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

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 12:37 AM
Subject: Re: Wal-Mart efficiency (was Re: My annual Xmas tirade...)



>
> Are you seriously saying that walmart sells for $1.00 goods for every
> $1.00 of goods they buy? I thought they made 3.x % profit after taking
> out the percentage for average pay for workers (including--if
> any--benifits) and sales taxes.

No, there is a markup for costs.   I realize there is about a 3% profit,
but that is, basically  in the noise when one compares 50% to 10% (after
profit one is comparing 50% to 10.3%). But, there are other non-profit
costs, such as wages and  Lets assume a very unreal exaggerated 50% markup
from wholesale to retail for Wal-Mart.  That still leaves us at 15%, not
50%.  (Looking at websites, I get a more realistic number of a 20% markup
from wholesale.)

So, I've granted you a number of questionable estimations and exclusions,
and still we are not close to your "most."  It seems clear that that was a
significant overstatement.

Dan M.

Dan M.

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

Re: "Let's Roll"

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: "Let's Roll"

> > 1) Commercial planes were not really hijacked on 9-11
> > 2) Commercial planes did not hit the twin towers
> > 3) Commercial planes did not hit the Pentagon.
> > 4) AQ did not hijack the planes?
> > 5) People high in the US government knew about the hijackings
> > beforehand?
> > 6) Bombs were planted in the WTC and went off after the planes hit?
>
> However, since you asked, the answer to all six questions is,
> quite possibly.
>
> Of course, I don't know what actually happened in New York,
> Washington and Pennsylvania on 9/11, but as I said in my
> original post, I am increasingly convinced that it is not
> according to the version presented by the administration.
>
> I realize that all of the conspiracy theories are full of
> holes, but that makes them no different than the government
> version.

I'm not quite sure where to start because you have, as far as I can tell
said "you are pretty sure the government is lying, but you are not sure
about what."  This leaves me in the position, should I wish to argue
against it, of trying to falsify every conceivable possibility.

I think you might have recognized this when you mentioned your uncle's
obsession with the Kennedy assassination. I've listened to the arguments
on this for years.  They theories range from ones that only require a small
unseen non-governmental conspiracy (i.e. a single mob boss setting up
Oswald), to ones that absolutely strain credibility (i.e. the Zapruder film
of the Kennedy assassination being a government plant that was staged with
actors to hide what really happened.)

Of the two theories, the first has a much smaller hurdle to overcome than
the second.  I don't see any real evidence for the first, but one does not
have to argue for an undetected Byzantine conspiracy for it to occur.  I
believe a reasonable person would require a very high burden of proof for
the latter theory, and a more modest one for the former.

The reason for this, I hope, is obvious.  The planting of Zapruder as an
ordinary citizen, but really a secret government agent, strains credibility
in a way that secret mob connections do not. I hope we can agree on such a
principal...because I think it is essential in analyzing most sets of data
to arrive at a conclusion.  If we do not, then I'd take the time to go
through the types of arguments that one opens oneself up to.

Speaking of which, I'd like to refer to other arenas where the "big holes"
arguments have been used.  One was an "alternate thinker" cosmology website
that Doug asked questions about.  Another is the creationist argument.  In
each case, there  a list of holes in the standard theory are given.  Many
of these "holes" don't really exist, they result from apparent common sense
but inaccurate arguments (e.g. the entropy argument of creationists.) Some
holes do, but they are minor anomalies that can be expected in any complex
set of data.  I'd argue that these folks "strain at gnats and swallow
camels."  Particularly with evolution, there are certainly large holes in
the data set tracing evolution from it's beginnings, but that is to be
expected when one needs a bit of luck to have any given specimen both
preserved and found.

The reason I bring these examples up is that they help illustrate the main
points that I hope we can agree upon before considering the issue.

The first is that we should accept the same technique to evaluate arguments
supporting positions that we tend to favor as we do those positions we tend
to oppose.  We've discussed the bias we all have before on this list.  I
have found, both professionally and personally, that reliance on technique
is one of the best ways to counter this tendency.  Feynman's comment that
"science is one of the best ways we have of not fooling ourselves" relates
to this.  Many times I have used technique to arrive at conclusions, and
then said "oh shit" after I arrived at my conclusions.  The rigorous use of
technique was my guard against lying to myself.  After 25 years of success
using these techniques, they are fairly well ingrained in me.

Now, when we turn from science to politics and economics, things are not
quite as simple.  Nonetheless, scholarship is still valuable in this area.
I say scholarship, because the reliance on technique is a hallmark of
scholarship.  When I read books on how to do historical research I see a
parallel to my own scientific work.  It's a bit softer, since history is
not a science, but good technique still have a very high correlation with
reliability.

The second point is that virtually every complex data set will contain
anomalies that are hard to reconcile with any theory.  Every large data set
I have obtained includes a few "head scratchers" that are, in the final
analysis, accepted as anomalous results.  The existence of such anomalies
does not mean t

The Root of all Evil?

[William T Goodall]

A new television documentary about religion presented by Richard  
Dawkins on C4 in the UK.


I personally think Dawkins is too soft on religion, but it's  
interesting to read a moderate viewpoint on the subject.


This is an interview with Dawkins in Radio Times magazine introducing  
the programme.



">Why do you think religion is dangerous?

The way it encourages a knd of childlike slavish obedience is very  
negative. It teaches people to be satisfied with inadequate answers  
to profound questions. Thanks to science, we now have such an  
exciting grasp of the answers to such questions, it's a kind of  
blasphemy not to embrace them.


>You blame religion for causing wars. Why do you think this is?

If you're told from the cradle that it's a virtue to believe in  
something in spite of the lack of evidence, that leaves you with  
nothing but faith. So there is nothing people of opposing faiths can  
do but disagree. That is bound to cause confrontation.


>What evidence is there that religious fundamentalism is on the rise  
in the USA as well as in the Middle East?


There is the astonishing fact that in the USA not a single member of  
Congress will admit to being an atheist - and they wouldn't be  
elected if they did. Yet if you look at the country's intellectual  
elite, especially the scientists, 90 per cent of them are atheists.  
That mismatch is a strange phenomenon in a democracy.


>You imply that people who believe are deluded. Is that a good way  
to win them round?


A good intellectual case can be made that the existence of a  
supernatural being is improbable. And anyone intelligent enough to  
understand that can be persuaded faith is without foundation. Many  
atheists, in the fight to keep creationism out of schools, decide  
it's best to say that believing in God and evolution isn't  
incompatible. But I'm a boat-rocker - I make the case that it's  
difficult to believe in God if you understand evolution.


>How do you feel about faith schools?

Ghettoisation is a terrible danger for society. What hope is there  
when children are segregated and taught their own version of history,  
with the other people as the bad guys? You're bound to get tribal  
wars. Every time I hear phrases such as "Catholic child" or "Muslim  
child", I flinch. There's no such thing. There is a child of Catholic  
or Muslim parents, who, when they're old enough to be able to decide  
for themselves, may choose to follow a religion.


>Isn't religion, for many people, as much to do with cultural  
identity as faith per se?


Yes, that's true. Some Jewish friends, who admit to being atheists,  
embrace religion to maintain a tradition that's been going for 3000  
years. I understand that. I was raised an Anglican and I still love  
the King James Bible. It's astonishingly beautiful English.


>If there were no religion, where would that leave morality?

If your only reason to be good is that you're frightened of a great  
CCTV in the sky watching your every move, it doesn't say much for you  
as a person. There is something ancient about the impulse to  
morality, a strong empathetic tendency in the human mind, with clear  
Darwinian roots. This genetic empathy came first - religion climbed  
on the back of it.


In _The Story of God_, Robert Winston claimed many scientists are  
spiritual. Do you agree?


A lot of physicists, in particular, have a deep sense of mystery  
because they confront the elementary principles of the universe.  
Biologists like me see the extreme complexity of nature. One feels a  
great humility, knowing there is a lot we don't, and might never,  
understand. Religion is pathetic compared to the level of  
sophistication that physics and biology deal with."


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

"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence  
whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the  
silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more  
likely to be foolish than sensible."

- Bertrand Russell

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

Re: URLx

[Dave Land]

On Jan 4, 2006, at 7:50 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:


Robert G. Seeberger wrote:

Try this link to see if it works.
http://urlx.org/amazon.com/0375


1)  There are only FIVE COPIES IN STOCK!  ORDER NOW!


179 Used & New from $0.01

(Thats USD, for all you Canadians and Australians and other
so-called-dollar using countries out there.)


2)  Needs more reviews.  Anyone?


I think the illustrious Dr. should write one :-)

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

For those who read the articles, presumably . . .

[Ronn!Blankenship]

"Sirius Satellite Radio and Playboy Enterprises Thursday said they 
will be launching a Playboy-branded radio channel within the next few months."


<>


--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: "Let's Roll"

[Dan Minette]

I'm about to go out, so I thought I'd add one more thing to my list of
rules of thumb that directly affects the WTC question.  I went to a number
of "conspiracy" web sites and found a consistent theme that the collapse
was inconsistent with the explanation by the government.

I thought that such a major event would be studied by civil engineers.  And
I was right.  I was able to google a number of sites.  A sample is given
below.

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/

http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1024/news_2-2.html

http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?iid=3742&isa=Category

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/

http://www.mscsoftware.com/success/details.cfm?Q=132&Z=181&sid=269


In addition, there is a list of abstracts that includes a number on the WTC
collapse at:

http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWsrchkwx.cgi?Collapse

>From this sample, I have determined that the professional civil engineering
community believes that the collapse is consistant with damage done by
airplanes.  There are differences of opinion, of course, but they are
mostly about the relative importance of various factors.

If the collapse was inconsistent with being caused by airplanes, I would
think that all these professionals would not have stated that it was
consistent.  They would, instead, write papers on not all the factors being
yet understood because the collapse was not consistent with the specs. of
the WTC and the damage done by planes.  There would be a number of
non-conspiricy based factors that they could consider.  Since this is a
high profile question, the people who did figure this out would gain
significant recognitiona main goal of many accademics.

This leads to another principal: when a professional community (such as
biologist, physicsts, or engineers) states that data are consistant with
established theories and facts and amature websites state they are not,
there is a tremendous burdon of proof on the amature, since historically
the professionals are right many many more times than creationists,
alternate thinkers, conspiricy advocates, etc.

Dan M.


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

Re: The Root of all Evil?

[Dave Land]

On Jan 5, 2006, at 9:39 AM, William T Goodall wrote:


">Why do you think religion is dangerous?

The way it encourages a knd of childlike slavish obedience is very  
negative. It teaches people to be satisfied with inadequate answers  
to profound questions. Thanks to science, we now have such an  
exciting grasp of the answers to such questions, it's a kind of  
blasphemy not to embrace them.


First of all, the Bible got that saying all wrong. "The love of money  
is the *square root* of all evil" was the original version, but, as  
it is well established that mathematics and religion don't mix, we  
now only have the shortened, perverted version that is so often  
quoted. It may also have been "the love of money is the root of  
Oliver", but nobody can prove that Oliver even existed, so there you go.


Seriously, though, I came across a new idea (for me, anyway) a couple  
of weeks ago. Marcus Borg, a leading member of the Jesus Seminar (and  
therefore much hated by the religious right) talks about a three- 
stage development in thought among people who want to have faith in  
God, but don't want to turn off their minds...


Stage 1, typical of childhood, is "pre-critical naivete" -- the  
uncritical acceptance of whatever is told to you by authority  
figures, usually parents. Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the  
obvious connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Quaeda are the kinds  
of unprovable "truths" accepted in this stage. It is a useful and  
healthy tool for helping little ones survive in the world. In this  
stage, the developing mind is simply incapable of conceiving of the  
notion that things that come "from above" shouldn't be taken as fact.  
(It just occurred to me that the idea that God is "above" us,  
physically, probably originates in the fact that parents are much,  
much taller than children.)


Stage 2, typical of young adulthood, is "critical thinking", in which  
the growing mind begins to question the things that it had accepted  
as fact 'til then -- it is a winnowing process, during which  
obviously false stuff is laid aside and possibly true stuff is  
retained. It is not a wholesale rejection of everything given to us  
by our parents, teachers and leaders, but the development of  
intentional acceptance or rejection of ideas received from others.  
Apparently, in this stage in Western cultures, an equivalence of  
"truth" and "factuality" comes to dominate: if it isn't factual, it  
mustn't be true.


Stage 3, posited by Borg (although it may exist elsewhere) is  
something he calls "post-critical naivete": the ability to accept  
something as *true* without requiring that it be *factual*. So, for  
example, George Washington may or may not actually have cut down a  
cherry tree and not told a lie about it. It is not necessarily  
factual, but the story tells us something about George Washington (or  
what we want to think about him), or if the story functions as a  
founder's myth, something about America (or what we want to think  
about it) -- namely that he (or it) is honest (the irony of using an  
"unfactual" story to promote honesty notwithstanding).


I think that Dawkins' fear of religion is sourced in his  
understanding that religions promote pre-critical naivete, which, for  
the vast number of believers, is quite true.


I'm happy to report that there is a progressive movement in  
Christianity (and, no doubt, other religions, but I don't know  
anything about them except that the Jewish movement that surrounds  
Tikkun magazine seems quite progressive). That movement is trying  
(without necessarily using Borg's language) to view the Bible and  
religious ideas as being *true*, regardless of their factuality. The  
sun didn't *really* stand still in the sky for three hours (nor did  
the earth stand still in its rotation for those same hours), but the  
_story_ tells us something about what the writer of the story wanted  
us to think about Joshua's God.


A lot of this progressive Christianity rests on the understanding  
that the Bible is a human product, not a divine one, and that it  
tells us what the people who wrote it thought about God, not  
necessarily what God thinks.


I'm also happy to argue the relative merits of post-critical naivete  
-- it's kind of a slippery slope: just how much "unfactuality" are we  
supposed to allow before something is simply bullsnit?


Anyway, thanks for an interesting post and an opportunity to post a  
much-too-long  message of my own.


Peace,

Dave


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

Re: "Let's Roll"

[Doug Pensinger]

Dan  wrote:

The reason I bring these examples up is that they help illustrate the 
main points that I hope we can agree upon before considering the issue.


The first is that we should accept the same technique to evaluate 
arguments supporting positions that we tend to favor as we do those 
positions we tend to oppose.  We've discussed the bias we all have 
before on this list.  I
have found, both professionally and personally, that reliance on 
technique is one of the best ways to counter this tendency.  Feynman's 
comment that
"science is one of the best ways we have of not fooling ourselves" 
relates to this.  Many times I have used technique to arrive at 
conclusions, and
then said "oh shit" after I arrived at my conclusions.  The rigorous use 
of technique was my guard against lying to myself.  After 25 years of 
success using these techniques, they are fairly well ingrained in me.


Then why don't you use technique when examining The Bush administration's 
motivation for the invasion of Iraq?  I have provided several data points 
that suggest that Bush and/or members of his administration were inclined 
to invade Iraq prior to 911 and more data points that suggest that they 
were inclined to blame Iraq for 911 without supporting evidence.  You 
provided one (1) data point suggesting otherwise, a campaign promise to 
avoid nation building.


I might also add that you failed to respond to the post in which I 
provided these data points leading me to believe that either you have no 
adequate response or that you would rather not admit that you're wrong.  
Or perhaps, more charitably, you missed the post or I missed your reply?


Here's the relevent post:
http://www.mccmedia.com/pipermail/brin-l/Week-of-Mon-20051121/034177.html

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

Re: For those who read the articles, presumably . . .

[Julia Thompson]

Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
"Sirius Satellite Radio and Playboy Enterprises Thursday said they will 
be launching a Playboy-branded radio channel within the next few months."


<>


I like some of the articles, actually.

But I'm not getting Sirius anytime soon.  (If I were getting satellite 
radio, I'd go with Sirius, because they carry all the NFL games.  Just 
don't really need it right now.)


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

Re: "Let's Roll"

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 9:50 PM
Subject: Re: "Let's Roll"


> Dan  wrote:
>
> > The reason I bring these examples up is that they help illustrate the
> > main points that I hope we can agree upon before considering the issue.
> >
> > The first is that we should accept the same technique to evaluate
> > arguments supporting positions that we tend to favor as we do those
> > positions we tend to oppose.  We've discussed the bias we all have
> > before on this list.  I
> > have found, both professionally and personally, that reliance on
> > technique is one of the best ways to counter this tendency.  Feynman's
> > comment that
> > "science is one of the best ways we have of not fooling ourselves"
> > relates to this.  Many times I have used technique to arrive at
> > conclusions, and
> > then said "oh shit" after I arrived at my conclusions.  The rigorous
use
> > of technique was my guard against lying to myself.  After 25 years of
> > success using these techniques, they are fairly well ingrained in me.
>
> Then why don't you use technique when examining The Bush administration's
> motivation for the invasion of Iraq?  I have provided several data points
> that suggest that Bush and/or members of his administration were inclined
> to invade Iraq prior to 911 and more data points that suggest that they
> were inclined to blame Iraq for 911 without supporting evidence.  You
> provided one (1) data point suggesting otherwise, a campaign promise to
> avoid nation building.

> I might also add that you failed to respond to the post in which I
> provided these data points leading me to believe that either you have no
> adequate response or that you would rather not admit that you're wrong.
> Or perhaps, more charitably, you missed the post or I missed your reply?

I didn't reply in detail because I got distracted with family business at
the time.  Here it is.  As far as technique, I will be happy to accept that
someone's viewpoint after a life changing event, like 9-11 was for Bush,
can be quite different from what it was before.  I'll be happy to agree
that arguing for something in 2002 doesn't mean you held that view early in
2001.  I'll be happy to agree that thinking country A is a worse risk than
county or group B doesn't mean one plans to invade country A.  And, as the
below shows, I don't think that having a goal of eliminating a government
means that one is planning an invasion.


> Dan wrote:
>
> > I did this out of order because I think this exchange fits perfectly
well
> > with my hypothesis: GWB "knew" Hussein was behind the attack; just as
he
> > "knew" that Hussein's WMD program was well advanced.  I am not
defending
> > his judgment; I think that his judgment in this case was horrible.  If
> > he were pushing Clark to find evidence of links between Hussein and the
> > attacks of AQ before 9-11, then I think that there would be an argument
> > for a pre-set plan to find enough evidence to stage a war against
> > Hussein. But, if it only happened after 9-11, and Bush's other rhetoric
> > indicated a massive change in attitude, then I think that it is
> > reasonable to accept
> > his statement that 9-11 changed everything.  For him, it certainly
seemed
> > to.
>
> First, you're basing your "massive change in attitude" on statements made
> about nation building in the heat of a political campaign and as we all
> know, the sincerity of campaign utterances is by definition, suspect.

No, I made it based on his actions and statements concerning the Balkans
immediately after he was elected.  A summation of the administrations
attitude is at

http://www.worldpress.org/0901cover3.htm


Bush wasn't interested in nation buildingboth his statements and his
actions indicated that he thought it was a do-gooder waster of
effort.before 9-11.


> Second, if you dig deeper into the Clarke statements as well as
> allegations made by Paul O'Niel, you _will_ find a greater interest in
> Iraq than in Al Quaeda/Bin Laden prior to 911.

OK, let me accept that he was more interested in Iraq than AQ.  The number
of public statements he made on the dangers of appeasing North Korea were
significantly greater than the number of public statements made about Iraq.
Yet, I saw no indication that he was preparing the nation for an invasion
of North Korea.

> Third, immediately after 911 you not only have Bush telling Clarke to
find
> an Iraq connection you have Rumsfeld asking aids to come up with plans to
> strike Iraq _despite_ being told that the terrorists were probably Al
> Qaeda and not Iraqi.

How is this inconsistent with him _knowing_ that there must have been a
connection?  Why is this evidence that he planned on invading Iraq before
9-11.  Why couldn't it just be the perspective that it takes the resources
of a country to mount such an attackand knowing that Hussein has
supported other terrorists with