Tired of constant bickering

[Curtis Burisch]

So I'm out of here.
 
Thanks for all the fish Maru
 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: On Topic shocker!

[Euan Ritchie]

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

Which is why people like constitutional government. Pretty much everyone
means to include, when they trumpet the supremacy and desirability of
democracy, a definition of democracy that includes some form of
constitutional protection for minority rights.

It's implied in the concept of democracy that though a minority may be
in opposition to the winner of an election that for them to remain
parties to the social contract they cannot be abused for being parties
to it.

There are minimum standards to be met or the concept of being granted
authority to govern by the governed is nullified.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Taking responsibility (was Re: How Government Stoked the Mania)

[Nick Arnett]

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Olin Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> >So I don't think I'm able to refute the idea that a majority of U.S
> >citizens have credit card debt.
>
> To be fair, I don't have statistics for my claim either.  It could be that
> the majority of Americans don't have credit card debt, but I would surprised
> by that.  In any case, I do believe that my generation -- Baby Boomers,
> loosely -- internalized ideas about possessions, debt and spending that were
> very different from the generations that proceeded us.


I think it is important to recognize that having credit card debt is not
inherently bad (no matter what my parents said).  I wouldn't want to use it
as a proxy for "living beyond your means."  At the same time, I have no
doubt that we have excessive unsecured consumer debt in the U.S. and a
dismal savings rate.  The latter isn't quite so bad for us, I suspect, or
the cost of capital would be much higher.  But the cost of consumer capital
is fairly crazy, given that some portion of that debt is at interest rates
that seem like usury in comparison to the prime rate.  That's where the
lending appears to me to be abusive -- granting credit at high rates,
knowing that a large percentage will default, but knowing you'll profit from
those who don't.  I think there's a special place in hell reserved for
people who do business that way.

Anyway, what matters is ability to service the debt, not the debt itself.
For people who have irregular incomes, consumer credit may make perfect
sense.  Credit cards have financed a certain amount of startup businesses.
Expensive, but if it works, who is to argue?  Been there, done that myself.

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

Re: On Topic shocker!

[Olin Elliott]

>Is there no middle ground? One must consent, or leave the country /
>start a rebellion?

It doesn't seem like there is much middle ground.  Consent means, as much as I 
can tell, remaining in the community and following its laws.  If I do that, I 
have consented to be governed, right?

Olin

  - Original Message - 
  From: John Williams 
  To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion 
  Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 12:32 PM
  Subject: Re: On Topic shocker!


  On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Nick Arnett <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]> wrote:

  > Ruled???!  I don't think we elected a dictator.

  What happens if someone breaks a law that Obama manages to push
  through Congress because of a perceived mandate? How is that not being
  ruled?

  > If I hadn't consented to be so governed, I guess I'd have left the country
  > or worked to overthrow our form of government.  Do you imagine that all the
  > people who didn't vote for Obama are doing one of those things?

  Is there no middle ground? One must consent, or leave the country /
  start a rebellion?
  ___
  
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Taking responsibility (was Re: How Government Stoked the Mania)

[Olin Elliott]

>So I don't think I'm able to refute the idea that a majority of U.S
>citizens have credit card debt.

To be fair, I don't have statistics for my claim either.  It could be that the 
majority of Americans don't have credit card debt, but I would surprised by 
that.  In any case, I do believe that my generation -- Baby Boomers, loosely -- 
internalized ideas about possessions, debt and spending that were very 
different from the generations that proceeded us.  

Olin
  - Original Message - 
  From: Euan Ritchie 
  To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion 
  Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 12:39 PM
  Subject: Re: Taking responsibility (was Re: How Government Stoked the Mania)


  [Referencing people who avoid debt]

  > As I said before, I commend people who have avoided that temptation.  
  > But I think its fair to say they are a minority in the US.

  Betting you were wrong there I went looking for facts and found this
  interesting summary of numbers on U.S debt...

  http://www.christianccc.org/facts.html

  ...but it's unfortunately mostly averages where what I want to find is
  an absolute count of how many have credit card debt.

  Some more detail is here...

  
http://www.directlendingsolutions.com/2006-consumer-stats.htm

  But again the figure I want is not present.

  So I don't think I'm able to refute the idea that a majority of U.S
  citizens have credit card debt.

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

Re: On Topic shocker!

[Nick Arnett]

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 3:37 PM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Wikipedia probably has an article on the subject.  Try searching on
> > "democracy."
>
> Couldn't find it. But I found this:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
>

Too bad it barely applies, though you may have a point that we seem to be
heading in that direction.  We still have a constitution, bill of rights and
parliamentary style legislature... although the constitution seems to be
increasingly weakened by conservatives.

We are still a democracy, not a demarchy.

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

Re: On Topic shocker!

[Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro]

Nick Arnett wrote:
>
> Wikipedia probably has an article on the subject.  Try searching on
> "democracy."
>
Found it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptocracy#The_Bush_Administration

Oops, the page was vandalized :-(

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

Re: On Topic shocker!

[John Williams]

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wikipedia probably has an article on the subject.  Try searching on
> "democracy."

Couldn't find it. But I found this:

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

> Lapsing into sarcasm far too often

Excellent! That's the first step towards kicking the political hero
worship habit.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: On Topic shocker!

[William T Goodall]

On 17 Nov 2008, at 21:43, Euan Ritchie wrote:
> There's a philosophical thought experiment about designing societies  
> and
> how we should do it - imagine you're a disembodied spirit that will be
> born in the future to completely random parents. You have no idea what
> their station or fortune will be like but it happens you have the
> opportunity to design the society into which you'll be born.

The 'original position' of Rawls' _A Theory of Justice_.

>
>
> What society to you design?
>
> And as an aside while it's true we're all governed by forces generally
> out of our control it's not accurate to say they 'rule' us. Ruling is
> something a monarch does separate from governance.
> ___
> http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Prerequisite Maru

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

"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant  
market share. No chance" - Steve Ballmer


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

Re: On Topic shocker!

[Nick Arnett]

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:32 PM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>
> What happens if someone breaks a law that Obama manages to push
> through Congress because of a perceived mandate? How is that not being
> ruled?


Missed high school civics class, did you?

Wikipedia probably has an article on the subject.  Try searching on
"democracy."

Nick
Lapsing into sarcasm far too often
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: On Topic shocker!

[Euan Ritchie]

>>> What happens if someone breaks a law that Obama manages to push
>>> through Congress because of a perceived mandate? How is that not being
>>> ruled?

>> Being tried in court by an independent judiciary charged to protect
>> constitutional rights is the difference between governed by law and
>> ruled by monarchs.

> In both cases, people are subject to rules handed down from above.
> Calling them laws and having courts does not change the fact that
> people are being ruled by those they did not choose.

Well yeah, although the rule of law rather than monarchs is an important
distinction it's absolutely true that we all live with some sort of
compulsion hanging over us.

The philosophical underpinning of democracy is that having free
elections means that elected governments operate with the consent of the
governed - it is an implied social contract that even those who voted
for an opposition still consent to be governed by the elected.

If you vote you participate in the contract.

If you don't and maintain all government is evil and to be resisted,
well, you're just fighting reality. One way or the other the vacuum of
power will be filled. If not by the elected then by the unelected.

If not by the forceful then by the wealthy, if not by the wealthy then
by the admired. It'll be someone.

Best for all of us if we cooperate to create the best situation for
everyone.

There's a philosophical thought experiment about designing societies and
how we should do it - imagine you're a disembodied spirit that will be
born in the future to completely random parents. You have no idea what
their station or fortune will be like but it happens you have the
opportunity to design the society into which you'll be born.

What society to you design?

And as an aside while it's true we're all governed by forces generally
out of our control it's not accurate to say they 'rule' us. Ruling is
something a monarch does separate from governance.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: On Topic shocker!

[John Williams]

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Euan Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> What happens if someone breaks a law that Obama manages to push
>> through Congress because of a perceived mandate? How is that not being
>> ruled?
>
> Being tried in court by an independent judiciary charged to protect
> constitutional rights is the difference between governed by law and
> ruled by monarchs.

In both cases, people are subject to rules handed down from above.
Calling them laws and having courts does not change the fact that
people are being ruled by those they did not choose.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: On Topic shocker!

[John Garcia]

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 3:32 PM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Ruled???!  I don't think we elected a dictator.
>
> What happens if someone breaks a law that Obama manages to push
> through Congress because of a perceived mandate? How is that not being
> ruled?
>

   Why, if that person is convicted, he or she will face the penalties the
law provides for.
   And, all mandates are a matter of perception.


>
> > If I hadn't consented to be so governed, I guess I'd have left the
> country
> > or worked to overthrow our form of government.  Do you imagine that all
> the
> > people who didn't vote for Obama are doing one of those things?
>
> Is there no middle ground? One must consent, or leave the country /
> start a rebellion?


  Certainly citizens have avenues open to them in which they can seek to
have a particular
  law repealed. If that political process fails, one may seek to have the
law declared unconstitutional. If
  the law passes constitutional muster, one either accepts the law and
abides by it, or one chooses
  to ignore it. Technically speaking, if one ignores a law, one is in
rebellion.

  Of course, it is our revolutionary right, spelled out in the Declaration
of Independence, to rebel against an unjust government.
  Or one can leave the country.
  But more likely, one will just complain.

  john

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

Re: On Topic shocker!

[Euan Ritchie]

> What happens if someone breaks a law that Obama manages to push
> through Congress because of a perceived mandate? How is that not being
> ruled?

Being tried in court by an independent judiciary charged to protect
constitutional rights is the difference between governed by law and
ruled by monarchs.

Bush acts as monarch when he imprisons people without judicial and legal
oversight (even when he later feels compelled to try his victims in a
star chamber), the U.S has yet to see if Obama will claim such authority.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: On Topic shocker!

[Euan Ritchie]

> Well, we just elected an elitist as president, by a substantial majority.

A 7 ~ 8% margin isn't substantial. Surely it only seems that way
compared to recent razor thin elections?
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Taking responsibility (was Re: How Government Stoked the Mania)

[Euan Ritchie]

[Referencing people who avoid debt]

> As I said before, I commend people who have avoided that temptation.  
> But I think its fair to say they are a minority in the US.

Betting you were wrong there I went looking for facts and found this
interesting summary of numbers on U.S debt...

http://www.christianccc.org/facts.html

...but it's unfortunately mostly averages where what I want to find is
an absolute count of how many have credit card debt.

Some more detail is here...

http://www.directlendingsolutions.com/2006-consumer-stats.htm

But again the figure I want is not present.

So I don't think I'm able to refute the idea that a majority of U.S
citizens have credit card debt.

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

Re: On Topic shocker!

[John Williams]

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Ruled???!  I don't think we elected a dictator.

What happens if someone breaks a law that Obama manages to push
through Congress because of a perceived mandate? How is that not being
ruled?

> If I hadn't consented to be so governed, I guess I'd have left the country
> or worked to overthrow our form of government.  Do you imagine that all the
> people who didn't vote for Obama are doing one of those things?

Is there no middle ground? One must consent, or leave the country /
start a rebellion?
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: someone stole your idea (again)

[David Brin]

Thanks Alberto!

Interesting!

d




From: Alberto Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 8:42:45 AM
Subject: Brin: someone stole your idea (again)

I got this from the Tolkien mailing list.

Remember when you wrote that Sauron was the real good guy, and not
those segregationists, neo-cons and prince-heirs? Someone stole your idea

Alberto Monteiro

--

 

Orcs 
Stan Nicholls  (See All Contributors) 
Paperback, 784 pages 
Little Brown & Company 
September 08, 2008 

Description: Fantasy's bad guys finally get their due in this fast 
moving, action-packed tale of Orc valor and human treachery.Orbit 

Description: "Look at me. Look at the Orc." "There is fear and hatred 
in your eyes. To you I am a monster, a skulker in the shadows, a fiend 
to scare your children with. A creature to be hunted down and 
slaughtered like a beast in the fields. It is time you pay heed to the 
beast. And see the beast in yourself. I have your fear. But I have 
earned your respect. Hear my story. Feel the flow of blood and be 
thankful. Thankful that it was me, not you, who bore the sword. 
Thankful to the orcs; born to fight, destined to win peace for all." 
This book will change the way you feel about Orcs forever. 

About the Author: Stan Nicholls has been a key figure on the genre 
scene for more than 20 years, having been a bookseller, reviewer, and 
writer. He writes a regular column for Time Out and contributes to 
both Interzone and Starburst. He is also the author of several 
children's fantasies. 

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

Re: On Topic shocker!

[Nick Arnett]

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:28 AM, Olin Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> >Well, we just elected an elitist as president, by a substantial majority.
>
> Well, we elected an "elite" president, not he same thing as being eletiest
> -- unless being raised by a single mother and grandmother, earning a
> scholarship to college and working your way through Harvard make you an
> "elitist" but being born a millionaire and getting into ivy league schools
> on your father's influence (Bush) or being the son and grandson of Admirals
> and marrying a multi-millionaire (McCain) makes you just plain folks.  There
> is a different between being elite -- well educated, skilled and intelligent
> -- and being an elitist.  I think its pretty clear which of our politicians
> fall under which label.


In case it wasn't clear, I agree.  I omitted the sarcasm tags.

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

Re: On Topic shocker!

[Nick Arnett]

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:25 AM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>  That is tens of
> millions of people who did not choose to be ruled by Obama.


Ruled???!  I don't think we elected a dictator.


> If it were
> me, I would be extremely reluctant to force my ideas on tens of
> millions of people who did not give me their consent.


There's your funny definition of "consent."  I consented to be ruled, I mean
governed, by GWB for the last eight years, but I sure didn't vote for him.

If I hadn't consented to be so governed, I guess I'd have left the country
or worked to overthrow our form of government.  Do you imagine that all the
people who didn't vote for Obama are doing one of those things?

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

Re: Metaphors for Financial Reform

[Claes Wallin]

John Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Claes Wallin
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I am not sure how many on the list are interested in software
>> development methodology, but isn't he missing the chance here to invoke
>> "extreme architecture"?
> 
> Arnold Kling has some background in software, and he usually reads and
> responds to comments on his blog. You could post your observation as a
> comment on his blog...maybe he will have a response.

Aha, that's interesting. Maybe I will do that.

>> I believe a "safety-net of circuit breakers"
>> _can_ be designed in an iterative way, learning from mistakes, adapting
>> to new problems, while still maintaining a well-designed whole. I have
>> to admit that I haven't seen anybody trying.
> 
> I'm not sure I see what you are getting at. Are you talking about an
> expert system or neural net sort of thing? But they tend to be rather
> chaotic, not "well-designed whole". How would a designed system learn
> from mistakes?

Well, an expert system with actual humans being the experts. And by the
"well-designed whole" i was referring not to the meta-system but to the
actual system, the regulations.

Patchwork regulation is typical in our political system, but a system
with some continuity, and I'm afraid this is starting to sound like
enlightened despotism, could see to the framework as a whole and
refactor old legislation to fit with the new.

>> His "3. Housecleaning" meme seems to be heading in this direction, but
>> he doesn't seem to acknowledge that it is actually an iterative,
>> feedback-oriented version of "2. Architecture":
> 
> One of the commenters on his blog (Rubber Rebel or something like
> that) makes a similar point. It almost seems like you and Arnold are
> converging on a system where you have two competing groups, the
> regulation makers and the regulation destroyers, one group making new
> regulations, and the other group removing all regulations that have
> unintended consequences. Is that what you meant by an iterative
> system?

No, I meant one group of people, the "architects", doing those things.
But making it two different groups is an interesting idea.

   /c

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

Re: On Topic shocker!

[Alberto Monteiro]

Nick Arnett wrote:
> 
> Meanwhile, I'm wondering what the Conservapedia people are doing 
> with the recently raised possibility that atomic decay rates vary 
> with solar activity.  I couldn't help immediately imagining somebody 
> using that idea to show that the earth really is only a few thousand 
> years old.
> 
Maybe one day when I am _really_ with good humour and plenty of time
I will write about it. Something like adding a "deceit factor" to
the calculations of radioactive decay. And honest god will have
a "deceit factor" of zero, meaning that apparent 4.5 billion year
old rocks are 4.5 billion year old. A very mischevous and deceitful
god would have a big "deceit factor", meaning that apparent
4.5 billion year old rocks are only 6 thousand years old.

Alberto Monteiro (and I won't tell the sock puppets I use to contribute
to the uncyclopedias...)

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

Re: On Topic shocker!

[Olin Elliott]

>Well, we just elected an elitist as president, by a substantial majority.

Well, we elected an "elite" president, not he same thing as being eletiest -- 
unless being raised by a single mother and grandmother, earning a scholarship 
to college and working your way through Harvard make you an "elitist" but being 
born a millionaire and getting into ivy league schools on your father's 
influence (Bush) or being the son and grandson of Admirals and marrying a 
multi-millionaire (McCain) makes you just plain folks.  There is a different 
between being elite -- well educated, skilled and intelligent -- and being an 
elitist.  I think its pretty clear which of our politicians fall under which 
label.

>I'm wondering what the Conservapedia people are doing with the
>recently raised possibility that atomic decay rates vary with solar
>activity. 

I had the same thought about the rate of atomic decay.  I haven't looked it up 
on Conservapedia yet.

Olin
  - Original Message - 
  From: Nick Arnett 
  To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion 
  Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 9:38 AM
  Subject: Re: On Topic shocker!


  On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 9:31 AM, Olin Elliott <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]> wrote:

  > >This is starting to sound like Asimov's Meritocracy branch of power.
  >
  > But how would a Meritocracy play in a time when even pronouncing the names
  > of foreign countries correctly gets you labeled an elitist?  The Right has
  > sold America on the idea that anyone with a good education and the ability
  > to think critically is an "elitist" who couldn't possibly understand the
  > problems of soccer moms and joe six pack.  What would they think of a
  > council of scientists, most of whom probably believe the earth is more than
  > six thousand years old and even in *gasp* evolution?


  Well, we just elected an elitist as president, by a substantial majority.

  Meanwhile, I'm wondering what the Conservapedia people are doing with the
  recently raised possibility that atomic decay rates vary with solar
  activity.  I couldn't help immediately imagining somebody using that idea to
  show that the earth really is only a few thousand years old.

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

Re: On Topic shocker!

[John Williams]

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Well, we just elected an elitist as president, by a substantial majority.

Before getting too excited about a substantial majority, note that
Obama got 52% of the popular vote. I think it is worth remembering
that 48% of the voters did not vote for Obama. That is tens of
millions of people who did not choose to be ruled by Obama. If it were
me, I would be extremely reluctant to force my ideas on tens of
millions of people who did not give me their consent. I would set
myself extremely high standards for certainty that changes that I want
to force onto those people are the right thing to do. Similar to a
doctor, whose guiding principle is do no harm, I would need to be
certain that any treatments I prescribe are not going to cause any
harm to the patients.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: On Topic shocker!

[Nick Arnett]

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 9:31 AM, Olin Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> >This is starting to sound like Asimov's Meritocracy branch of power.
>
> But how would a Meritocracy play in a time when even pronouncing the names
> of foreign countries correctly gets you labeled an elitist?  The Right has
> sold America on the idea that anyone with a good education and the ability
> to think critically is an "elitist" who couldn't possibly understand the
> problems of soccer moms and joe six pack.  What would they think of a
> council of scientists, most of whom probably believe the earth is more than
> six thousand years old and even in *gasp* evolution?


Well, we just elected an elitist as president, by a substantial majority.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering what the Conservapedia people are doing with the
recently raised possibility that atomic decay rates vary with solar
activity.  I couldn't help immediately imagining somebody using that idea to
show that the earth really is only a few thousand years old.

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

Re: Metaphors for Financial Reform

[John Williams]

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Claes Wallin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am not sure how many on the list are interested in software
> development methodology, but isn't he missing the chance here to invoke
> "extreme architecture"?

Arnold Kling has some background in software, and he usually reads and
responds to comments on his blog. You could post your observation as a
comment on his blog...maybe he will have a response.

> I believe a "safety-net of circuit breakers"
> _can_ be designed in an iterative way, learning from mistakes, adapting
> to new problems, while still maintaining a well-designed whole. I have
> to admit that I haven't seen anybody trying.

I'm not sure I see what you are getting at. Are you talking about an
expert system or neural net sort of thing? But they tend to be rather
chaotic, not "well-designed whole". How would a designed system learn
from mistakes?

> His "3. Housecleaning" meme seems to be heading in this direction, but
> he doesn't seem to acknowledge that it is actually an iterative,
> feedback-oriented version of "2. Architecture":

One of the commenters on his blog (Rubber Rebel or something like
that) makes a similar point. It almost seems like you and Arnold are
converging on a system where you have two competing groups, the
regulation makers and the regulation destroyers, one group making new
regulations, and the other group removing all regulations that have
unintended consequences. Is that what you meant by an iterative
system?
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Taking responsibility (was Re: How Government Stoked the Mania)

[Olin Elliott]

>Unless you, Olin, were referring to the total transparency, as in the
>dear Doctor's essay, of putting a not-so-closed-circuit camera in the
>governor's office. 

We could run it on C-Span.  It would make great tv.  I've always thought we 
should have a law that makes any statement made by an elected official, or 
anyone acting under his authority, legally the equivalent of being under oath.  
Politicicans could be charged with perjury for any public statement that is 
demonstrably untrue.

Olin
  - Original Message - 
  From: Claes Wallin 
  To: brin-l@mccmedia.com 
  Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 8:47 AM
  Subject: Re: Taking responsibility (was Re: How Government Stoked the Mania)


  Olin Elliott wrote:
  >> Well, I didn't mention transparency specifically, but there can be no  
  >> accountability without transparency, so it's implicit.
  > 
  > I mut have missed that post, Charlie.  Sorry about that.  

  Unless you, Olin, were referring to the total transparency, as in the
  dear Doctor's essay, of putting a not-so-closed-circuit camera in the
  governor's office. :-)

  /c

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

Re: On Topic shocker!

[Olin Elliott]

>This is starting to sound like Asimov's Meritocracy branch of power.

But how would a Meritocracy play in a time when even pronouncing the names of 
foreign countries correctly gets you labeled an elitist?  The Right has sold 
America on the idea that anyone with a good education and the ability to think 
critically is an "elitist" who couldn't possibly understand the problems of 
soccer moms and joe six pack.  What would they think of a council of 
scientists, most of whom probably believe the earth is more than six thousand 
years old and even in *gasp* evolution?

Olin
  - Original Message - 
  From: Claes Wallin 
  To: brin-l@mccmedia.com 
  Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 8:43 AM
  Subject: Re: On Topic shocker!


  Olin Elliott wrote:
  >> For one thing, politicians will tend to choose science advisers who tell 
them
  >> what they want to hear, *especially* if the advisers are organized into a
  >> body that has any sort of transparency.
  > 
  > What if the members of the council were somehow chosen by the professional 
associations of various disciplines?  If they were nominated by their 
scientific pears and elected by practicing scientists? 

  This is starting to sound like Asimov's Meritocracy branch of power.
  Just to add to the shock of on-topic discussion.

 /c

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

Re: Metaphors for Financial Reform

[Claes Wallin]

John Williams wrote:
> http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/11/metaphors_for_f.html

...

> Metaphors for Financial Reform
> by Arnold Kling

...

> 2. Architecture
> 
> This metaphor is the belief is that wise technocrats need to make sure
> that the wild, rambunctious private sector has a safe place to play.
> By designing the right sorts of circuit breakers and thermostats, the
> technocrats can ensure that nothing catches fire or causes injury.
> 
> The architects are keen on transparency, international co-operation,
> and unified command. Achieving an optimal social outcome is a matter
> of getting the top-down design right.
> 
> My problem with this metaphor is that I do not believe that the
> technocrats are any wiser than the markets that they are trying to
> regulate. In particular, they tend to see only the intended
> consequences of regulations, not unintended consequences. Moreover,
> the architecture metaphor misses the reality that in a dynamic world,
> trial-and-error makes more progress than static design.

I am not sure how many on the list are interested in software
development methodology, but isn't he missing the chance here to invoke
"extreme architecture"? I believe a "safety-net of circuit breakers"
_can_ be designed in an iterative way, learning from mistakes, adapting
to new problems, while still maintaining a well-designed whole. I have
to admit that I haven't seen anybody trying.

His "3. Housecleaning" meme seems to be heading in this direction, but
he doesn't seem to acknowledge that it is actually an iterative,
feedback-oriented version of "2. Architecture":

> My point is not that regulators should ban these practices. But we
> should cull out policies, including capital regulations, that either
> deliberately or inadvertently promoted them.

   /c

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

Re: On Topic shocker!

[Claes Wallin]

Olin Elliott wrote:
>> For one thing, politicians will tend to choose science advisers who tell them
>> what they want to hear, *especially* if the advisers are organized into a
>> body that has any sort of transparency.
> 
> What if the members of the council were somehow chosen by the professional 
> associations of various disciplines?  If they were nominated by their 
> scientific pears and elected by practicing scientists? 

This is starting to sound like Asimov's Meritocracy branch of power.
Just to add to the shock of on-topic discussion.

   /c

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

Re: On Topic shocker!

[Nick Arnett]

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 8:52 AM, Claes Wallin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:

>
> When I saw that your name in the comments was clickable, I was expecting
> to see a link to your blog. Clever as you are, you showed me that I am
> already reading it. ;-)


Ah, you have discovered what little marketing I do for Brin-L.

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

Re: On Topic shocker!

[Claes Wallin]

Nick Arnett wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Ray Ludenia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>> The idea of a "shadow scientific Congress" sounds like an idea with
>> merit. (Unfortunately perhaps), I suppose this idea could be extended
>> to economists, lawyers, artists etc.
> 
> 
> Posting on topic?  You just asking to be moderated, aren't you?
> 
> Seriously, though, I think that many members of Congress have one or more
> advisers on science and technology.  The idea of organizing them into this
> shadow Congress is intriguing, but I don't quite see how it would work.  For
> one thing, politicians will tend to choose science advisers who tell them
> what they want to hear, *especially* if the advisers are organized into a
> body that has any sort of transparency.

When I saw that your name in the comments was clickable, I was expecting
to see a link to your blog. Clever as you are, you showed me that I am
already reading it. ;-)

   /c

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

Re: Taking responsibility (was Re: How Government Stoked the Mania)

[Claes Wallin]

Olin Elliott wrote:
>> Well, I didn't mention transparency specifically, but there can be no  
>> accountability without transparency, so it's implicit.
> 
> I mut have missed that post, Charlie.  Sorry about that.  

Unless you, Olin, were referring to the total transparency, as in the
dear Doctor's essay, of putting a not-so-closed-circuit camera in the
governor's office. :-)

/c

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

Re: On Topic shocker!

[Claes Wallin]

Ray Ludenia wrote:
> On Nov 16, 2008, at 5:23 PM, Olin Elliott wrote:
> 
>> I'm a little surprised, since this is a David Brin discussion group,  
>> that no one has suggested that the best possible fix for government  
>> waste and courruption is greater transparency and accountability.
> 
> Speaking of the illustrious patron, I just read an interesting little  
> suggestion he made in Discover magazine, giving advice on what the  
> next POTUS needs to do for science.
> 
> http://snipurl.com/5nwoy  [blogs_discovermagazine_com]
> 
> The idea of a "shadow scientific Congress" sounds like an idea with  
> merit. (Unfortunately perhaps), I suppose this idea could be extended  
> to economists, lawyers, artists etc.

Maybe I will name my rock band "Shadow Scientific Artists". ;-)

   /c

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

Brin: someone stole your idea (again)

[Alberto Monteiro]

I got this from the Tolkien mailing list.

Remember when you wrote that Sauron was the real good guy, and not
those segregationists, neo-cons and prince-heirs? Someone stole your idea

Alberto Monteiro

--

 

Orcs 
Stan Nicholls  (See All Contributors) 
Paperback, 784 pages 
Little Brown & Company 
September 08, 2008 

Description: Fantasy's bad guys finally get their due in this fast 
moving, action-packed tale of Orc valor and human treachery.Orbit 

Description: "Look at me. Look at the Orc." "There is fear and hatred 
in your eyes. To you I am a monster, a skulker in the shadows, a fiend 
to scare your children with. A creature to be hunted down and 
slaughtered like a beast in the fields. It is time you pay heed to the 
beast. And see the beast in yourself. I have your fear. But I have 
earned your respect. Hear my story. Feel the flow of blood and be 
thankful. Thankful that it was me, not you, who bore the sword. 
Thankful to the orcs; born to fight, destined to win peace for all." 
This book will change the way you feel about Orcs forever. 

About the Author: Stan Nicholls has been a key figure on the genre 
scene for more than 20 years, having been a bookseller, reviewer, and 
writer. He writes a regular column for Time Out and contributes to 
both Interzone and Starburst. He is also the author of several 
children's fantasies. 

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

Interface (a science fiction book!)

[Claes Wallin]

Did anybody on the list read the book Interface by Stephen Bury (= Neil
Stephenson and his uncle)?

I read it during the elections, which added a marvellous synchronicity
to the whole experience. I would learn about some consequence of the
American political system in the book one day, then read about it in the
news the next.

To top it off, the book starts with the US deficit reaching 10 trillion
dollars. On the whole, it is unsettlingly accurate on many points, only
it places events at 2000 instead of 2008.

   /c

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

Re: Bush was far more clueless and incompetent.

[Claes Wallin]

Jon Louis Mann wrote:
>>> F&F had very little impact as far as causing the
>> economic crisis,  compared to other factors.
>>
>> What are the other factors?  It looked to me from that
>> article that Rob linked to that there was a fair amount of
>>  cause wrapped up in F & F. 
>>  Julia
> 
> i am not denying that there were government blunders from both sides, as well 
> as unscrupulous borrowers and individual irresponsibility.  i'm just saying 
> it would not have gotten out of control if not for bush/cheney's 
> anti-regulation policies.  we need government regulation, otherwise we would 
> be like china, exploiting and polluting its own people and sending out toxic 
> products all over the world. 

My sarcastic side wanted to say "yeah, because communist China is a
prime example of unregulated business", but what I mean is this:

If the discussion here is pros/cons of government influencing business,
I think China would be an example of high influence, since most of the
Chinese businesses are government owned. Even their several competing
mobile phone operators are all owned by government.

If your point is that China's businesses are governed by a power-hungry
elite rather than by benign representatives of an informed population,
then I agree with the bad consequences of that. I do think, however,
that John often has a point when noting that a decentralized and
inter-competing power-hungry elite is better than a centralized and
unchallenged one.

   /c

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

Re: On Topic shocker!

[Nick Arnett]

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 6:16 AM, Olin Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> >For one thing, politicians will tend to choose science advisers who tell
> them
> >what they want to hear, *especially* if the advisers are organized into a
> >body that has any sort of transparency.
>
> What if the members of the council were somehow chosen by the professional
> associations of various disciplines?  If they were nominated by their
> scientific pears and elected by practicing scientists?


Much better.  Some sort of science-based vetting process would make all the
difference.

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

Re: Metaphors for Financial Reform

[Julia Thompson]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008, John Williams wrote:

> I think David Brin would have called these "memes" instead of
> metaphors. Maybe Brin follows meme #2 ("uplift those rambunctious
> chimpanzees !") ?

If you want to repost with "Brin:" in the subject line, he'll see it.

I found it interesting, but have no time to reply in-depth today.  (I 
shouldn't even be on the computer right now, but, well, I am.)

Julia

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

Re: Rude and insulting

[Julia Thompson]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008, Nick Arnett wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 6:52 PM, David Hobby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> That's too bad, and sounds like an extreme
>> response.  May I suggest simply killfiling
>> the source of your irritation as an intermediate
>> option?
>
>
> I'd agree, or just consider asking yourself this question before hitting
> Send:  "Am I trying to change somebody other than myself?"  If the answer is
> yes, discard it or re-write until you're satisfied that you are just
> discussing the issue, not trying to change the other person.
>
> I am very, very slow to respond to requests to remove people from the list.
> It is appalling how lethargic I become.

I'm just contrary.  And slow to do for others what, in theory, they should 
be able to do for themselves.

(At least, that's where I am this month.)

Julia

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

Re: On Topic shocker!

[Olin Elliott]

>For one thing, politicians will tend to choose science advisers who tell them
>what they want to hear, *especially* if the advisers are organized into a
>body that has any sort of transparency.

What if the members of the council were somehow chosen by the professional 
associations of various disciplines?  If they were nominated by their 
scientific pears and elected by practicing scientists? 

Olin

  - Original Message - 
  From: Nick Arnett 
  To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion 
  Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 6:59 PM
  Subject: Re: On Topic shocker!


  On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Ray Ludenia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

  >
  > The idea of a "shadow scientific Congress" sounds like an idea with
  > merit. (Unfortunately perhaps), I suppose this idea could be extended
  > to economists, lawyers, artists etc.


  Posting on topic?  You just asking to be moderated, aren't you?

  Seriously, though, I think that many members of Congress have one or more
  advisers on science and technology.  The idea of organizing them into this
  shadow Congress is intriguing, but I don't quite see how it would work.  For
  one thing, politicians will tend to choose science advisers who tell them
  what they want to hear, *especially* if the advisers are organized into a
  body that has any sort of transparency.

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

Re: Taking responsibility (was Re: How Government Stoked the Mania)

[Olin Elliott]

>Not if 'us' encompasses the many hard working debt avoiding people who
>will also suffer by having their wages garnished via taxes to pay the
>ransom corporations are holding the U.S taxpayer to.

As I said before, I commend people who have avoided that temptation.  But I 
think its fair to say they are a minority in the US.  Credit card dept is 
rampant, and during the era of easy credit they were available to almost 
anyone, including a lot of us hardworking folks.  Some econonimst are now 
saying that widespread credit card default -- the credit has alo be securitized 
in ways similar to how mortgage debt was -- may be the next big bubble burst.  
It's a much small market than the mortgage market in terms of dollars involved, 
but it could still be a huge mess.

Olin
  - Original Message - 
  From: Euan Ritchie 
  To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion 
  Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 8:55 PM
  Subject: Re: Taking responsibility (was Re: How Government Stoked the Mania)


  >Ted Turner was asked recently on a CNN interview who was responsible for the 
financial crisis
  >and he said "All of us.  We've been spending more than we make for a
  long time ...

  >Basically, he's right.

  Not if 'us' encompasses the many hard working debt avoiding people who
  will also suffer by having their wages garnished via taxes to pay the
  ransom corporations are holding the U.S taxpayer to.
  ___
  
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Taking responsibility (was Re: How Government Stoked the Mania)

[Olin Elliott]

>Well, I didn't mention transparency specifically, but there can be no  
>accountability without transparency, so it's implicit.

I mut have missed that post, Charlie.  Sorry about that.  

Olin
  - Original Message - 
  From: Charlie Bell 
  To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion 
  Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 11:50 PM
  Subject: Re: Taking responsibility (was Re: How Government Stoked the Mania)



  On 17/11/2008, at 12:23 PM, Olin Elliott wrote:
  > I'm a little surprised, since this is a David Brin discussion group,  
  > that no one has suggested that the best possible fix for government  
  > waste and courruption is greater transparency and accountability.

  I did:

  On 15/11/2008, at 6:02 PM, Charlie Bell wrote:

  > Accountability is the most important thing in governance in my view,
  > whether it be a national government or a local authority, a
  > multinational corporation or mom-and-pop-shop, an international
  > charity or a locolly run charitable trust.

  Well, I didn't mention transparency specifically, but there can be no  
  accountability without transparency, so it's implicit.

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