sold at walmart are made in china, shopping
there
> > is proping up and supporting red communism.
> 
> Hmm, that's interesting.  We know that Wal-Mart buys ~7.5 billion in
goods
> directly from China and another 7.5 billion or so from suppliers
buying
> from China.  With almost 300 billion in sales, and a 3.6% profit
margin,
> are you arguing that the original cost of the goods sold by Wal-Mart
is
> only 5% of the final price...and ~90% is the cost of running Wal-Mart
> stores?


Do you exclude food from your calculations? (Most food isn't grown in
Red China)  Do you also exclude srevices wal-mart has like their
automotive service dept?

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

Re: Defeat in Victory

[Steve Sloan]

Doug Pensinger wrote:

> These are the kinds of things that characterize the President;
> reckless disregard for the law.  We hear about a man that calls
> the principals that have built this nation and to some extent
> have made the world what it is today "a goddamned piece of paper"

What is the reference for that quote? I saw someone mention
that he said that about the US Constitution in an earlier
post, but I think I missed the post giving an actual reference
for that. If he actually said that, then that's really scary.
__
Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama => [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org
Science Fiction-themed online store . http://www.sloan3d.com/store
Chmeee's 3D Objects  http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee
3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com
Software  Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links
Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Wal-Mart efficiency (was Re: My annual Xmas tirade...)

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: Wal-Mart efficiency (was Re: My annual Xmas tirade...)


> --
> From: Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> And no, I don't want us to be communist or something else,
> I just don't want my economy destroyed by rapacity.
>
> 
> Since most products sold at walmart are made in china, shopping there
> is proping up and supporting red communism.

Hmm, that's interesting.  We know that Wal-Mart buys ~7.5 billion in goods
directly from China and another 7.5 billion or so from suppliers buying
from China.  With almost 300 billion in sales, and a 3.6% profit margin,
are you arguing that the original cost of the goods sold by Wal-Mart is
only 5% of the final price...and ~90% is the cost of running Wal-Mart
stores?

Dan M.

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

Re: My annual Xmas tirade... Was RE: An armed society ...

[Julia Thompson]

Jim Sharkey wrote:

William T Goodall wrote:


Max Battcher wrote:


Last time I saw anything: 75-80% total, 50% or less of the Server
market, 50% or less of the "nerd" market.


Whatever the peak was it's certainly in decline now.



Yeah, Gates is letting his guard slip with all that sissy-ass 
philanthropy Bono's got him involved in.  He's *clearly* lost his 
evil overlord his edge.  :)


I'm not complaining -- some of that money is coming to near me.

Of course, between Dell Computers and Michael & Susan Dell, we get a 
fair bit of computer-money philanthropy in the area anyway.  :)  I think 
the Dell name is going onto at least a wing of the new children's 
hospital that's being built in Austin.  I'm sure a bunch of the 
equipment in it will be Dell stuff, as well; they were using Dell 
equipment for Tommy's upper GI series a little over a year ago at the 
existing children's hospital.


Julia

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

Re: My annual Xmas tirade...

[Max Battcher]

Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> I agree that any OS should include those things. But Micro$oft is
> Evil not for including them, but for _not_ including other basic
> things that any decent OS should include, like _any_ programming
> language support (C, C++, or even b*sic), any reasonable text
> editor, any reasonable command language, etc.

All of the latest Microsoft Compilers (languages include C++, C#,
VB.NET, others) are free and most likely are already installed on your
computer.

IMO, Notepad is a reasonable text editor.  When I want features I want
something like Vim and I don't expect Microsoft to deal with the Vim
v. Emacs debate.

The cmd.exe and Windows Script Host together support quite a bit of
"reasonable" commands, and the Monad Shell in beta-testing provides
everything but the kitchen sink.

--
--Max Battcher--
http://www.worldmaker.net/
All progress is based upon a universal innate desire on the part of
every organism to live beyond its income. --Samuel Butler
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: My annual Xmas tirade... Was RE: An armed society ...

[Russell Chapman]

William T Goodall wrote:

Microsoft attained its dominant position in the personal computer  
software business through

1) Luck
2) Illegal business practices
3) The mistakes of its competitors
and since
a) Luck eventually runs out
b) Microsoft is now closely scrutinised to ensure it doesn't break  
the law anymore

c) The competition has wised up

Microsoft's position can only decline from now.

Microsoft may yet have another life if it manages to dominate the living 
room in the way it has done the office. Sales between Thanksgiving and 
Christmas of Media Centre edition PCs in the US have been staggering. 
It's not that MS get that much more for the Media Centre version of 
Windows (they do, of course) but the stake being claimed in the living 
room. Once Xbox360 takes that next step into people's home lives, it may 
be that they have got far enough. Sony's devices are better, Apple's 
10foot interface is better, but it's the Microsoft stuff people will 
have, so it is Microsoft that the content providers will have to deal with.
Rather than breaking the law, they will just ensure that DRM laws etc 
benefit them in the first place...


Cheers
Russell C.


---
This email (including any attachments) is confidential
and copyright. The School makes no warranty about the
content of this email. Unless expressly stated, this
email does not bind the School and does not necessarily
constitute the opinion of the School.

If you have received this email in error, please delete
it and notify the sender.
---
<<<>>>
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: My annual Xmas tirade... Was RE: An armed society ...

[The Fool]

> From: Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> >
> > >> It may have had something to do with a small cadre of
power-hungry,
> > >> greedy bastards who manipulated the system for their benefit.
> 
> But, they didn't manipulate the system for their personal benefit. If
they
> did, they would have lived rich. They manipulated the system to
achieve
> their ideal.  Unfortunately, their ideal ran against the reality of
> centrally controlled economies.

>...the inefficiencies destroy wealth.

Short of devaluation from inflation and actual physical destruction
money (as opposed to physical good or 'wealth') isn't destroyed.  Money
flows through an economy passing from entity to entity or it is hoarded
by an entity (physically under the mattres, or in a bank which reloans
it at interest).  I see that you believe that when some money flows to
some entities (regardless of the value of the exchange) that 'wealth'
(money) is 'destroyed'.  Perhaps if the 'wealth' flowed to rich or
state entities you could call that wealth 'destoyed', but 'wealth' that
flows to and through the general populace is likely not 'destroyed' at
at.


> 
> The Soviet economy went backwards because centrally planned economies
are
> notoriously inefficient.  Inefficient means that more money goes down
the
> toilet.
> 
> Let me ask a question from another post.  You argued that two jobs
were
> lost for every job created when Wal-Mart comes into a town. Doesn't
that
> mean that Wal-Mart needs only half the people to do the same amount
of
> work?  Are you arguing that featherbedding is a good idea?

Lets extend this out thirty or so years.  Eventually their will be
relitively few jobs that humans would be able to do that technology
wouldn't be able to do better and cheaper.  With unemployment reaching
into the high ninties, very little 'wealth' will flow through the
economy at all.  Noone would be able to buy the things that the economy
produced except the rich.  What need would there be for those people
then?

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

Re: Wal-Mart efficiency (was Re: My annual Xmas tirade...)

[The Fool]

--
From: Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

And no, I don't want us to be communist or something else,
I just don't want my economy destroyed by rapacity.


Since most products sold at walmart are made in china, shopping there
is proping up and supporting red communism.

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

Re: Wal-Mart efficiency (was Re: My annual Xmas tirade...)

[Nick Arnett]

On 12/21/05, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >That it drives out small businesses that create qualitative and
> >hard-to-quantify benefits?
>
> Sure, it drives out small businesses.  Small businesses are rather
> inefficient at selling, and have to pass the cost on to the customer.
> There is a certain romanticism about small businesses.  They still exist,
> of course, but they sell to higher income people who don't mind paying a
> significnt premium.


You're writing as though efficiency at selling is the ultimate good.  What
if it isn't?  As a matter of fact, I'm darn sure it isn't.  And I suspect
that the economy as a whole is less efficient when sectors become dominated
by a few large players.  Game theory, as well as many simulations, strongly
support that idea.  All that we *know* Wal-Mart is good at is getting big
and keeping prices low.  Not being a worshipper of low prices, I'm not
willing to let that be the only "bottom line."

Why shouldn't working class people shop where their money goes the
> furthest?  What is wrong with offering something someone wants.


People want low prices; Wal-Mart offers low prices, therefore Wal-Mart is
good.  Is that what you're saying?  What about all the other things people
want -- jobs that pay well, health insurance, less dependence on traveling
long distances by car to shop and so forth?  People want those, too, and
Wal-Mart isn't delivering.  They're taking away.

>
> Now, you can argue that lower income people don't know what's good for
> thembut a lot of them seem to have as much or more sense than the
> folks
> I see in designer clothes.


Yes, I could, were I an elitist jerk.  So don't go putting those words in my
mouth.


The overwhelming evidence is that Wal-Mart stores improve the economics of
> the people who shop there vs. buying items at higher price stores.


So this is the message to the people left behind by Wal-Mart efficiency --
Sorry you're out of work, your house is in foreclosure and you have no
medical care... but be of good cheer, Wal-Mart is rolling back prices!  I'm
sure you'll be comforted knowing that if you had any money, it would go
further at Wal-Mart.

And that's just the extreme case, of course.

Low prices are not the bottom line.  Corporate profits are not the bottom
line.  If we're to be a decent society, we have to take much more into
account.

Nick

--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Flashback (was: RepubliKlan Amerika:Valtrex)

[Deborah Harrell]

> Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

 
>
<>
> >
> > I know a young woman who has the misfortune to
> >have contracted genital herpes...
> > Recently she took her prescription to a
pharmacist...
> > Not only did he refuse to fill the prescription,
> but he tore it up and
> > handed it back to her, saying, "God is punishing
> you for your sin."

Reprehensible.  As are those who refuse to fill birth
control scripts.  Julia's idea of prosecution sounds
unfortunately like what it will take to rectify these
situations.
 
> There's a song, "They'll Know We are Christians by
> Our Love."  

 Whew, just got jolted back to Vacation
Bible School -- is that a Lutheran song, or generic
Protestant?  :)

>I'm having a
> hard time knowing that this person is a Christian. 
> Seems to me that he
> thinks *he* is God, since he's the one who chose to
"punish."

I so understand why some are refering to themselves as
"followers of Jesus" instead of "Christians" -
although that's not the way to 'take it back.'  >:/

Debbi
The Johnny Appleseed Blessing 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: My annual Xmas tirade... Was RE: An armed society ...

[William T Goodall]

On 21 Dec 2005, at 7:04 pm, Jim Sharkey wrote:



William T Goodall wrote:

Max Battcher wrote:

Last time I saw anything: 75-80% total, 50% or less of the Server
market, 50% or less of the "nerd" market.

Whatever the peak was it's certainly in decline now.


Yeah, Gates is letting his guard slip with all that sissy-ass
philanthropy Bono's got him involved in.  He's *clearly* lost his
evil overlord his edge.  :)


Microsoft attained its dominant position in the personal computer  
software business through


1) Luck
2) Illegal business practices
3) The mistakes of its competitors

and since

a) Luck eventually runs out
b) Microsoft is now closely scrutinised to ensure it doesn't break  
the law anymore

c) The competition has wised up

Microsoft's position can only decline from now.

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

"Aerospace is plumbing with the volume turned up." - John Carmack

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

Re: My annual Xmas tirade... Was RE: An armed society ...

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 6:03 PM
Subject: Re: My annual Xmas tirade... Was RE: An armed society ...



>
> >> It may have had something to do with a small cadre of power-hungry,
> >> greedy bastards who manipulated the system for their benefit.

But, they didn't manipulate the system for their personal benefit. If they
did, they would have lived rich. They manipulated the system to achieve
their ideal.  Unfortunately, their ideal ran against the reality of
centrally controlled economiesthe inefficiencies destroy wealth.

The Soviet economy went backwards because centrally planned economies are
notoriously inefficient.  Inefficient means that more money goes down the
toilet.

Let me ask a question from another post.  You argued that two jobs were
lost for every job created when Wal-Mart comes into a town. Doesn't that
mean that Wal-Mart needs only half the people to do the same amount of
work?  Are you arguing that featherbedding is a good idea?

Dan M.

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

Re: My annual Xmas tirade... Was RE: An armed society ...

[Dave Land]

On Dec 21, 2005, at 3:52 PM, Dan Minette wrote:


- Original Message -
From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


On Dec 20, 2005, at 8:57 PM, Dan Minette wrote:


From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


Ineffiencies *are* the economy.  Perfect efficiencies would lead
to 0%
employment and complete economic collapse.


Ah, so that explains why the economy of the Soviet Union
outperformed the
US for so long. :-)


I venture that the problem with the Soviet economy was not simply a
matter of inefficiency. It may have had something to do with a small
cadre of power-hungry, greedy bastards who manipulated the system
for their benefit.


Actually, they didn't live rich, compared to a US millionaire at  
the time.
The GDP of the Soviet Union went backwards during it's last 10  
years or
so.. Interviews after the war indicated that many in the upper  
echelons of

the Communist party still believed in their ideals.


Of course, I didn't say that they lived rich compared to anybody, but
that's how "I don't have a leg to stand on" arguments go, isn't it:
how's that straw man coming along?

I said:


It may have had something to do with a small cadre of power-hungry,
greedy bastards who manipulated the system for their benefit.


Sound familiar?

Dave

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

Re: Cocoa additives

[Deborah Harrell]

Much snippage throughout-

> Mauro Diotallevi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Deborah Harrell wrote:
> > > Mauro "the gourmand" Diotallevi wrote:

> > > ...Think mango and chipotle peppers
> > > together, for an example, or papaya and cayenne.
 Or
> > > the mixture of chocolate and various peppers in
mole.

> >   Sorry, I have tried mole several times
and
> > found it very unpalatable...But mango-chipotle
salsa sounds
> > delicious!
 
> Mangoes are one of my favorite foods in the world,
> but mole comes in a close
> second. ...But certainly, everyone's tastes are
different.  For
> example, despite their
> similarities, I enjoy a good haggis but am not much
> fond of menudo.

Some friends brought traditional and vegetarian haggis
back from Scotland - I enjoyed both, but the veggie
was nicely spicy, so I preferred that.

> > ...My years-ago trial of fresh ginger in tea with
milk
> > was tongue-curdling; how do you mix ginger and
milk
> > without that?  Or is it a matter of amount, or
using
> > powdered ginger instead of fresh?
 
> Definitely powdered ginger, carefully applied.

Guess I'll have to get some.

> > > And of course, any sweetener added to any of
these
> > > should be pure cane sugar.

> > Why?  Sucrose ought to be sucrose, whatever the
> > source.
 
> From
>
http://www.candhsugarcompany.com/Consumer/cane_vs_beet.html
> at the C&H website:
> "Cane sugar contains trace minerals that are
> different from those in beet
> sugar, and it's these minerals that many experts say
> make cane sugar preferable to use... 

[Aside: eeeuuw!  !Ronn!  :P]
I do prefer C&H brown sugar to the less expensive ones
that are essentially white sugar with molasses added
back (waves to Julia).

Debbi
whose cat prefers vole tartar, but would probably
enjoy mole that way as well

>From the "Song of Bashir"-

Mousies fleet are quite a treat
To chase around the barn-o;
And when they've done their bestest run
They make great mouse tartar-o!

__
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: My annual Xmas tirade... Was RE: An armed society ...

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: My annual Xmas tirade... Was RE: An armed society ...


> On Dec 20, 2005, at 8:57 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> > From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >> Ineffiencies *are* the economy.  Perfect efficiencies would lead
> >> to 0%
> >> employment and complete economic collapse.
> >
> > Ah, so that explains why the economy of the Soviet Union
> > outperformed the
> > US for so long. :-)
>
> I venture that the problem with the Soviet economy was not simply a
> matter of inefficiency. It may have had something to do with a small
> cadre of power-hungry, greedy bastards who manipulated the system
> for their benefit.

Actually, they didn't live rich, compared to a US millionaire at the time.
The GDP of the Soviet Union went backwards during it's last 10 years or
so.. Interviews after the war indicated that many in the upper echelons of
the Communist party still believed in their ideals.

Or, take East and West Germany for comparison examples.  North and South
Korea also do well.  Or how about Japanthey have much stronger
relationships between the government and business than the US, yet their
standard of living is far better than the USSR was.

Central planned economies have done far worse than economies where markets
exist, set prices, etc.  In a central planned economy being politically
correct is critical; efficiency is less critical.

Dan M.

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

Re: Defeat in Victory

[Robert Seeberger]

- Original Message - 
From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: Defeat in Victory


>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 10:35 PM
> Subject: Re: Defeat in Victory
>
>
>>
>>  It's not all about you Dan!
>
>
>> I was suggesting that perhaps you are missing that "most" of the
>> liberal posters here are espousing views that are more centrist 
>> than
>> you might think.
>
> OK.  The idea that we went to war in Iraq in order to make money for 
> oil
> companies is centralist?

Whew We really are not thinking about the same kinds of things at 
all this week!
But since you mention it, The only people I see talk that way are 
decidedly left or a few disaffected centrist conservatives, so I think 
you can find a range of people stuck in the war-for-oil loop rather 
than just a single camp.
Myself feels that the Bushies are not so much evil as they are 
aggresively opportunistic, so the whole war-for-oil is plauseable and 
worth discussing (in terms of the process of falsification) but it is 
not an idea that I set great store in because I forsee that there are 
a great many conjectures that could also come into play due to the 
variety of players that make up this administration. I do not doubt 
that there is a good deal of corruption at work and it seems to me 
that we have only begun to scrabble after the facts.
What I find most interesting is how this group has been able to make 
some quite extreme claims sound very reasonable to the average 
Joe(sette) with hardly an eyebrow raised til this last year, while the 
most avid Bush-haters froth, wrack, and shrilly declaim to the end of 
having a most miniscule influence at all.
The Bushies are most skilled in that regard.


>
>> >From where I'm viewing, a corner seems to have been turned in 
>> >recent
>> months and "most" people in the US share opinions that are more
>> leftish than they were over the last few years.
>
> Maybebut it isn't really clear.  After the enormous blundering 
> of this
> administration, as well as the scandals of the House and Senate 
> Republican
> leadership, one would think that 2006 will be 1994 all over again. 
> But,
> Bush is bouncing back somewhat in the polls now, and the Democrats 
> still
> can't seem to get their act together.  Plus, there are only about 
> 40-50
> House seats that are in play, so it would take an overwhelming 
> victory by
> the Democrats to regain control of the House.

I'm thinking the Dems might get the Senate. I know they want it. It 
has more concentrated power and makes a better bullypulpit.


>
> So, a year from now, we may or may not see a significant shift.  I'm 
> hoping
> that we will.  But I think arguments that we went to war to give US 
> oil
> companies control of the Mid-East oilfields, that the Republic is on 
> it's
> last legs, etc. are ones that I've rarely seen.  Since I left 
> Mad-Town, 23
> years ago, even living in Connecticut, I've seen it at a Dennis 
> Kupechne
> (sp) meeting I was invited to, here, on Culture, and on the walls at
> colleges my girls went to.  I haven't even seen the question asked 
> in
> polls, so I don't have numbers, but I'd guess  less than 10% 
> nationwide
> believe this (~3.5x Nadar's top vote %). As far as I can tell, that 
> it the
> "centralist position" that Andrew Paul referred to.  It is certainly 
> the
> mode position of recent political posts here.  Take my posts out, 
> even
> allowing for the weighed average including your posts, and I'd argue 
> that
> position is the mean of recent posts here.

Even when John and Gautam were posting this list tended left of center 
by a respectable margin. Much more than the nation overall. The list 
likely reflected world opinion a bit better though.
So...what *should* be reflected?
IMO worrying over such is a bit narcissistic, kind of a group 
solipsism.
Group averages are interesting but mean little in the long run. People 
change their opinions over time and we grow with the times we survive.
Our differences are not so great as we often think.
(What's this "We" shit Kemosabe?)
At some point we, (there you go with that "We" crap again) as a 
group/nation/world, are going to have to come to grip with the fact 
that most of out divisions are created and are artificial 
distinctions, and that these distinctions are leading us astray and 
causing us to cling to untruths in the name of group unity.
Each of us are going to die someday and all this party prejudice will 
be for naught.


>
> Now, one might ask if I think it is the mean of the positions of the 
> people
> on this list.  I don't think so, but that's harder to measure.  So, 
> I
> didn't refer to that, I merely referred to what was written in 
> recent (say
> since Gautam and JDG left) political posts.
>

Yeah, if "truth" goes unchallenged, is i

Re: Wal-Mart efficiency (was Re: My annual Xmas tirade...)

[Dave Land]

On Dec 21, 2005, at 3:29 PM, Dave Land wrote:

...

Forgot the one about underpricing competition until it goes
out of business so that it is free to claim the 'lowest prices'
in town, because nobody else is in town. They even installed
gas pumps at some of their stores so that none of the gas
stations in town could make a penny selling gasoline to all
those Wal-Mart shoppers, and sold the gas at below-market
prices to destroy the competition.

I know that über-capitalists consider this kind of kill-em-
all-and-let-God-sort-em-out mentality the pinnacle of
economic evolution, but I disagree.

And no, I don't want us to be communist or something else,
I just don't want my economy destroyed by rapacity.

Dave

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

Re: Wal-Mart efficiency (was Re: My annual Xmas tirade...)

[Dave Land]

On Dec 21, 2005, at 12:35 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:


On 12/21/05, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Wal-Mart's latest (fiscal year ending 1-05) profit margin was 3.6%.
They make a good deal of profit, 10 billion, but on slim margins.
This is in contrast with Microsoft, which has a profit margin of
~32% and about 13 billion in profits.


What I don't understand is which complaints about Wal-Mart you are
arguing against.

That it mistreats employees?
That it drives out small businesses that create qualitative and
hard-to-quantify benefits?


That a good part of its so-called efficiency is underwritten by
billions of taxpayer dollars via the state and federal welfare
and healthcare systems?

That is is under indictment in a number of states for forcing its
employees to work unpaid overtime?

That it regularly hires undocumented workers to undercut legal
citizens' salaries?

That it engages in gender and race discrimination in hiring and
promotions?

That it illegally interferes with unionization efforts of its
employees?

That is systematically violates environmental laws?

That two jobs are lost for every job it creates in virtually
every town where it opens a store?

Efficiency is not an unalloyed good, except perhaps in economic
theory. In practice, efficiency must balanced with other concerns.

But Wal-Mart apologists recognize no other mantra than ruthless
efficiency.

Dave

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

Re: My annual Xmas tirade... Was RE: An armed society ...

[Dave Land]

On Dec 20, 2005, at 8:57 PM, Dan Minette wrote:


From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Ineffiencies *are* the economy.  Perfect efficiencies would lead  
to 0%

employment and complete economic collapse.


Ah, so that explains why the economy of the Soviet Union  
outperformed the

US for so long. :-)


I venture that the problem with the Soviet economy was not simply a
matter of inefficiency. It may have had something to do with a small
cadre of power-hungry, greedy bastards who manipulated the system
for their benefit.

Sound familiar? History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes.

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

Re: Wal-Mart efficiency (was Re: My annual Xmas tirade...)

[Jim Sharkey]

Dan Minette wrote:
>a wearable shirt costs...at Walmat

To me, that's a contradiction in terms.  My personal experiences with 
clothes purchased at Wal-Mart is that you get *exactly* what you pay 
for.  Cheap clothes that look like crap after just a few washings.  
Maybe others have had different experiences, but for my money, the 
quality-cutting that accompanies much of its cost-cutting makes their 
stuff less of a bargain than it may appear to be on the surface.

Jim

___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!


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

Merry Chrismakwanzahanayule!

[kerri miller]

To celebrate the season, I made this.  Dig in, there's plenty to share!

http://www.livejournal.com/users/kerrizor/374310.html

__
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: Wal-Mart efficiency (was Re: My annual Xmas tirade...)

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 2:35 PM
Subject: Re: Wal-Mart efficiency (was Re: My annual Xmas tirade...)


On 12/21/05, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Wal-Mart's latest (fiscal year ending 1-05) profit margin was 3.6%.  They
> make a good deal of profit, 10 billion, but on slim margins.  This is in
> contrast with Microsoft, which has a profit margin of ~32% and about 13
> billion in profits.



Okay, it seems to me you're making an economic argument about Wal-Mart's
efficiency.  It certainly seems true that the company has pushed very hard
to be economically efficient.

What I don't understand is which complaints about Wal-Mart you are arguing
against.

>That it mistreats employees?

That it treats its workers worse than the average retail worker is treated.
I know people who work retail, and it is not a high paying segment of the
industry.  Small businesses don't pay $15.00/hour for general clerk help.
My kids, as I'm sure your's have, have applied at small and large
businesess; and they money offered them is less than Wal-Mart pays.


>That it drives out small businesses that create qualitative and
>hard-to-quantify benefits?

Sure, it drives out small businesses.  Small businesses are rather
inefficient at selling, and have to pass the cost on to the customer.
There is a certain romanticism about small businesses.  They still exist,
of course, but they sell to higher income people who don't mind paying a
significnt premium.

Why shouldn't working class people shop where their money goes the
furthest?  What is wrong with offering something someone wants.


>These complaints are only somewhat related to economic efficiency, the
>financial bottom line.

With all do respect, low prices are a lot less important to people making
professional salaries, who own and sell businesses (like we do) than to
people who are just getting by.  Wal-Mart has cut the cost of living for
lower income people considerably.  Efficience is the inverse of waste.  An
efficient process wastes a lot less than an inefficient process.

As a result of Wal-Mart, things that average people buy cost less than they
otherwise would haveoften less than they did before.  In constant
dollars, a wearable shirt costs much less at Walmat now than it did at a
small clothing store 50 years ago.

Our lower income friends and relatives love Walmart.  Unlike the mall, when
I go there I don't see mostly upper income people in designer outfits.

Now, you can argue that lower income people don't know what's good for
thembut a lot of them seem to have as much or more sense than the folks
I see in designer clothes.

>There are other kinds of "bottom lines," which are
>harder to quantify, such as the health and well-being of individuals and
>communities.  That's where I think people have trouble with Wal-Mart, not
>the fact that they make money.  It's not the profit itself that is the
>problem, it's non-financial costs, as well as financial costs that simply
>aren't part of an individual company's accounting.  We don't calculate the
>financial bottom line for a company's employees as a group, or for
>communities as a whole, so we really don't know the bigger picture that
>Wal-Mart fits into.  But there is overwhelming evidence that the entrance
of
>Wal-Mart (and stores like it, of course) a community's economics.

The overwhelming evidence is that Wal-Mart stores improve the economics of
the people who shop there vs. buying items at higher price stores.

Dan M.

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

Re: Wal-Mart efficiency (was Re: My annual Xmas tirade...)

[Nick Arnett]

On 12/21/05, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Wal-Mart's latest (fiscal year ending 1-05) profit margin was 3.6%.  They
> make a good deal of profit, 10 billion, but on slim margins.  This is in
> contrast with Microsoft, which has a profit margin of ~32% and about 13
> billion in profits.



Okay, it seems to me you're making an economic argument about Wal-Mart's
efficiency.  It certainly seems true that the company has pushed very hard
to be economically efficient.

What I don't understand is which complaints about Wal-Mart you are arguing
against.

That it mistreats employees?
That it drives out small businesses that create qualitative and
hard-to-quantify benefits?
Or what?

These complaints are only somewhat related to economic efficiency, the
financial bottom line.  There are other kinds of "bottom lines," which are
harder to quantify, such as the health and well-being of individuals and
communities.  That's where I think people have trouble with Wal-Mart, not
the fact that they make money.  It's not the profit itself that is the
problem, it's non-financial costs, as well as financial costs that simply
aren't part of an individual company's accounting.  We don't calculate the
financial bottom line for a company's employees as a group, or for
communities as a whole, so we really don't know the bigger picture that
Wal-Mart fits into.  But there is overwhelming evidence that the entrance of
Wal-Mart (and stores like it, of course) a community's economics.

It seems to me that there's a fallacy often at work, which says that any
profitable business that doesn't actually commit crimes should be assumed to
be either neutral or good for society as a whole.  It's a fallacy not just
because it fails to take into account larger-scale economics but also
because the economic bottom line is not *the* bottom line.

Nick

--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Who?

[The Fool]

<>

Questions About Bush Spying 

1) Is the White House listening in on Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald's
calls and e-mails as he investigates White House crimes?

2) Was the Bush campaign listening in on calls and e-mails from the
people in charge of the Kerry campaign?

3) Is the Bush Administration using the NSA to determine whether
applicants for jobs, travel, etc. are Bush supporters or not?

4) Did the NSA tip off the Bush Administration that the federal
prosecutor in Guam was looking into Jack Abramoff?

5) Did Bush use this new spying capability to monitor "groups active in
causes as diverse as the environment, animal cruelty and poverty
relief"? 
One F.B.I. document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to
conduct surveillance as part of a "Vegan Community Project." Another
document talks of the Catholic Workers group's "semi-communistic
ideology." A third indicates the bureau's interest in determining the
location of a protest over llama fur planned by People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals.

6) When Bush says we are only spying on "the enemy" does he mean that
same enemy that Senior White House Advisor and Deputy White House Chief
of Staff Karl Rove means when he says, 
liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare
indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers

Republicans say they are only onitoring the phone calls and e-mails of
"the enemy." But they also say that we - you and I - are "the enemy."

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

Re: My annual Xmas tirade... Was RE: An armed society ...

[Jim Sharkey]

William T Goodall wrote:
>Max Battcher wrote:
>> Last time I saw anything: 75-80% total, 50% or less of the Server
>> market, 50% or less of the "nerd" market.
>Whatever the peak was it's certainly in decline now.

Yeah, Gates is letting his guard slip with all that sissy-ass 
philanthropy Bono's got him involved in.  He's *clearly* lost his 
evil overlord his edge.  :)

Jim

___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!


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

Weekly Chat Reminder

[William T Goodall]

As Steve said,

"The Brin-L weekly chat has been a list tradition for over six
years. Way back on 27 May, 1998, Marco Maisenhelder first set
up a chatroom for the list, and on the next day, he established
a weekly chat time. We've been through several servers, chat
technologies, and even casts of regulars over the years, but
the chat goes on... and we want more recruits!

Whether you're an active poster or a lurker, whether you've
been a member of the list from the beginning or just joined
today, we would really like for you to join us. We have less
politics, more Uplift talk, and more light-hearted discussion.
We're non-fattening and 100% environmentally friendly...
-(_() Though sometimes marshmallows do get thrown.

The Weekly Brin-L chat is scheduled for Wednesday 3 PM
Eastern/2 PM Central time in the US, or 7 PM Greenwich time.
There's usually somebody there to talk to for at least eight
hours after the start time.

If you want to attend, it's really easy now. All you have to
do is send your web browser to:

  http://wtgab.demon.co.uk/~brinl/mud/

..And you can connect directly from William's new web
interface!

My instruction page tells you how to log on, and how to talk
when you get in:

  http://www.brin-l.org/brinmud.html

It also gives a list of commands to use when you're in there.
In addition, it tells you how to connect through a MUD client,
which is more complicated to set up initially, but easier and
more reliable than the web interface once you do get it set up."

-- 
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

"This message was sent automatically using cron. But even if WTG
 is away on holiday, at least it shows the server is still up."
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

It's Alive! It's ALIVE!

[Mauro Diotallevi]

I try to not ghost-post very often, but this one is just too interesting.
Mauro

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051219.wxlife19/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/

>Work on the world's first human-made species is well under way at a
research complex in Rockville, Md., and scientists in Canada have been
quietly conducting experiments to help bring such a creature to life.

>Robert Holt, head of sequencing for the Genome Science Centre at the
University of British Columbia, is leading efforts at his Vancouver lab to
play a key role in the production of the first synthetic life form -- a
microbe made from scratch.

>The project is being spearheaded by U.S. scientist Craig Venter, who gained
fame in his former job as head of Celera Genomics, which completed a
privately-owned map of the human genome in 2000.

 The article continues on the website...
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Tick (was Re: NZ devil Santas terrorise Auckland)

[Jim Sharkey]

Julia Thompson wrote:
>Jim Sharkey wrote:
>> SPOOO!!
>Not the face!  Not the face!

Well, *you're* no super-hero... (The Chainsaw Vigilante)

FWIW, the 12 original Tick comics are funnier than either the cartoon
or the show.  Some great stuff in there, and well worth seeking out
if you're looking for some good yuks.

Jim
Clark Oppenheimer Maru

___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!


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

Re: My annual Xmas tirade... Was RE: An armed society ...

[William T Goodall]

On 21 Dec 2005, at 8:28 am, Max Battcher wrote:


I play Microsoft's advocate from time to time, because as evil as
people think they are they are more often just misunderstood, IMNSHO.



However evil people think Microsoft is it is actually more evil than  
that :)



People seem to anthropomorphized Microsoft into the demi-God of
computer problems.

Dan Minette wrote:
What percentage of the operating systems business does Microsoft  
have?

Isn't it close to 95%?


Last time I saw anything: 75-80% total, 50% or less of the Server
market, 50% or less of the "nerd" market.


Whatever the peak was it's certainly in decline now.



Quick question: how many OSes would you like to know how to use  
every day?


Microsoft gives away features that are the main source of income  
for other

companies (i.e. Microsoft Explorer vs. Netscape).


This is much more of a Vertical Monopoly problem than a Monopoly
problem.  Our Anti-Trust Laws do not affect Vertical Monopolies,
otherwise Sony, Viacom, Times Warner and others should be facing court
battles.

Every feature that Microsoft has "given away" for free has been things
that should be included in an Operating System.  Do you want to be
*required* to pay a third party to listen to music?  Do you want to be
*required* to pay a third party to use something as integral to the
network experience as a web browser?  Do you want to be *required* to
pay a third party to use something as integral to the health of your
PC as an anti-virus program?

Microsoft does it and over-rich third parties whine about Monopolistic
tendencies.  Apple does it (iTunes, iPhoto, i*, Final Cut *, ...) and
people hail it as the second coming!  Linux does it every day, and has
done it since the beginning...  Why is Microsoft the exception to the
rule?


Because Microsoft was found guilty in a court of law of abusing its  
monopoly and is therefore subject to different rules (as a convicted  
monopoly abuser) than Apple or Linux (which are not convicted  
monopoly abusers) as part of the mandated remedy for that abuse.


That's why.

Just like someone on probation isn't allowed to do all the same  
things as their neighbour who isn't on probation.


--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

A computer without a Microsoft operating system is like a dog without  
bricks tied to its head.


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

Correction

[Ronn!Blankenship]

Corrections

It has come to our attention that there were a number of errors in 
our recent Christmas carol supplement.


The correct lyrics to the song "Jingle Bell Rock" are "Dancing and 
prancing in jingle bell square, _in the frosty air_," not "... in 
your underwear."


The correct lyrics to the song "Holly Jolly Christmas" are "I don't 
know if there'll be snow, but _there'll be lots of cheer_," not, "... 
there'll be lots of beer."


Finally, the correct lyrics to the children's hymn "I Wonder When He 
Comes Again" are "Will daylight last the whole night through, _will 
songbirds leave their nests_?" not "... will some birds leave a mess?"


We regret these errors.

The Editors





MEMORANDUM
To:  All Employees
From:  Management

Effective immediately, the serving of egg nog in the writers' bullpen 
is discontinued.









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

Re: The Tick (was Re: NZ devil Santas terrorise Auckland)

[Julia Thompson]

Jim Sharkey wrote:

Steve Sloan wrote:
Your post reminded me to check TVShowsOnDVD.com, to see if
there was any news about The Tick cartoon on DVD. No such
luck, but I voted for it on the site. Maybe one of these days...



I taped a bunch of the episodes when they first aired, so I have them
lying around somewhere.  Also, ToonDisney plays the show at night, I
think at 10:00 PM Eastern.  I'd have to check that, though.

Jim
SPOOO!! Maru


Not the face!  Not the face!

Julia

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

RE: Did George Bush break the law?

[Jim Sharkey]

Nick Arnett wrote:
>Have you heard that George Bush is using the National Security 
>Agency to conduct surveillance on American citizens without the 
>consent of any court?

No, Nick, I have avoided contact with papers, TV and the Internet
for a week now, and haven't heard this every day since Friday.  ;-)

It's amazing, the seductiveness of the safety argument they're making.
For one brief second, I find myself saying "Hey, it's only a narrow
scope, right?  A few international calls to suspected Al Qaeda 
operatives.  No biggie, it's not *real* Americans they're targeting."

Then of course I come to my senses and remember that I live in America
and that this shit isn't OK, and that the "War on Terror" *cannot* be
a blank check for the Administration to do whatever the heck it 
pleases, or else what is it being fought for?  And that's setting 
aside the old "slippry slope" argument.

Jim

___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!


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

Re: My annual Xmas tirade...

[Alberto Monteiro]

Max Battcher wrote:
> 
> Every feature that Microsoft has "given away" for free has been 
> things that should be included in an Operating System.  Do you want 
> to be *required* to pay a third party to listen to music?  Do you 
> want to be *required* to pay a third party to use something as 
> integral to the network experience as a web browser?  Do you want to 
> be *required* to pay a third party to use something as integral to 
> the health of your PC as an anti-virus program?
> 
I agree that any OS should include those things. But Micro$oft is
Evil not for including them, but for _not_ including other basic
things that any decent OS should include, like _any_ programming
language support (C, C++, or even b*sic), any reasonable text
editor, any reasonable command language, etc.

And even the things M$ include are crappy. For example, their
music player does not play .ogg files [which are similar to .mp3,
but without the legalese evilness of .mp3].

> (The only real solution to the "Microsoft Problem" would be to
> institutionalize/nationalize the Operating System.  Some States and
> Countries are already working on this, in fact, at least for
> government work.)
> 
Any country whose rulers aren´t in the payroll of M$ are changing
to Free Software OSes. It´s high treason that governments write
secret documents using a product that is owned by a foreign country.

Alberto Monteiro

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

Re: Did George Bush break the law?

[The Fool]

> From: Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 
> Have you heard that George Bush is using the National Security Agency
to conduct surveillance on American citizens without the consent of any
court?
> 
> This is specifically against the law. Bush says political appointees
in the Justice Department outlined the legal authority to get around
the restrictions in our laws and the Constitution, but those legal
memos are classified. 
> 

The real question is _who_ is it that the Chimperor is spying on that
he believes FISA will deny?  They've only ever denied warrants 6 times.
 You can even get a warrant retroactivily up to 72 hours after the fact
in 'emergencies'.

Who?  Politicians?  Journalists?  Environmental activists?

You?

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

Re: Wal-Mart efficiency (was Re: My annual Xmas tirade...)

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: Wal-Mart efficiency (was Re: My annual Xmas tirade...)

Whoops, forgot the source for much of my info...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wal-Mart

The Microsoft stuff was from Yahoo Financials.

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

Re: Wal-Mart efficiency (was Re: My annual Xmas tirade...)

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 10:20 AM
Subject: Wal-Mart efficiency (was Re: My annual Xmas tirade...)


On 12/20/05, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> So, I'm not sure why Wal-Mart is singled out as evil.  Is there some
> reason
> that inefficiency is inherently moral?



>Do I understand you correctly -- your premise is that Wal-Mart is
efficient
>and its competitors aren't?

My premise is that Wal-Mart has driven the efficiency in the retail market
over the past 15-20 years or so.  Other retailers, such as Target, have
worked to stay abrest.  But, Wal-Mart revolutionized retail marketing by
giant chains.

I was in Conneticuit when several chains closed most of their New England
stores because of competition from Wal-Mart.  That was about 1990. The NY
Times did a very interesting piece at that time (I'll try to find
information on it, but it's old enough to be hard to find on the internet).
The piece stated that  Wal-Mart invested in computerized inventory control,
while the other chains invested in new stores.  As a result, Wal-Mart was
able to undersell the other stores by a significant margin, while still
making decent profits.  Since then, Wal-Mart has continued to lead in and
push for efficiencies, such as bar codes, private sattilite systems,  and
RFID codes.

One thing this has done is allowed them to rationalize their sale prices.
Due to lack of information, stores often ended up discounting items that
were selling at reasonable rates, while keeping full price on items that
sat on the shelves for weeks.

Wal-Mart's latest (fiscal year ending 1-05) profit margin was 3.6%.  They
make a good deal of profit, 10 billion, but on slim margins.  This is in
contrast with Microsoft, which has a profit margin of ~32% and about 13
billion in profits.


Dan M.

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

Did George Bush break the law?

[Nick Arnett]

Have you heard that George Bush is using the National Security Agency to 
conduct surveillance on American citizens without the consent of any court?

This is specifically against the law. Bush says political appointees in the 
Justice Department outlined the legal authority to get around the restrictions 
in our laws and the Constitution, but those legal memos are classified. 

I just added my name to a formal Freedom of Information Act request to see 
these documents. We need to know if the president broke the law, and where this 
administration thinks the line of its authority is. 

You can sign on to the Freedom of Information Act request here:

 http://www.democrats.org/page/petition/domesticspying/fddxqa

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

Wal-Mart efficiency (was Re: My annual Xmas tirade...)

[Nick Arnett]

On 12/20/05, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> So, I'm not sure why Wal-Mart is singled out as evil.  Is there some
> reason
> that inefficiency is inherently moral?



Do I understand you correctly -- your premise is that Wal-Mart is efficient
and its competitors aren't?

Nick

--
Nick Arnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Messages: 408-904-7198
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Defeat in Victory

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Alberto Monteiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: Defeat in Victory


> Dan Minette wrote:
> >
> > OK.  The idea that we went to war in Iraq in order to make money for
> > oil companies is centralist?
> >
> Is this the official list position? I think it is:
>
>   The USA went to war in Iraq to protect the interests of the
>   Saudi Princes

Fair enough, I forgot to include Brin's official position. :-)  I would
guess that would get less than 1% in a national poll.

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

Re: Defeat in Victory

[Alberto Monteiro]

Dan Minette wrote:
> 
> OK.  The idea that we went to war in Iraq in order to make money for 
> oil companies is centralist?
>
Is this the official list position? I think it is:

  The USA went to war in Iraq to protect the interests of the
  Saudi Princes

and that oil companies [including Petrobras :-)] benefited the war
as a side effect.

Alberto Monteiro

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

Re: Defeat in Victory

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 10:35 PM
Subject: Re: Defeat in Victory


>
>  It's not all about you Dan!


> I was suggesting that perhaps you are missing that "most" of the
> liberal posters here are espousing views that are more centrist than
> you might think.

OK.  The idea that we went to war in Iraq in order to make money for oil
companies is centralist?

> >From where I'm viewing, a corner seems to have been turned in recent
> months and "most" people in the US share opinions that are more
> leftish than they were over the last few years.

Maybebut it isn't really clear.  After the enormous blundering of this
administration, as well as the scandals of the House and Senate Republican
leadership, one would think that 2006 will be 1994 all over again.  But,
Bush is bouncing back somewhat in the polls now, and the Democrats still
can't seem to get their act together.  Plus, there are only about 40-50
House seats that are in play, so it would take an overwhelming victory by
the Democrats to regain control of the House.

So, a year from now, we may or may not see a significant shift.  I'm hoping
that we will.  But I think arguments that we went to war to give US oil
companies control of the Mid-East oilfields, that the Republic is on it's
last legs, etc. are ones that I've rarely seen.  Since I left Mad-Town, 23
years ago, even living in Connecticut, I've seen it at a Dennis Kupechne
(sp) meeting I was invited to, here, on Culture, and on the walls at
colleges my girls went to.  I haven't even seen the question asked in
polls, so I don't have numbers, but I'd guess  less than 10% nationwide
believe this (~3.5x Nadar's top vote %). As far as I can tell, that it the
"centralist position" that Andrew Paul referred to.  It is certainly the
mode position of recent political posts here.  Take my posts out, even
allowing for the weighed average including your posts, and I'd argue that
position is the mean of recent posts here.

Now, one might ask if I think it is the mean of the positions of the people
on this list.  I don't think so, but that's harder to measure.  So, I
didn't refer to that, I merely referred to what was written in recent (say
since Gautam and JDG left) political posts.

Dan M.

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

Fwd: [lds-poll] Military Chaplains apparently told to avoid praying in the name of Jesus

[Ronn!Blankenship]

<<http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051221-121224-6972r.htm>>


--Ronn!  :)

"Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country 
and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance... UNDER 
GOD.  Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that 
would be eliminated from schools too?"

   -- Red Skelton

(Someone asked me to change my .sig quote back, so I did.)




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

Re: Defeat in Victory

[Max Battcher]

Robert Seeberger wrote:
From where I'm viewing, a corner seems to have been turned in recent 
months and "most" people in the US share opinions that are more 
leftish than they were over the last few years.


Arguably the true American center has always been more to the left than 
right.


--
--Max Battcher--
http://www.worldmaker.net/
"History bleeds for tomorrow / for us to realize and never more follow 
blind" --Machinae Supremacy, Deus Ex Machinae, Title Track

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

Re: My annual Xmas tirade... Was RE: An armed society ...

[Max Battcher]

I play Microsoft's advocate from time to time, because as evil as
people think they are they are more often just misunderstood, IMNSHO.

People seem to anthropomorphized Microsoft into the demi-God of
computer problems.

Dan Minette wrote:
> What percentage of the operating systems business does Microsoft have?
> Isn't it close to 95%?

Last time I saw anything: 75-80% total, 50% or less of the Server
market, 50% or less of the "nerd" market.

Quick question: how many OSes would you like to know how to use every day?

> Microsoft gives away features that are the main source of income for other
> companies (i.e. Microsoft Explorer vs. Netscape).

This is much more of a Vertical Monopoly problem than a Monopoly
problem.  Our Anti-Trust Laws do not affect Vertical Monopolies,
otherwise Sony, Viacom, Times Warner and others should be facing court
battles.

Every feature that Microsoft has "given away" for free has been things
that should be included in an Operating System.  Do you want to be
*required* to pay a third party to listen to music?  Do you want to be
*required* to pay a third party to use something as integral to the
network experience as a web browser?  Do you want to be *required* to
pay a third party to use something as integral to the health of your
PC as an anti-virus program?

Microsoft does it and over-rich third parties whine about Monopolistic
tendencies.  Apple does it (iTunes, iPhoto, i*, Final Cut *, ...) and
people hail it as the second coming!  Linux does it every day, and has
done it since the beginning...  Why is Microsoft the exception to the
rule?

> I cannot think of a
> comparable action by Wal-Mart.

Price Gouging; Unfair Trade Agreements; Service Bundling;
All-In-One-Stop-Shopping.  There's an entire documentary on some of
this if you care, but again, these are all Vertical Monopoly problems
coming from the fact that Wal-Mart sells everything and "owns" quite a
bit of the production systems as well.

> If I own a PC computer (not including
> Apples, which I'd label , it's hard to get away from Microsoft.  If I want
> to buy most retail items, I can and do go to Target.

Depends on your definition of hard.  You can install Linux on your PC
pretty "easily" nowadays, and you can try before you "buy" (spend the
time installing) with very easy Live CDs (ask your neighborhood geek
for a good Live CD, or order the Ubuntu CDs, which has an included
Live CD to help you decide to install Ubuntu).

Sure, there's a learning curve, but have you ever had two VCRs that
used the exact same menu system?  An Operating System is like a Gaggle
of VCRs, in that respect.  That's a tough cookie to crack and one of
the reasons business and individuals have standardized on one
(Windows); whether they like it or not they can use it where ever they
come to it.Imagine the mess we'd have if there weren't a standard
OS on most PCs.  How many OSes do you think you can learn and keep
fresh on day to day?  In this case, the fact that there is a Monopoly
is not from evilness on Microsoft's part, but from request/need of the
market itself.  Before Computers that was unprecedented in Capitalist
markets (which goes to show how Computer software may in fact be a
Socialist organism).  People need to start realizing that the blame
for Microsoft's profluence is partly their own.

(The only real solution to the "Microsoft Problem" would be to
institutionalize/nationalize the Operating System.  Some States and
Countries are already working on this, in fact, at least for
government work.)

--
--Max Battcher--
http://www.worldmaker.net/
All progress is based upon a universal innate desire on the part of
every organism to live beyond its income. --Samuel Butler
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

The Tick (was Re: NZ devil Santas terrorise Auckland)

[Jim Sharkey]

I wrote:
>Also, ToonDisney plays [The Tick] at night, I think at 10:00 PM 
>Eastern.  I'd have to check that, though.

In keeping with my tradition of typing before checking my facts, let
me change that time to 11:00 PM Eastern, according to my Newark
Star-Ledger here at my desk.

Jim
Fact (non) checker Maru

___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!


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

The Tick (was Re: NZ devil Santas terrorise Auckland)

[Jim Sharkey]

>Steve Sloan wrote:
>Your post reminded me to check TVShowsOnDVD.com, to see if
>there was any news about The Tick cartoon on DVD. No such
>luck, but I voted for it on the site. Maybe one of these days...

I taped a bunch of the episodes when they first aired, so I have them
lying around somewhere.  Also, ToonDisney plays the show at night, I
think at 10:00 PM Eastern.  I'd have to check that, though.

Jim
SPOOO!! Maru

___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!


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

Re: Communing with Satan in Madison Wisconsin

[Alberto Monteiro]

Dan Minette wrote:
> 
> Anyways, to get back to the story, he also pointed out that the 
> angels of God were also seen to be attributes of God by some.  Thus, 
> Satan could be considered part of God, who my housemate worshiped. 
> 
Bah, this is fake satanism: redefine Satan to be something else,
then say you worship it.

IMHO, satanism is any religion that preaches the worship of the
_antagonist_ to what is closest to "God".

If God is good, etc, then satanists believe that Evil may win, and
want to have a part of the spoil.

If God is powerful but not good [like in Cthulhu mythos], then
satanists may be good.

In Greek mythos, satanism made a lot of sense: those greek gods were
spoiled brats, and the only decent guy was Prometheus, who was tortured
by them.

Alberto Monteiro

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

Re: My annual Xmas tirade... Was RE: An armed society ...

[Robert Seeberger]

- Original Message - 
From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 11:53 PM
Subject: Re: My annual Xmas tirade... Was RE: An armed society ...


>
>
>> But I think a comparison of Wal-Mart and Microsoft with regard to
>> their business practices, why people dislike them, and why one and 
>> not
>> the other has spent time in court over business practices would be
>> edifying. I assume there are more similarities than one might 
>> expect
>> at first glance.
>
> What percentage of the operating systems business does Microsoft 
> have?
> Isn't it close to 95%?  What percentage of the retail business does
> Wal-Mart have?  Less than 9% according to Wilkipedia...which can 
> stand
> correction if you have a better source.  Still, I know it's not near 
> 50%.
>
> Microsoft gives away features that are the main source of income for 
> other
> companies (i.e. Microsoft Explorer vs. Netscape).  I cannot think of 
> a
> comparable action by Wal-Mart.  If I own a PC computer (not 
> including
> Apples, which I'd label , it's hard to get away from Microsoft.  If 
> I want
> to buy most retail items, I can and do go to Target.
>
> Were you thinking of another comparison?
>
Oh certainly! You correctly point at the obvious differences, but I 
was thinking more along the lines of the strongarm tactics that come 
with having a dominant market position, dictating pricing to vendors 
and customers etc


xponent
Legends Maru
rob 


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