Re: Farm subsidies

[Euan Ritchie]

> Much of New Zealand's pastureland (by no means all) is cleared land,  
> and that means some of it would have been rainforest, even on the  
> South Island.

Cleared land certainly, before people got here the islands were pretty
much covered by native bush tip to tail (excepting the tussocked
highlands). I wouldn't have thought to call it rain forests but I
suppose it might be such.

My alma mater, Canterbury University, has a forestry department that
maintains a small section of native bush between their buildings that
I've noticed (while wandering through at night) is kept fairly
consistently wet.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Science and Ideals.

[Nick Arnett]

On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 10:16 PM, Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Is there no way to define success in evolutionary terms? Wiki describes
> natural selection thus: Over many generations, adaptations occur through a
> combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural
> selection of those variants best-suited for their environment"  Is  the use
> of best in that description a mere tautology?  Or if I had said best-suited
> would it have changed the meaning of my statement appreciably?


There is at least one problem with "best" that strikes me immediately -- the
"environment" is not static.  Every living thing co-evolves.  So what is
"best" at one point is not best in another.  The living environment is
shaped by and shapes life.

Surely "best-suited" in this context means best-suited for survival as a
species.  But that one gets messy, too, since speciation begs the question.
 And then there's the definition of a species, which blurs around the edges.
 If we survive by becoming different species, who/what survived?  Selfish
genes?  But they change, too!

This seems to me to be a bit like Newtonian v. quantum physics.  The former
is fine for gross measurements, the latter for fine ones... and the two
haven't been reconciled.

Nick
SS Can't set foot in the same river twice
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Science and Ideals.

[John Williams]

Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> This seems to me to be a bit like Newtonian v. quantum physics.  The former
> is fine for gross measurements, the latter for fine ones... and the two
> haven't been reconciled.

Skipped Physics 101, did you?


  

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

Re: Science and Ideals.

[Nick Arnett]

On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 8:28 AM, John Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> > This seems to me to be a bit like Newtonian v. quantum physics.  The
> former
> > is fine for gross measurements, the latter for fine ones... and the two
> > haven't been reconciled.
>
> Skipped Physics 101, did you?


If it included a TOE, then yes, I did.

But maybe "reconciled" is the wrong word.

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

Does it lead to the dump, to the dump, to the dump, dump, dump . . . ?

[Ronn! Blankenship]

Officials paving California road that plays William Tell Overture




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

Re: Science and Ideals.

[John Williams]

Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion 
> Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 8:33:20 AM
> Subject: Re: Science and Ideals.
> 
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 8:28 AM, John Williams
> wrote:
> 
> > Nick Arnett 
> >
> >
> > > This seems to me to be a bit like Newtonian v. quantum physics.  The
> > former
> > > is fine for gross measurements, the latter for fine ones... and the two
> > > haven't been reconciled.
> >
> > Skipped Physics 101, did you?
> 
> 
> If it included a TOE, then yes, I did.
> 
> But maybe "reconciled" is the wrong word.

I find it sad how many people here speak with great authority about that which
they obviously do not know.

Quantum mechanics and Newtonian physics reconcile perfectly. Quantum mechanics
describes all of Newtonian physics as well as quantum phenomena. Newtonian 
physics
is a subset of quantum physics that provides a convenient approximation of most 
large
scale phenomena.

Bringing a theory of everything in simply confuses matters. I don't know what 
your college
physics class taught, but mine covered the situation with general relativity 
and quantum
mechanics, which indeed are not reconciled. But that has nothing to do with 
Newtonian
physics.


  

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

Re: Science and Ideals.

[Nick Arnett]

On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 8:47 AM, John Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>
>
> I find it sad how many people here speak with great authority about that
> which
> they obviously do not know.


Yes, it is so sad.  Almost as sad as the patronizing attitude some folks
exhibit when they are certain that most everybody else is an idiot.

>
> Bringing a theory of everything in simply confuses matters. I don't know
> what your college
> physics class taught, but mine covered the situation with general
> relativity and quantum
> mechanics, which indeed are not reconciled. But that has nothing to do with
> Newtonian
> physics.


Which made me realize that I didn't say what I was really thinking, which
was what you said -- reconciling general relativity with quantum mechanics.

Hey, it's still kind of early in the morning here (for a Sunday) and I
haven't finished my coffee.

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

Re: Science and Ideals.

[John Williams]

Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> Yes, it is so sad.  Almost as sad as the patronizing attitude some folks
> exhibit when they are certain that most everybody else is an idiot.

Yes, that is sad. Especially when combined with the idea that all those
idiots must be taken care of by those who think they have the knowledge
and ability to fix everything, but who obviously do not, and do not even
realize it when their infallibility is pointed out.


  

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

Re: Science and Ideals.

[John Williams]

John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> realize it when their infallibility is pointed out.

Such as this lack of infallibility. I certainly hope this guy doesn't
try to force his will on others with mistakes like that!


  

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

Re: Science and Ideals.

[Nick Arnett]

On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 9:09 AM, John Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>
>
> Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> > Yes, it is so sad.  Almost as sad as the patronizing attitude some folks
> > exhibit when they are certain that most everybody else is an idiot.
>
> Yes, that is sad. Especially when combined with the idea that all those
> idiots must be taken care of by those who think they have the knowledge
> and ability to fix everything, but who obviously do not, and do not even
> realize it when their infallibility is pointed out.


Yes and the fact that the people who think they have the knowledge and the
ability to fix everything, who have to take care of the patronizing people
have to be take care of by the people who think that the others don't have
the knowledge and ability to fix the people who...  oh, never mind.

Anyway, I suspect you are trying to cross-pollinate threads here by alluding
to political ideas I expressed elsewhere and implying that they must be
wrong because I misspoke here.  I guess we allow thread cross-pollination,
for the sake of hybrid vigor.   Vigorous debate and all that.

And for heaven's sake, it was at best a metaphor and here we are obsessing
about it, while the topic at hand (the nature of evolution) is being
ignored.  And I'll bet it is lonely.  I think I hear it starting to whimper
off in the corner.

Nick
P.S. We allow mistakes here.  Otherwise, how could we evolve?
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Science and Ideals.

[John Williams]

Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Anyway, I suspect you are trying to cross-pollinate threads here by alluding
> to political ideas I expressed elsewhere and implying that they must be
> wrong because I misspoke here. 

I am not implying that anything "must" be wrong, only that some know less
than they think they do.

> P.S. We allow mistakes here.  Otherwise, how could we evolve?

We allow mistakes to be pointed here, too. Otherwise, how will those who
think they are qualified to impose their will on others ever find out that they
never will be? Let's make it a rule!


  

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

Re: Science and Ideals.

[Nick Arnett]

On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 9:35 AM, John Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>
>
> We allow mistakes to be pointed here, too. Otherwise, how will those who
> think they are qualified to impose their will on others ever find out that
> they
> never will be? Let's make it a rule!


Criticism is most certainly honored in David Brin's writings, which
implicitly makes it valued here.

On the other hand, belittling people when they make a mistake is not so
honored.

May I ask this... you seem to be implying that to impose one's will on
others is wrong.  Is that what you would have us believe?

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

Re: Science and Ideals.

[John Williams]

 Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> May I ask this... you seem to be implying that to impose one's will on
> others is wrong. Is that what you would have us believe?

I would not presume to tell you what to believe. I rarely know what to believe
myself. But one thing I do know is that when people try to impose their ideals
on me, I feel that I should oppose them.


  

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

Re: Farm subsidies

[John Williams]

An interesting blog post about sustainability on another island:

http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2008/09/a-letter-inspir.html


  

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

Re: Science and Ideals.

[John Williams]

John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> But one thing I do know is that when people try to impose their ideals
> on me, I feel that I should oppose them.

I think this may have a connection to Doug's post.

The statement above could perhaps be taken as part of the basis of an
ethical system. Something along the lines of do not impose one's ideals
on others, but oppose others who attempt to impose thier ideals on oneself.
What kind of culture would evolve out of such a system? I guess it would 
be more stable than systems that are more aggressive, since all the more
aggressive rules I can think of would seem to result in escalating conflicts.


  

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

Re: Science and Ideals.

[Charlie Bell]

On 22/09/2008, at 12:37 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 10:16 PM, Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
> wrote:
>>
>> Is there no way to define success in evolutionary terms? Wiki  
>> describes
>> natural selection thus: Over many generations, adaptations occur  
>> through a
>> combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and  
>> natural
>> selection of those variants best-suited for their environment"  Is   
>> the use
>> of best in that description a mere tautology?  Or if I had said  
>> best-suited
>> would it have changed the meaning of my statement appreciably?
>
>
> There is at least one problem with "best" that strikes me  
> immediately -- the
> "environment" is not static.  Every living thing co-evolves.  So  
> what is
> "best" at one point is not best in another.  The living environment is
> shaped by and shapes life.

You've hit on something that's both profound and irrelevant. Species,  
and fitness, are both snapshots in time. There are various analogies  
that are used to picture the wider possibilities over time and space -  
adaptive landscape is one, morph space is another. But really, species  
is a description of a population at a particular period in time, and  
fitness is a relative measure of success at a particular period in time.

Biologists take all this as a given - the fuzziness and the continuous  
nature of biology is just the way it is, and understanding this and  
seeing nature as a snapshot, looking at broader timescales while  
observing a moment, is something that once learned changes one's  
perspective. (It's not how it's always been, as biology started as  
pigeon-holing). Geologists and cosmologists see things similarly.

Good post.

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

Re: Science and Ideals.

[Charlie Bell]

On 22/09/2008, at 2:16 AM, John Williams wrote:

>
>
> John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>> realize it when their infallibility is pointed out.
>
> Such as this lack of infallibility. I certainly hope this guy doesn't
> try to force his will on others with mistakes like that!

It's possible to tell people they're wrong and point out opposing  
views without constantly implying that the other party is in some way  
trying to be superior. It makes for a much friendlier discussion, and  
this is a discussion list.

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

Re: Science and Ideals.

[Nick Arnett]

On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>
> You've hit on something that's both profound and irrelevant.


Ack!  I'll never earn a living this way!

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

Re: Science and Ideals.

[Charlie Bell]

On 22/09/2008, at 6:36 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Charlie Bell  
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>>
>>
>> You've hit on something that's both profound and irrelevant.
>
>
> Ack!  I'll never earn a living this way!

Heheh! Seriously, it's a good point you made, but it's more philosophy  
of biology (as species concepts are) than practical biology, as when  
one's in the field (which I've not been in the research sense for a  
looong time) one just knows this is a snapshot in time. Even  
walking into a woodland and looking around, one can see different  
stages at once - the different successions in a clearing that  
eventually culminate in old-growth oak woodland, and so on.

Charlie.
Off To Work Now Maru
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Science and Ideals.

[John Williams]

Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> It's possible to tell people they're wrong and point out opposing  
> views without constantly implying that the other party is in some way  
> trying to be superior.

That is not what I was implying.

> It makes for a much friendlier discussion, and  
> this is a discussion list.

I disagree, obviously. I think it is unfriendly to impose one's ideals on
others. I do not consider it unfriendly to point out when other people
are taking positions that lead to that sort of thing, or to point out reasons
why people should not take such positions. Since I do not support rules
to stop people trying to make these sorts of rules, pointing it out is one
of the few ways I can oppose such rules. 


  

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

Re: Science and Ideals.

[Wayne Eddy]

From: "Charlie Bell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> It's possible to tell people they're wrong and point out opposing
> views without constantly implying that the other party is in some way
> trying to be superior. It makes for a much friendlier discussion, and
> this is a discussion list.
>
> Charlie.

Too true.   There is a passage in "The Mote in God's Eye" where Kevin Renner 
who is fond of rebutting arguments by blurting out "wrong", and then 
explaining why, is told that it might be more appropriate to start a 
rebuttal with "That turns out not to be the case". A lesson for everyone 
maybe?

And on the subject of the Mote in God's Eye, I wonder if some of the doom & 
gloomers on the list see a cyclic boom & bust civilisation that that of the 
moties as a possible future for mankind, or if they will settle for nothing 
except a disaster that wipes that plague that is mankind from the face of 
the Earth for ever. :-)

Regards,

Wayne. 

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

Re: Science and Ideals.

[Nick Arnett]

On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 2:16 PM, John Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>
>
> Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > It's possible to tell people they're wrong and point out opposing
> > views without constantly implying that the other party is in some way
> > trying to be superior.
>
> That is not what I was implying.
>
> > It makes for a much friendlier discussion, and
> > this is a discussion list.
>
> I disagree, obviously.


But it really IS a discussion list.  ;-)


> I think it is unfriendly to impose one's ideals on
> others. I do not consider it unfriendly to point out when other people
> are taking positions that lead to that sort of thing, or to point out
> reasons
> why people should not take such positions. Since I do not support rules
> to stop people trying to make these sorts of rules, pointing it out is one
> of the few ways I can oppose such rules.


Perhaps I'm not the only one who is unsure of what it means to take a
position that leads to imposing one's ideals on others.  Can you give an
example or two?

The examples that come to me are things like urging others to vote for the
candidate I believe to be most qualified or urging people to give to certain
charities that believe do good work.  Or reporting drunk drivers, in which
case I very much wish to see my ideals on said driver. I imagine you mean
some other sort of things, yet I don't really know what they might be.  Is
it an opposition to broad notions of economic and social justice?

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

Science and Ideals.

[Jon Louis Mann]

> Yes, that is sad. Especially when combined with the idea
> that all those
> idiots must be taken care of by those who think they have
> the knowledge
> and ability to fix everything, but who obviously do not,
> and do not even
> realize it when their infallibility is pointed out.

you're projecting, john, you do that a lot...
jon


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

New Zealand

[Jon Louis Mann]

> Coincidentally I happen to be a New Zealander
> NZ's population is just over 4 million (in a country
> 20% larger than the
> U.K), we have more like 60 millions sheep currently and not
> many of
> their pastures were rain forests (only the very North of NZ
> is
> sub-tropical, mostly we've a temperate climate).

I stand corrected Euan, my estimates were skewed (although there are more sheep 
in the spring).  Would the Kauri forests have been considered rain forest? I 
believe they were largely clearcut during the boom in ship building?

I met David Lange when I was on a bicycle sojourn in the late 80s.  I was under 
the impression that there were laws against using chemical fertilizers and 
injecting domestic ruminants with steriods, antibiotics and hormones.  Is that 
still the case?  

I was woken up in my bivy during the wee hours on a full moon night at ninty 
mile beach by some rasta Maoris who said to bring my "torch" mate, it was time 
to get some fish.  You could literally take the sole and flounder anywhere the 
sand was moving.  Really fresh and really delicious!  I'm thinking about doing 
another bike trip.
Jon 




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

For the sake of discussion...

[Jon Louis Mann]

> > We allow mistakes to be pointed here, too. Otherwise,
> how will those who
> > think they are qualified to impose their will on
> others ever find out that
> > they
> > never will be? Let's make it a rule!

> Criticism is most certainly honored in David Brin's
> writings, which
> implicitly makes it valued here.
> On the other hand, belittling people when they make a
> mistake is not so
> honored.
> May I ask this... you seem to be implying that to impose
> ones will on
> others is wrong.  Is that what you would have us believe?
> Nick

john, you are projecting again.  you should not assume that anyone is 
attempting to impose their will on you.  i am certain that can never occur to 
anyone who is so certain they are right and also patronizing.  i may personally 
disagree with almost everything you say, but i am only stating my opinion.  it 
doesn't mean i am right, nor are you.~)
jon


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

For the sake of discussion...

[Jon Louis Mann]

> > > Yes, it is so sad.  Almost as sad as the
> patronizing attitude some folks
> > > exhibit when they are certain that most everybody
> else is an idiot.
> > Yes, that is sad. Especially when combined with the
> idea that all those
> > idiots must be taken care of by those who think they
> have the knowledge
> > and ability to fix everything, but who obviously do
> not, and do not even
> > realize it when their infallibility is pointed out.

> Yes and the fact that the people who think they have the
> knowledge and the
> ability to fix everything, who have to take care of the
> patronizing people
> have to be take care of by the people who think that the
> others don't have
> the knowledge and ability to fix the people who...  oh,
> never mind.
> Anyway, I suspect you are trying to cross-pollinate threads
> here by alluding
> to political ideas I expressed elsewhere and implying that
> they must be
> wrong because I misspoke here.  I guess we allow thread
> cross-pollination,
> for the sake of hybrid vigor.   Vigorous debate and all
> that.
> And for heaven's sake, it was at best a metaphor and
> here we are obsessing
> about it, while the topic at hand (the nature of evolution)
> is being
> ignored.  And I'll bet it is lonely.  I think I hear it
> starting to whimper
> off in the corner.
> Nick
> P.S. We allow mistakes here.  Otherwise, how could we
> evolve?

i'm not ashamed to admit that i make lots of mistakes.  does that make me an 
idiot?  that's how i learn...
jon


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

Re: New Zealand

[Euan Ritchie]

> I met David Lange when I was on a bicycle sojourn in the late 80s.

A reflection of New Zealands small size. I too bumped into him while
cycling (in my case getting around my home town).

He's not the only Prime Minister I've happened across in daily activities.

> I was under the impression that there were laws against using chemical 
> fertilizers
> and injecting domestic ruminants with steriods, antibiotics and hormones.
> Is that still the case?

I don't know such detail. New Zealand does have stricter than typical
bio-security laws because of the influence agriculture and tourism has
on our economy. Among other reasons past attempts by E.U countries to
denigrate NZs meat industry (in attempts to have it excluded as
competition to their own) have compelled us to be clean beyond reproach.

For instace the practice of feeding ground animals to others at the risk
of spreading diseases such as the now famous BSG (mad cow) have long
been illegal in NZ.

I think steroids are outlawed as I recall recent debate on relaxing the
relevant legislation.

Chemical fertilizers are widely used and run off from them is one of our
greatest problems today (oxygen levels and algaes in rivers, lakes etc).

Much of the North Islands volcanic plateau has been transformed by
intense fertilization.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Science and Ideals.

[John Williams]

Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> The examples that come to me are things like urging others to vote for the
> candidate I believe to be most qualified or urging people to give to certain
> charities that believe do good work.

Are you being serious here? Do you really think that might be what I meant?
How is endorsing a candiate or charity imposing or forcing someone to do
something?

> Or reporting drunk drivers, in which
> case I very much wish to see my ideals on said driver.

While this comes slightly closer to what I mean, it is still not
very close. Reporting a law breaker is not really what I meant
by imposing one's ideals. 

> I imagine you mean
> some other sort of things, yet I don't really know what they might be.

Some examples would be raising taxes for a national health care plan, barring
a new store from being built on private property, banning short-sales of stock, 
raising the minimum wage, import/export tariffs, banning internet gambling,
restricting offshoring, supporting a bailout of the financial industry using 
taxpayer 
money, windfall profit taxes, price ceilings on gasoline, repealing NAFTA, farm 
subsidies, banning smoking, trans-fats, etcI could go on, but that will do 
for
now. By the way, I do not mean to imply that you support these practices. I am
only giving examples.

>  Is  it an opposition to broad notions of economic and social justice?

Huh?


  

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

Re: For the sake of discussion...

[Julia Thompson]

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote:

> i'm not ashamed to admit that i make lots of mistakes.  does that make 
> me an idiot?  that's how i learn...

Well, if that's how you *learn*, you're still open to learning, and if 
someone is open to learning, they are, IMO, *not* an idiot.

Julia

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

Ideas

[Jon Louis Mann]

> Well, if that's how you *learn*, you're still open
> to learning, and if 
> someone is open to learning, they are, IMO, *not* an idiot.
>   Julia

well, there you are... i learned something else.  some of us are human and when 
the free exchange of ideas turns nasty, and sarcastic, not all of us have the 
strength of character, not to take the bait and react in kind.
so it goes...
jon 


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

New Zealand

[Jon Louis Mann]

> I don't know such detail. New Zealand does have
> stricter than typical
> bio-security laws because of the influence agriculture and
> tourism has
> on our economy. Among other reasons past attempts by E.U
> countries to
> denigrate NZs meat industry (in attempts to have it
> excluded as
> competition to their own) have compelled us to be clean
> beyond reproach.
> I think steroids are outlawed as I recall recent debate on
> relaxing the
> relevant legislation.
> Chemical fertilizers are widely used and run off from them
> is one of our
> greatest problems today (oxygen levels and algaes in
> rivers, lakes etc).
> Much of the North Islands volcanic plateau has been
> transformed by intense fertilization.

i am sorry to learn that and that they are relaxing some of the relevant 
legislation.  one of the things i loved about your country is that it reminded 
me of america when i was growing up in the fifties (except DDT was still wide 
spread).  it seemed to me that the food tasted better, then, even if it wasn't 
as pretty as what is sold in the supermarkets, now.  i never had to lock my 
bike, and almost everyone i met was really friendly.
jon


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

Re: Does it lead to the dump, to the dump, to the dump, dump, dump . . . ?

[Dave Land]

On Sep 21, 2008, at 8:35 AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote:

> Officials paving California road that plays William Tell Overture
>
> 

Yup. That's just what America needs: an excuse to drive back and forth  
over the same stretch of road for no real purpose whatsoever. YouTube  
videos show people in SUVs and sedans driving down the road at 50MPH  
or so, then making a U-turn to do it again.

Oh, and it's not "officials" who did it, it was Honda. Evidently, when  
driven in a vehicle with the exact wheelbase and wheel diameter of a  
Honda Civic (or Accord, or whatever commercial it was for which the  
road was grooved), it plays roughly in key. In the couple of videos I  
watched, it was uniformly awful: the intervals between the notes  
weren't even right. I suspect that was due to speeding up and slowing  
down between notes.

All in all, the sort of thing I wished people would do to roads when I  
was, oh, maybe about 6 years old, but now that I've actually developed  
an awareness of consequences (a real buzz-kill, that), It looks more  
and more like an example of wretched excess.

Dave


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