Re: Whatcha reading? (was Re: In despair for the state of SF)
Doug Pensinger wrote: Mauro Diotallevi wrote: On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 8:07 PM, Rceebergermailto:rceeber...@comcast.net>> wrote: > I'm in the middle of The Bridge by Banks. Just finished The Algebraist and Matter by the same with the M. > I really really liked Matter. It has I think supplanted Excession as my favorite Banks. > The Algebraist was real good also, if a bit less serious than the typical M novel. > I just inherited about 6 books by Banks, and I'll be starting them as soon as I finish re-reading Variable Star. VS is credited to Spider Robinson and Robert A. Heinlein. Robinson actually wrote it from extensive but unfinished notes by Heinlein, and I have enjoyed this book immensely. Consider Phlebas first, right Charlie? 8^) That was the first (and so far only) Banks book I have tried. I got about half-way before I gave up. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL zwil...@zwilnik.com Linux User #333216 "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." -- Woody Allen ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: What is wealth?
Dan M wrote: > >> -Original Message- >> From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On >> Behalf Of Kevin B. O'Brien >> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 9:00 PM >> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion >> Subject: Re: What is wealth? >> >> >>> The countries with high fertility rates tend to be poorer. Thus, wealth >>> >> is >> >>> anti-correlated with the probability a person's gene marker will be seen >>> >> in >> >>> a given member of the Nth generation after one's own (which is a >>> >> standard >> >>> measure of sociobiological fitness). >>> >>> >> I tend to think that is a pretty simple manifestation of the Demographic >> Transition. Children are a net asset in poorer countries (they can be >> put to work, can support you in old age, etc.). In richer economies, >> children are a luxury good that cost you a lot and deliver no economic >> return, hence you will tend to have fewer of them. >> > > You know, if you took this and the first statement of yours I responded to > as axioms, you could probably put together a system in which both A and ~A > are both provable statements. (This was considered a big negative when I > took math and logic). :-) > > So, I think you have to pick one of the two statements you made and reject > the other. Or, say that both have some impact, but are not nearly as > universal as you've portrayed. > > Indeed, while I think the latter statement has some truth, the data don't > really fit it as a sole explanation. Russia's birth rate fell as its > economic conditions fell. There were far fewer births in the Great > Depression as there were in the post WWII prosperity. The US has a far > higher birth rate among college educated women than Japan does. > > My suggestion is that sociobiology is a viewpoint to be used, among others, > and that it is not a simple explanation. But, unlike others on the list, I > do think partial understandings can be helpful. > I don't think this is contradictory at all. When a wealthy country undergoes a temporary economic change, does it change the social expectations and norms? I don't think so. That would require prolonged long-term change. So during the Depression, you did not see people suddenly sending their kids out to work in the factories, etc. Now, if you were to make a "permanent" change in the American economy that reduced us to a standard of living typical of a peasant economy, that would probably result in eventual change in our social structure and expectations. But I would expect that to take a few generations at the very least. And as far as I know, there has not been an example of any country actually running the demographic transition in reverse. The examples you cite are perfectly consistent with a society that views children as a luxury good. One ought to find that the consumption of luxury goods goes down during economic downturns. The fallacy here is that you are confusing long-term and short-term effects. The Demographic Transition is a model of a long-term shift in social norms about children under the influence of rising incomes as economies develop. When applied cross-sectionally to countries at different stages of development, it matches up pretty well with the data. You are trying to falsify it by applying the model to short-term fluctuations in economies with relatively fixed social norms, which the model was never intended to explain in the first place. Normal economic theory is quite sufficient there. (As a side note, short-term fluctuations are what standard economic theories handle best. Supply and demand really do work pretty well in the day to day stuff. It is when you get to questions of long-term growth and development that things get a little murkier.) The change process is gradual in the other direction as well. When a poorer economy begins to develop, the death rate falls due to better nutrition, better health care, etc. but the birth rate does not, immediately, fall at all. That is one of the reasons for exploding populations in other parts of the world. It usually takes several generations for people's behavior to adjust, and then the birth rate starts to fall. So you can have equilibrium, roughly, at either a low income level, with high birth rates and high death rates, or at high income level, with low birth rates and low death rates. During the transition between these equilibria, you get exploding populations. Now, I want to make clear that I am not primarily a demographer, so there may well be more recent research on this topic. But when I
Re: What is wealth?
Dan M wrote: > >> -Original Message- >> From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On >> Behalf Of Olin Elliott >> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 7:05 PM >> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion >> Subject: Re: What is wealth? >> >> Wealth can be defined in evolutionary terms. Whatever enhances your >> health, your security, your status or your power in the group is wealth. >> In other words -- in a state of nature -- anything the possession of which >> improves your reproductive fitness. That is the ultimate basis of the >> concept of wealth, and all our elaborations and abstractions don't change >> that much. >> > > What about the facts, would they change things much? :-) > > I think there is some viability in the sociobiological argument that wealth > increases the attractiveness of men as mates. But, if you look at "the > selfish gene" as an embodiment of sociobiology, you see that wealth has had > a paradoxical effect. > > Look at the wealthiest countries in the world. With the exception of the > US, they have fertility rates below replacement, some (like Japan, Germany > and Italy) far below replacement. > > The countries with high fertility rates tend to be poorer. Thus, wealth is > anti-correlated with the probability a person's gene marker will be seen in > a given member of the Nth generation after one's own (which is a standard > measure of sociobiological fitness). > I tend to think that is a pretty simple manifestation of the Demographic Transition. Children are a net asset in poorer countries (they can be put to work, can support you in old age, etc.). In richer economies, children are a luxury good that cost you a lot and deliver no economic return, hence you will tend to have fewer of them. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL zwil...@zwilnik.com Linux User #333216 "The truth that survives is simply the lie that is pleasantest to believe." - H.L. Mencken ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What is wealth?
Dan M wrote: > After the discussion about money as a social construct, it occurred to me > that that there is something more fundamental underlying this. It is > whether wealth is concrete or just an abstract concept. > > One way to ask it is whether the world is actually wealthier than it was 100 > years ago; whether the US is? A second is to ask who creates wealth and how > do they create it? I have some strong opinions on this, but I hoped that I > could stimulate a discussion by first throwing out the questions before I > weigh in with my long winded thoughts. :-) > Wealth is a stock variable. The related flow variable is income. The relationship in general is that income that is not consumed constitutes an addition to wealth. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL zwil...@zwilnik.com Linux User #333216 Q. What do you get when you cross a Mafioso and a deconstructionist? | A. Someone who makes you an offer you can't understand. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wal-Mart is evil, why it must be eradicated
Dan M wrote: > >> I'll add one thought that keeps coming to me. If free markets reliably >> regulate prices, how the heck did we have such a crazy spike in oil prices >> recently? >> > > It's rarely as simple as portrayed in economics 101, but this type of > problem has been long known. I think that I learned about it with hog > prices...the fact that there is a time constant between the price of hog > bellies and the ability to add new hog bellies to the market. This leads to > market volatility, since when prices are high, a lot of new little piglets > are raised, causing an excess in supply, lowering prices, causing few > piglets to be raised, causing a shortfall in supply, etc. > > Now, you might think that folks could see this and enough farmers would > counter-trend in order always make money, and thus smooth things out. > Indeed, the futures market was created to help with this, my father-in-law > regularly sold future harvests on the futures market to lock in prices and > to decrease fluctuation This is called the Cobweb Theorem, first articulated by Kaldor. But there is another issue here, less well understood, and that is the part about Economics 101. The book that led to modern economics, The Wealth of Nations, first laid out the idea of the invisible hand which supposedly proves that markets are always efficient at setting prices and maximizing output while minimizing prices. While this is a very useful, it critically depends on the conditions of perfect competition to be true. While this market form was fairly common in Adam Smith's day, it decidedly less common today (see Shepherd, 1984, for instance). When markets are dominated by large firms, many with significant market power, relying on Smith's results is essentially stupid. Sadly, all too many Economics 101 classes ignore that (or, which is only slightly better, give it passing mention in the context of an overall worship of markets.) In markets of this kind, you absolutely cannot assume that markets will either produce optimum levels of output or the best possible prices. When you are in a doctoral program in economics, one of the things you are drilled in is that the assumptions you make in developing your models are often the most significant factors in the results you make. That is why grad students and their profs all have large repertoire of jokes in which the punch-line involves an economist making an assumption (e.g. "Assume a can opener.") In the case of perfect competition, the assumptions include: 1. Numerous buyers and sellers 2. Homogeneous product 3. Perfect information in the market 4. No barriers to entry or exit For all of these reasons I am not one to subscribe to the quasi-religious faith that markets are always the optimum solution. But in the case of the gasoline market, there is in fact some fairly persuasive evidence that there is a pretty high degree of competition. It is the fact that prices do move around a lot, and in both directions. When firms have a large amount of market power, you definitely do not observe this kind of price movement. Firms with power set prices, and control those prices, so as to maximize their profits. You just don't see a lot of price movements. But with gasoline you see prices move on a frequent, even daily basis. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "People call me feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute." -- Rebecca West ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Health Care costs (was: the same topic all damn week)
John Williams wrote: > Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> As it is, it would seem from recent events, with private industry. >> > > When the government interferes, definitely. > Hmmm...Let's look at the record. In 1933 passim regulations were enacted to prevent the problems that started the Great Depression. These regulations prevented any serious problem from recurring for 50 years. Then in late 1970s the deregulation rage began, and the regulations that had kept banking safe for those 50 years were removed. It took a few years, but the first major banking problem, the S&L crisis, happened as a result. Not to be outdone, the Republicans decided to repeat the experiment with the repeal of the stock market regulations like Glass-Steagall. With a few years lag to let the good stuff happen, we then had the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression. It looks to me like a lack of government interference can cause serious damage to financial markets. But don't take my word for it. Consult Ayn Rand's chief disciple, Alan Greenspan, who recently admitted that his libertarian theories did not work out nearly as well in the real world as they had in his theories. A few centuries back, the state of the art in medicine thought that the way to cure people was to bleed them. Then a few people noticed that this didn't seem to actually, well, not to put too fine a point on it, cure many people. The response by the medical experts was that obviously those people had not been bled enough! There is something similar in the view that the problem in financial markets is that we didn't remove *enough* of the regulations. The only saving grace is that the people who promote this view tend to be equally mistaken in their political strategies. I note that the far right of the Republican party is now promoting the idea that McCain is losing because he is not conservative enough, and that if the Republicans would just be more ideologically rigid they would triumph again! I encourage this thinking in Republicans since nothing would more ensure their complete marginalization in the political life of this country. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "I think it's about time we voted for senators with breasts. After all, we've been voting for boobs long enough." -- Claire Sargent ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Single payer health care
Andrew Crystall wrote: > And with something like a single payer system, the track record isn't > good. Again.. *points to Holland's system* > Which parts of the single payer system exhibit this bad track record you refer to? Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "In large states public education will always be mediocre, for the same reason that in large kitchens the cooking is bad." -- Nietzsche ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
Jon Louis Mann wrote: >> To bring a new drug to market, with all of >> the drugs that fail at some point during >> the development and testing process, often >> costs the company on theorder of $1 billion >> before they sell one pill or treatment, >> much less making a profit. >> Do you have any suggestions how to reduce the >> cost for the "enormous profits" you mention >> without impacting R&D for new medicines? >> . . . ronn! :) >> > > > > i'm not aware that it costs that much, and if it does, that is way too much. > maybe theses pharms should just do their R&D on drugs like viagra and let the > government subsidize better research on life saving drugs without ill side > effects (instead of financing unnecessary wars)... > I don't know why it is too much. Ever hear of Thalidomide? The charge given to the FDA is to ensure both the safety and the efficacy of drugs, and that sort of thing costs money. There is an argument that the drug companies cannot be trusted to test their own products, but even if you moved all testing to the government, it would still cost a lot of money. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly." -- G.K. Chesterton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
John Williams wrote: > Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >> what we need is a single payer health system, so people can afford heath >> care >> and medications... >> > > And so that the quality goes down and no good new drugs and procedures > are developed. > Unlike our present system, of course. I was just listening to Science Friday discuss the problem that the new infection-fighting drugs we need are not in the pipeline because the for-profit drug companies can't make as much money from them as they can with Viagra, etc. Any starting point for a discussion of health care must of necessity begin with the realization that health care is always, everywhere, and unavoidably *rationed*. There is simply no way to give everyone all of the health care they might want. So the real argument becomes one of how best to do the rationing. Every scheme will create a different pattern of winners and losers, and all of them will do some things better and some things worse. To the best of my knowledge, every system I know about (and I am not an expert on health care) is a mix of public and private providers. The U.S. system is on the side of the distribution that is more private than public, and does some things quite well, and other things quite poorly. There is a reason why on overall measures of health the U.S. ranking has been falling for decades now. We do heroic interventions for a favored few very well, but the simple things that help large numbers of people are where we tend to do poorly. Which may be one of the reasons that increasing numbers of Americans want a change. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers." - Thomas Jefferson ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
John Williams wrote: > I'm not following your thought here. Government spending uses > taxpayer dollars. That is why government spending should be kept to the > bare minimum. Alas, few candidates campaign on such a platform. Easier > to get elected if you promise special interests a bunch of disguised > spending, and don't point out where the money comes from. > The conclusion does not follow from the premise. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do." -- Bertrand Russell ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: death and taxes...
Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > Okay. Disregard the flawed analogy, then, since all analogies are > flawed to one extent or another. Government living beyond its means > has worked so well, might living within its means perhaps be worth > trying? If not, why not? (Serious questions.) > And a serious question deserves a serious answer. I will do my best. Treated in isolation, the question of the balance of spending and revenues is not particularly relevant. For instance, I have a mortgage and a car loan. I think that makes me fairly common, from what I can tell, but does it indicate that I am living beyond my means? In one sense, clearly yes, since I did not save up and pay cash for those things. But neither I nor the bank thought that was irresponsible. Do you? I think most people would evaluate that type of borrowing based on my ability to repay the loan. My car loan has a little over a year to run, my mortgage more like 20 years, but my prospects for repaying both loans in full and having a useful asset are quite good. When I was a professor of economics, I would often find that my students had taken out loans to get their college degree. Such loans were not usually regarded as profligate or irresponsible. In some cases they might have been if analyzed carefully, but in any event the analysis would have centered on the present value of future incremental income earned by having the degree, in comparison to the debt. It requires a little care to do the calculation, but it is not rocket science. If you find that the degree costs you $30,000 in debt, and only adds $1000 per year to your income, it is not a good investment, but if it can $5,000 per year it is an excellent investment. Now to the issue of government spending and revenues. When the government spends more money than it takes in as revenue, it actually has two choices. One is to essentially print money, which increases the stock of money in the economy. This tends to sound to many people like a very bad thing, but even that is not cut-and-dried. The relationship between the growth rate of real GDP and the growth rate of the money stock shows up as price changes. To have price stability (generally a good idea in theory), you would need to have the money stock grow at the same rate as "output", i.e., real GDP. If the money stock grows more quickly, you will get inflation, if less quickly, deflation. Neither is good, and stability is in general the best way to go. So if you need to increase spending, and you cannot print enough money without causing inflation, the other alternative is to borrow the money. Governments do this by going to the capital market and selling bonds that pay interest. Now whether or not this is a good thing can get somewhat complicated. So let's just look at one factor to begin with, the one I have been leading up to. If a government borrows money, it will need to repay that money, with interest, at a future date. Will this be a problem? It would depend on how the money that was borrowed is put to use. If it is squandered on things that will not increase the future level of GDP, and hence the future level of government revenues, that might indeed be a problem for those who will need to repay the loans. They will in effect have an increased burden of debt without the increased level of income to pay it off comfortably. I think the vast majority of economists would agree that the deficits run up by Bush fall into this category. But in the situation we are in now, I think many economists would support borrowing to be used for productive purposes. The experience of the 1930s is still quite relevant. The U.S. economy remained mired in Depression as long as the government made balancing the budget the main objective (which was true mostly from 1929-1939). We didn't really begin economic recovery until the war spending kicked in, which was all deficit-financed. In other words, the main lesson of the last 8 years is not that unbalanced budgets are always wrong, but that putting Republicans in charge of the government is always bad for just about anything related to the economy. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "God made an idiot for practice. Then He made a school board." -- Mark Twain ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: death and taxes...
Jon Louis Mann wrote: > >> i prefer the government to spend my taxes on social >> >>> programs... >>> >> jon >> > > >> And you prefer even more to have the goverment spend OTHER >> people's money on social programs. But you don't >> want other >> people to spend YOUR money on their preferred applications. >> Robber baron, robber comrade, you fit right in! >> > > where do you fit in, john? maybe if you would reveal your tax bracket i > would understand how you prefer the government to spend your taxes? > jon > My favorite quote is from Nero Wolfe: "A man condemning the income tax because of the annoyance it gives him or the expense it puts him to is merely a dog baring its teeth, and he forfeits the privileges of civilized discourse." Among the things you need to be extremely careful about are: 1) unsupported assumptions; 2) inflammatory language; and 3) false analogy. I am seeing many of these being used in accordance with the principles developed by the Cult of Rand. Unsupported assumption: It's your money, and the government is stealing it from you. This is one of those things that never stands up to close investigation, unless you are willing to take it on faith as an axiom. Taking things on faith as axioms is of course the primary method of the Rand Cult. In this case, as a member of a society that does various things to allow people to make a living in relative security and safety, you have obligations to that society. The money you earn derives in part from the social structures that make that possible. If you ever doubt that, start suggesting that we get rid of the army, the police, the courts (and didn't we go through all this back in the days of Hobbs?), and watch how quickly the Libertarians will start talking about public goods. In practice, a public good is anything they find necessary, and wasteful spending is anything they don't find necessary. (As an aside, there is a technical definition in economics for what should be a public good, but this is rarely brought into the argument.) How government raises and spends money should be subject to intense debate, since there is a definite tendency for governments to spend more money than they should on things we probably don't need, but even there for every man's wasteful expenditure you have another man's vitally important program. But no matter how intensely you debate these things, to imply that government, by being government, is immoral, marks you as outside the realm of intelligent discourse. Inflammatory language: Taking your money by force Again, this is intended to give you the image of being mugged in a dark alley by scary robbers. By definition, everything the government does has the implied ability to punish you if you don't go along, but how would you enforce any law otherwise? Unless you are an anarchist and believe that everyone should have the right to decide for themselves which laws they feel like observing, you will have to have some type of law enforcement. Governments also punish you for driving while intoxicated, and are quite willing to use force to do it. And they are also quite willing to force you to support your children. In fact, most people would prefer that the government do a better job of enforcing those last two. False analogy: John used one earlier to imply that stiffing a waiter was a good analogy for Obama's economic policies. Mostly that was just a weird story that leaves you going "Huh?", but false analogy is used a lot. One of the best ones was popular some years back, before the Republican party descended into outright criminality. It goes like this: "The government is just like a family, it cannot live beyond its means." Many people who gave the outward appearance of intelligence bought into this one, but it fails at the outset. The government is not just like a family. In fact, one could search far and wide and have trouble finding two institutions more unlike than a government and a family. Apples and oranges are identical twins when placed next to governments and families. And yet many people focused on the second part of the statement, while ignoring the fact that the premise was stupendously wrong, so wrong that it should have invalidated anything that followed after it. Now that the American people have realized the right-wing is batshit crazy, you will hear a lot of bizarre stuff as they desperately try to stop their slide into total irrelevance. So pay attention. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "If you're going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
John Williams wrote: > Anecdote seen on the internet: > > Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read 'Vote > Obama, I need the money.' I laughed. Once in the restaurant my server had > on a 'Obama 08' tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political > preference -- just imagine the coincidence. When the bill came I decided not > to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama > redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told > him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in > need -- the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. I > went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server > inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was > grateful. At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I > realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the > waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn > even though the actual recipient needed money more. I guess redistribution > of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical > application. > In case you haven't noticed, John Galt is dead. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." --Claire Wolfe ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Racial and Gender imbalance
John Garcia wrote: > Yeah, that would get him or her points. And more if he/she also listened to > the Fania All Stars, Parliament/Funkadelic, James Brown, the list goes on. > I just rented a DVD of Celia Cruz and the Fania All-Stars from Netflix. Great stuff. And I love Eddie Palmieri. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "Military justice is to justice what military music is to music."-- Georges Clemenceau ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Latina Pols (Was Re: Racial and Gender bigotry)
Julia Thompson wrote: > OK, I'd love to hear from anyone who's been contributing to this thread: > > List *up to* three female Hispanic politicians, explaining to me why each > would make a good vice-presidential candidate. If you only pick one, > that's fine. Throwing URLs around right and left is providing > information, but it's providing me with too much at the moment, and if I > try to pursue it, I'm cluttering up an already-cluttered desktop. If you > get down to the specifics, that THIS female Hispanic would be a good pick > for VP, and give me a convincing argument, that will stick a lot better > with me in the long run than just the statement, "We should be considering > female Hispanics for these positions." > Janet Napolitano, Governor of Arizona, did receive a lot of attention as a potential VP candidate for Obama this time around. Here are a few things from her resume: 1. She was U.S. Attorney for the Arizona District 2. She was Attorney General for Arizona. 3. She is in her second term as Governor. 4. She was the first female Governor to win re-election. 5. She was chair of the National Governor's Association, and the first female to hold that postion. 6. In 2005, Time Magazine named her one of the five best governors in the country. So, I think she has executive experience, a detailed resume, and would probably be a good VP or President (and I am old-fashioned enough to think that if you would not be a good President you have no business being Vice-President). In fact, back in June and July she was my number one choice for the Democratic ticket. As Arizona has term limits that prevent her from running again for Governor, she is likely going to go for McCain's Senate seat in 2010. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about." -- John von Neumann ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Racial and Gender imbalance
John Garcia wrote: > As I have said before, my vote is given to the candidate who most closely > matches my values. Ethnic pride aside, I would not vote for a candidate > simply because she was a Latina, just as I would not vote for a candidate > because he or she is a US Navy veteran, Roman Catholic, attended Jesuit high > school, played stickball, grew up in Harlem or listens to Tito Puente. > But I'd give points for listening to Tito Puente, at least. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "There is much to be said in favor of modern journalism. By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community." - Oscar Wilde ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Future of the list / Questions?
Julia Thompson wrote:
> I'm getting new entries for one blog e-mailed to me. I usually click on
> the link to take me to the blog site because it's prettier than the
> e-mail, and if anyone's left a comment, that's how I'll see it, but if I
> didn't care about the aesthetics or comments, I could just read the
> e-mails and leave it at that.
>
> (The folks running that particular blog did *not* want an LJ syndication
> set up for it, and once I looked at the website and found out I could get
> new entries e-mailed to me, I signed up for that, so I'm still in my "only
> one site to check for everything not in e-mail" state.)
>
I've been through this a few times, and my experience is that moving to
a web-type forum generally means the end of the community. Sometimes I
think that is the intention ("I'm getting too much e-mail, how can we
cut it down?").
I have a quote in my sig file that goes "A university is what a college
becomes when it stops caring about its students." I think a corollary
should be that a web forum is what a discussion list becomes when people
stop caring about the conversation.
Regards,
--
Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216
Paid for by the Tirebiter for Political Solutions Committee, Sector R.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: High school student faces felony charges for writing a story about zombies
Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > <http://groxx.com/ZeroTolerance/High_school_student_faces_felony_charges_for_writing_a_story_about_zombies-1/> > Will civilization ever return to the United States? Some days I have my doubts. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." -- Winston Churchill ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: monotonous posting
Julia Thompson wrote: > That's just me. And, well, I have an underdeveloped sense of tact; at > least 2/3 of whatever might be perceived as "tact" in me is actually my > keeping my mouth shut when in doubt. (If you do that in person, but stay > attentive to the conversation, you may end up with a reputation as a good > listener, and people tend to like you more. That's about the only theory > I have to explain why I am as popular as I am at this point IRL.) > I've always loved the quote from Abraham Lincoln: Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "There is no "royal road" to geometry." -- Euclid -- Said to king Ptolemy I ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Off-topic., monotonous posting (was Child-killing religion)
Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > At 09:18 PM Tuesday 10/14/2008, Kevin B. O'Brien wrote: > > > >> At this point I cannot rule out some stupid technical problem, like a >> message that got caught in a queue somewhere and just now shook loose. >> It *does* happen sometimes. >> > > > > I wondered if that was what happened. > > > > History Repeats Itself Maru > To me it is a variation on the old "Don't assume malice when stupidity is sufficient" principle. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "Wagner's music is better than it sounds." -- Mark Twain ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Off-topic., monotonous posting (was Child-killing religion)
Dan M wrote: > Nick Wrote > >> Non sequitur? >> > > I bet Willie will insist that it was a sequitur. > > Dan M. > At this point I cannot rule out some stupid technical problem, like a message that got caught in a queue somewhere and just now shook loose. It *does* happen sometimes. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "The common argument that crime is caused by poverty is a kind of slander on the poor." - H.L. Mencken ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
More on the meltdown
If you haven't seen this one yet, here is a report from Elizabeth Warren: At a Harvard panel discussion <http://video2.harvard.edu:8080/ramgen/AAD-PAN/FinMktsPanel.rm> yesterday, economics professor Ken Rogoff <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Rogoff> made an interesting point: The liquidity crisis isn't real. Or, to restate it: Any liquidity crisis is caused by the promise of a government bailout. Ken said that his many friends in investment banking said that there is plenty of money to invest in financial services, but right now it is "sitting on the sidelines." Why? Because the financial services industry does not want to pay the terms demanded. As he put it, why do business with Warren Buffett who will negotiate a tough deal, if you believe that the government will ride in soon with cheaper cash? Ken also talked about the need to shrink the financial services sector. He thinks it is good that the investment banking houses are failing and many people on Wall Street are losing their jobs because, in his view, we have an oversupply in that sector and our economy just can't support it. Ken's background with the IMF and on the Board of the Federal Reserve add a certain credibility to his assessment of conditions on Wall Street. If he is right, the $700 bailout is saving some investment bankers' jobs in the short term, but overall it is making the financial system worse. It was a terrific panel: Nobel winner Robert Merton <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_C._Merton>, Dean of the Harvard Business School Jay Light <http://drfd.hbs.edu/fit/public/facultyInfo.do?facInfo=bio&facEmId=jlight>, Harvard economist and Chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisers-2003-05 Greg Mankiw <http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/mankiw>, Harvard Business School Prof and long-time Goldman Sachs partner Robert Kaplan <http://drfd.hbs.edu/fit/public/facultyInfo.do?facInfo=bio&facEmId=rokaplan&loc=extn>, and me. It might be worth listening to the webcast. If you tune in, don't miss Ken's talk (he is fifth of the six of us). He is calm and funny, but there is no too-big-to-fail talk. Instead, he makes the whole rush-to-bailout look like a very bad idea. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "It does not matter how slowly you go so long as you do not stop." -- Confucius ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Do low-probability catastrophic risks justify the bailout?
Dan M wrote: > For example, do you really think the odds of GE defaulting on 1 day paper is > significantly higher than it was 2 weeks ago? > You persist in thinking that this one factor should determine the price of money in the market. But in all markets the price is determined by the balance of supply and demand. If the credit-worthiness of G.E. remained exactly the same, but market conditions changed, the price that G.E. gets charged will change as well. This is no different from what you or I would encounter if we apply for a mortgage. My credit-worthiness might be exactly the same as it was last month, but if the market rate has risen, I will pay more for my mortgage. That is why many people decide whether or not to buy a house at any given time. Now, that presumes some degree of competitiveness in this market. One could argue that this is not a competitive market, and that therefore the price is not a good indicator of fundamentals, but in that case there is no longer any reason to even think about this kind of policy to begin with. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 How far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without? - Dwight D. Eisenhower ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
John Garcia wrote: > On a different tack, some of us who are of a particular age, will remember > another controversial President associated > with an unpopular war, floundering economy, etc. So, what do you all think? > Nixon vs Bush (the son). Which was worse I'll say Bush is worse since he is completely incompetent. But I can understand the view that incompetent evil is better. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "Waldheimer's Disease? You grow old and forget you were a Nazi." -- Jon Marans ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
John Williams wrote: > William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> They'd still be better than what we have. >> > > I'd like more politicians like Mike Pence: > > "I must tell you, there are those in the public debate who have said > that we must act now. The last time I heard that, I was on a used-car > lot," said Rep. Mike Pence, R-Indiana. "The truth is, every time > somebody tells you that you've got to do the deal right now, it usually > means they're going to get the better part of the deal." > One of the rules that has served me well in life is that when someone says you have to act now on a deal, it is time to walk away and keep your hand on your wallet. It has never let me down. When you learn that this plan is something they have been working on for months now, you know they were just waiting for an opportunity to spring this on people and ram it through before anyone could read the fine print. If you want to see how this process works in great detail read the book of the year, "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "Wagner's music is better than it sounds." -- Mark Twain ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Some random thoughts on Wall St. and the meltdown
1. Something definitely happened, but I doubt anyone knows exactly what, as yet. 2. It is almost certainly not as dire as Paulson and Bernanke are trying to make it sound. The world won't come to an end if we take the time to think things through. 3. Anyone who trusts what this administration says about this, or about any issue facing this country, is probably clinically insane. 4. Financial markets are not like other markets. Don't apply nostrums that seem to work in the corn flakes market and think they will work the same in a financial market. 5. People who have never read Adam Smith are probably not qualified to discuss what he said. And almost nobody has ever read Adam Smith. Even most economists have never gotten around to it. 6. Most people who have never studied physics would be unlikely to pontificate on the subject. Most people who have never studied economics not only will pontificate on the subject, but will explain to you in terms that suggest you are an idiot, why they are right and you are wrong. That they are unqualified will never occur to them. 7. Financial crises occur with a certain rhythm. This revolves around the time it takes for people to forget the lessons of the last crisis and develop the conceit that they are smarter than their forebears. John Kenneth Galbraith, who wrote a classic work on the 1929 crash, lays this out very clearly. Beginning in the late-1970s we have systematically eliminated all the constraints put in place in the 1930s to prevent another Great Depression from occurring. Each major deregulation was followed by a systemic crisis. The Depository Institution Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980, and Garn-St. Germain in 1982 led inevitably to the S&L crisis (McCain and the Bushes were part of that one too!). Gramm-Leach-Bliley (1999) led to this one. The long gap without major crises between the Great Depression and the S&L crisis is explained by the fact that the Great Depression was so severe that it was difficult to get politicians to forget the lessons learned and open the door to new abuses until a lot of time had gone by. Then the S&L problem occurred, but in the final analysis was not severe enough to restrain people for very long. What you should look for in this crisis is whether anyone draws the lesson that laws like Glass-Steagal worked very well for a long time, and should probably be re-instituted. I doubt that will happen, because the Republican Party has become our native criminal class, and the Democratic Party are such pussies that they haven't yet even mentioned the Keating Five. So you should prepare for a fix that papers things over for perhaps 5-7 years, followed by something even worse. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "God made an idiot for practice. Then He made a school board." -- Mark Twain ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Meltdown
Dan M wrote: > "Oh, the irrationality." Why would people be reluctant to by one day notes > from GE. Does any sane person think GE will go belly up _tomorrow?_ That's > what the interest rate measures...the willingness of folks to buy GE notes. > All of a sudden, buyers dried up. That's a measure of the panic. A rational > market wouldn't change GE's interest rate that quickly because companies > with idiots as managers (e.g. AIG) went belly up and had to sell most of > their equity to the government at a discount or go bankrupt. > I'm going to have to disagree with you here, to some degree. Your premise is not as true as you might like. The interest rate may have a long-run *tendency* to approximate the credit-worthiness of a borrower, but in the short-run it is simply the price that clears the market for loanable funds. If there is a sudden sharp reduction in supply, as happened here, it will result in a sharp increase in the interest rate. Now, you might say that the sharp reduction in supply is irrational, but I don't think that is the case. As you initially postulated, the interest rate for any particular loan is a function of the risk of that loan, and we have had a revelation in recent days that evaluation and pricing of risk was seriously wrong throughout much of Wall St. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as she is--absurd." --Richard Feynman ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Meltdown
Dan M wrote: > The problem was that no-one (including the board of directors of AIG knew > that AIG was insolvent until the day the government intervened. Bubbles and > panics are part of the nature of the market. You can repeat your mantra of > free markets are perfect until you are blue in the face, but AIG was the > biggest insurance company in the world and no one had any idea of their > problems There is a management consultant named Bob Lewis who puts out a weekly newsletter I get that illustrated the problem very neatly. Set up a spreadsheet so that cell A1 has the formula "=B1 +1". Then go to cell B1 and enter the formula "=A1+1". Now, most decent spreadsheet programs will not let you get away with this circular reference, but an unregulated market can. Essentially, it all came down to a shell game where everyone was insuring each others risks, and then convincing themselves that they had laid off the risk this way. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "Good teaching is one-fourth preparation and three-fourths theater." -- Gail Godwin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welfare fraud
John Garcia wrote: > On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 10:21 PM, Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > >>>>> You gotta be f**king kidding me! >>>>> >>> What are you doing? >>> >>>>> Channeling Reagan? >>>>> john >>>>> >>>> just being sardonic, john. when faced with a choice >>>> >>> between working at >>> >>>> mcdonald's and collecting welfare, one way out for >>>> >>> many women who don't have >>> >>>> the incentive or aptitude to earn a living wage, is to >>>> >>> have one kid after >>> >>>> another, so they can stay on welfare. that's how >>>> >>> the system works, and the >>> >>>> ones who scream the most about infanticide are the >>>> >>> very ones who complain >>> >>>> about welfare... >>>> jon >>>> >>> Sounds like Ronnie's "Welfare Queen" bs. >>> john >>> >> it certainly does, especially coming from a socialist. i am not being >> politically correct, john, but the problem, is the system does not work, not >> because of fraud, but because most of the revenues for entitlements are >> absorbed by the bureacracy. i hold the democrats accountable for that. it >> is also true that a few people receiving entitlements ARE working the >> system. to deny that fact is fueling republican discontent, and giving them >> ammunition to scrap the system altogether. >> jon >> >> >> >> _______ >> http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l >> >> > > there could be zero (0) fraud cases and Republicans would still be against > any form of personal welfare (they are divided on corporate welfare) because > personal welfare is against their political philosophy. > Unless, of course, you are talking about farmers, who as a class are the largest personal welfare recipients in the entire world. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "The greatest shortcoming of the human race is the inability to understand the exponential function." - Albert A. Bartlett ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Dan M wrote: > >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Richard Baker >> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 5:25 PM >> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion >> Subject: Re: Science and Ideals. >> >> Dan M said: >> >> >>> Historically, empires can last a long time. The eastern part of the >>> Roman >>> Empire, which was split by Constantine in the 300s, lasted roughly >>> 1500 >>> years, and was defeated by another empire. IIRC, the Chinese empire >>> lasted >>> about the same length until it was overtook by the Ghengas >>> Kahn...who's rule >>> ended up merging into that empire. >>> >> It may be an aside, but both of those statements are misleading. >> > > I stand corrected by your detailed knowledge of that history, Richard. I > will accept that my quick recollection of history was all too facile, and I > honestly appreciate your history lesson. I'm snipping it, because I do > think it is an aside to the main thrust of my argument. But, if you find > historical errors in what I am about to say, do not hesitate to shout out. > > Empires can last a long time. They do reformulate, different dynasties do > exist. But, I think it is fair to say that regimes that do not place a great > deal of value on individual human rights can last centuries, and when they > are replaced it is often/usually not be a group that emphasized human > rights. > I would add a speculation that in this matter we might see the same acceleration that we have seen in so many other spheres of the modern world. We may well be in an era where 100 years would now be an upper limit for empire. The British empire made it around 200 years, but the American version looks like less than 100 years. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "There are no significant bugs in our released software that any significant number of users want fixed." Bill Gates, 1995 interview, Focus Magazine (Germany) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Richard Baker wrote: > The second major collapse occurred with the defeat > of Romanus Diogenes by the Seljuk Turkish > sultan Alp Arslan at Manzikert in 1054. (The Seljuk sultanate was a > successor to the Arab Caliphates that had inflicted the earlier > defeats on the Byzantines.) > Minor nit. The battle of Manzikert was in 1071. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "I have not failed. I have discovered 1,000 things that do not work." -- Thomas Edison ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment...
John Williams wrote: > Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> it will become much, much worse in this century. some >> estimates are that we will reach critical mass in four more years, and then >> the >> problem will correct itself... >> > > I think those estimates may be a bit off. My estimate is 5 years. > > > Oh, wait, I just checked my work, and I seem to have dropped a couple zeros. > That > should be 500 years. Sorry. > Well, that certainly explains a lot. Where did you find the evidence for this opinion? Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it." -- Churchill ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welcome to Hyperinflation!
John Williams wrote: > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> It is clear that climate change is not something >> the market can handle in any effective manner. Only government action has >> any >> possibility of tackling this problem. >> > > I do not have blind faith in government to solve difficult problems. The only > way > that I have seen that consistently solves difficult problems is trial and > error. But > government does not do trial and error efficiently. Typically, there are very > few > ideas, sometimes only one, and the failures are not abandoned, but > instead suck down resources indefinitely. Far better to let prices and market > forces evolve efficient solutions. If "climate change" is a high-priority > problem > that is not adequately touched by market forces, then perhaps there is a > small role > that government can play, but never in specific policy. The government role > should be limited to addressing market failures, such as when carbon-emitters > do not pay for costs to the environment that everyone experiences. For > example, > a carbon-tax. > If the problem were not urgent, if we had the luxury of reducing CO2 emissions by 30% over the next hundred years, I would probably agree with you. Tweaking market incentives would probably be a very good way to address that sort of problem. But when you are confronted with an urgent life-or-death problem, the primary problem is not one of efficiency. For example, when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, we did not worry about the most efficient, market-based way of letting the private sector respond. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "The average Ph.D. thesis is nothing but a transference of bones from one graveyard to another." -- J. Frank Dobie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Teaching multiple models of science
William T Goodall wrote: > On 31 Aug 2008, at 19:13, Kevin B. O'Brien wrote: > > >> In a class that is about how science develops, that could well make >> sense. I taught a class some years ago on History of Science, and that >> is something I tried to bring into it. But I would (and did) insist >> that >> we look at this process in terms of how science makes these judgments, >> and that is by making falsifiable hypotheses and testable predictions, >> and then doing the test. If we don't do that, I don't think we are >> doing >> science. >> > > If schools are to teach history of science as well as science then > some other less useful subject has to be cancelled. I vote for PE/ > Gym :-) > I should perhaps clarify that at the time I was a college professor. And given the epidemic of obesity in this country I would never advocate less physical activity for kids. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "You can't expect a boy to be depraved until he has been to a good school." -- Saki ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Teaching multiple models of science
Dan M wrote: > >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Kevin B. O'Brien >> Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 9:57 PM >> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion >> Subject: Re: Teaching multiple models of science >> >> The problem with teaching creationism in a science class is that it does >> not meet the minimum standard for scientific theory. A scientific theory >> needs to make testable, falsifiable claims, >> > > OK, no problem there > > > >> and has to pass when the test is done. >> > > I wouldn't put it that way, because there are a wealth of possible future > tests. And theories that have been falsified are still taught in science > class...in fact most physics that is being taught has been falsifiedbut > survives as special cases of the new theory. > But in that case we don't present it as true, exactly. For example, Newton's Laws of Motion are now presented as acceptable approximations. Nothing wrong with that, it is easier to do the calculations that way than to use General Relativity to calculate orbits, for instance. And it is quite reasonable to think that at some future point General Relativity will be viewed as a flawed but useful approximation to whatever theory produces better results in whatever odd corner-case comes up that Relativity cannot handle. But when that happens, it will be because the two theories made predictions in that odd corner case, and one of them matched experimental results/observations, and the other did not. >> That is absolutely fundamental, and I have never seen >> anything like that come from a creationist. They cannot distinguish >> between a theory and an hypothesis (what they call a theory is in fact >> an hypothesis), so I doubt they will ever get there. >> > > In a sense I have, in the sense that I've seen theories that are falsified > scientific theories. Scientific theories are models of observation. A few > work, most don't. In the process of teaching that, one could bring up > astrology, creationism, etc. as well as physics and biology and ask which > ones are valid scientific theories. That was my pointit's good to have > both valid and invalid scientific theories considered when teaching a course > on science, because having both allows the student to see what the criterion > is for a valid scientific theory. "Which of these things is not like the > others?" works. :-) > In a class that is about how science develops, that could well make sense. I taught a class some years ago on History of Science, and that is something I tried to bring into it. But I would (and did) insist that we look at this process in terms of how science makes these judgments, and that is by making falsifiable hypotheses and testable predictions, and then doing the test. If we don't do that, I don't think we are doing science. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "There are some experiences in life which should not be demanded twice from any man, and one of them is listening to the Brahms Requiem." -- George Bernard Shaw ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Teaching multiple models of science
Dan M wrote: >> Not in school, and not in science class. In comparative religion, >> maybe, but it's hard enough to teach good science without adding a >> load of creation myths to the course. And that's the issue - "Both >> sides"? No - because if they allow "both sides" they have to allow ALL >> sides. That means Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Aboriginal... If you really >> wanted to cover what EVERY religion says about creation, there >> wouldn't be time for any science at all. >> > > I'm not sure if teaching "both sides" cannot be done in a course that > teaches science. It requires, though, a course on science itself, not on > any particular science. > > But, that's not a bad thing. In the US, we have bio, chem, physics, and > general science or earth science as the options for 4 years of science. A > one year course on how science works, drawing from simple examples in > biology, physics, cosmology, etc...including discussions of how theories are > actually developed, changed, etc. would be worthwhile. > The problem with teaching creationism in a science class is that it does not meet the minimum standard for scientific theory. A scientific theory needs to make testable, falsifiable claims, and has to pass when the test is done. That is absolutely fundamental, and I have never seen anything like that come from a creationist. They cannot distinguish between a theory and an hypothesis (what they call a theory is in fact an hypothesis), so I doubt they will ever get there. BTW, anyone remember the classic Franken and Davis skit from SNL about this? Al Franken plays a "Pat Robertson" type and Davis plays a Native American shaman-type. They start off in agreement about the importance of religion, and how awful those secular types are, and then get into a huge disagreement about which one is the deluded one and which has the true religion. BTW, Dan, you were at the convention as I recall. Any good stories? Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking. . . is freedom. - Dwight D. Eisenhower ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: World Trade
Dan M wrote: > One of the main causes of starvation is that people with guns stop NGOs from > distributing food at gunpoint. Some allow it through, after substantial > bribes are paid, some don't. My daughter has worked in this area for about > 4-5 years now, and has some strong opinions. I'm going to disagree a little bit here. While food aid can have some immediate positive benefits compared to doing nothing, it can also create a long-term problem for the recipient countries. Food aid as it is currently structured is primarily a way of benefiting farmers in the donor countries. Governments buy up food, putting money in the pockets of farmers, and then dump it in a foreign country where it can have no impact on prices in the donor country (in fact, the government purchases in themselves raise prices in donor countries). The impact in the recipient countries is to knock the bottom out of the market and drive local farmers out of business. That creates a perpetual cycle of starvation and dependency, and is one reason why the same places have to keep coming back for more aid year after year. If our true objective was to help starving countries to achieve food self-sufficiency (and I am pretty sure that is *not* the main objective of our politicians), that can be done fairly simply by sending them money. With money, they can purchase food. This in turn raises food prices, and creates incentives for local farmers to produce for the market since they have ready buyers. And then you could reduce the tariff barriers you mentioned earlier, which would also have a strong positive impact on those economies. I doubt that reducing the tariff barriers before you have a strong local economy will do that much to end dependency in those countries. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues." -- Elizabeth Taylor ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Off-topic., monotonous posting (was Child-killing religion)
William T Goodall wrote: > On 20 Aug 2008, at 16:13, Olin Elliott wrote: > > >> By that description, 99% of the postings are off topic. >> >> > > > And I'm not even the most frequent poster! > You are, however, the most monotonous and boring. -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "Language is a virus from outer space." -- William S. Burroughs ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Off-topic., monotonous posting (was Child-killing religion)
Nick Arnett wrote: > Your anti-religious postings are trivial. That's the problem. Science > versus religion is a perfectly reasonable topic here. That's not what > you're offering us. > I think I am seeing both sides to some degree. I have unsubbed from other lists because of people who couldn't stop beating a dead horse, and I can see that it might have that effect on some folks here. But I also tend to think that unless there is a wide-spread reaction I would leave the other guy alone. As a middle ground (perhaps) folks can always use a bozo-filter to get rid of his posts. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "Democracy means government by the uneducated, while aristocracy means government by the badly educated." -- G.K. Chesterton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: World Trade
Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > At 10:58 PM Wednesday 7/30/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: > >> yet, many countries still allow forced child labor and other forms >> of economic slavery, so americans can shop at walmart. you can't >> tell me there is nothing wrong with an economic system that >> justifies this sort of neo-colonialism in the name of offering as >> little money as the market will bear for human labor or raw >> materials, because people can either take it or starve? what kind >> of choice is that? >> jon >> > > > > One obvious-seeming answer is to start by getting rid of the > dishonest politicians, but then some people would complain about > "invasions" and "nation-building" again . . . > I'm not morally opposed to that, but invading all of them is well beyond our resources, as Iraq has clearly shown. So then the question comes up how you would decide to invade and over-throw those dishonest politicians. I think Colin Powell's "Pottery Barn rule" applies: If you break it, you own it. So, how many coutnries do you think we should break and own, Ronn? Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "Whenever you hear a man speak of his love for his country, it is a sign that he expects to be paid for it." - H.L. Mencken ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Conspiracy theories
Dan M wrote: > So, as much as I consider GWB a bumbling idiot, I don't think that every > mess is his fault. > Theoretically I agree, but it is hard to think of any mess that he *hasn't* had his fingers in during the last 7.5 years. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 He knows nothing, and thinks he knows everything. That points clearly to a political career. -- George Bernard Shaw ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
Alberto Monteiro wrote: > Kevin B. O'Brien wrote: > >>> Rising energy costs will probably cause a few problems, but >>> I don't see how Bush or Cheney for all their failings can >>> be blamed for that particular problem. >>> >> I'm thinking that causing massive instability in the major oil >> producing region might have something to do with it. When you add in >> determined opposition to any form of conservation, I think most of >> it is covered. >> >> > Removing one megalomaniac old dictator and his two psychopath heirs > is _causing_ massive instability? I think it's the other way: it's > _preventing_ massive instability. > There is a certain stability in the grave, to be sure. But I don't think that is what most people want. > And what are those two idiots doing, that the oil price fell down > so much in the past weeks? They should strike Iran right now! > Those two idiots, with able assistance from Republicans in Congress, have managed to screw up the American economy so badly that demand is falling. That does have the effect of putting downward pressure on gas prices, which should be received with great joy by all the Americans who lost their jobs, their homes, ... Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "The penalty for laughing in a courtroom is six months in jail; if it were not for this penalty, the jury would never hear the evidence." - H.L. Mencken ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
Doug Pensinger wrote: > Kevin wrote: > > >> Wayne Eddy wrote: >> >>> Rising energy costs will probably cause a few problems, but I don't see >>> >> how >> >>> Bush or Cheney for all their failings can be blamed for that particular >>> >>> problem. >>> >> I'm thinking that causing massive instability in the major oil producing >> region might have something to do with it. When you add in determined >> opposition to any form of conservation, I think most of it is covered. >> >> Let's not forget a total lack of vision when it comes to energy policy. >> > > Doug Agreed. And after I posted it I thought more carefully about it, and decided that I really had to add disastrous fiscal policy leading to a plummeting dollar. That not only has driven up oil prices (in dollar terms), but has led OPEC countries to start the move away from selling in dollars to other currencies, like the Euro. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion. - Dwight D. Eisenhower ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Genesis
Wayne Eddy wrote: > Rising energy costs will probably cause a few problems, but I don't see how > Bush or Cheney for all their failings can be blamed for that particular > > problem. I'm thinking that causing massive instability in the major oil producing region might have something to do with it. When you add in determined opposition to any form of conservation, I think most of it is covered. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "Men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all the other alternatives." -- Abba Eban ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Dollar a gallon gasoline
Curtis Burisch wrote: > 2. Fusion (read up on IEC fusion; there are also another two very promising > new fusion technologies. One or all of these will definitely work. Maybe > more likely 15 years, not 5.) > I'm a little skeptical on this. There have been so many rosy forecasts over the years for fusion, and they never seem to pan out. "Fusion is 30 years away, and always will be." Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "Lawyers are the only persons in whom ignorance of the law is not punished." -- Jeremy Bentham ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Chicken and Egg
Bruce Bostwick wrote: > I've seen firsthand the kind of damage a Ph.D. can do if there are no > constraining factors. Condensed version of the story: Geophysics > professors should not attempt carpentry, especially if their idea of > how to cut a 4x4 is with a circulal saw, and even more so if they > don't see anything wrong with using a plywood blade to do it. A dull > one, no less. And if they do it surrounded by their own students, who > are acutely aware of how thoroughly the Prof is embarrassing himself > but dare not speak up to point this out .. well, it's a sight to behold. > > (I came within a few red hairs of going to my own car, grabbing the > circular saw with the carbide crosscut blade on it, and finishing his > 20-minute odyssey of noise and smoke with a half-second zip through > the offending board. Self-educated gentleman-amateurs with a modest > amount of engineering knowledge *do* tend to make decent carpenters. > Especially if they grew up around fathers whose lifetime hobby was > carpentry. There's at least one garage I helped frame that is well on > track to outlasting the house it was built for.) > > On Jul 17, 2008, at 5:48 PM, Kevin B. O'Brien wrote: > > >> Some of the dumbest people I ever met had PhDs and were teaching. >> >> Regards, >> That is a case of something outside of their presumed knowledge. But I recall the Physics professor who seriously argued in a faculty meeting that we should submit grades carried out to 4 decimal places since the software used to record grades and compute GPA would carry its results to 4 decimal places. I don't see how you can be a professor in *any* science and not understand the idea of limits to measurement accuracy. BTW, I was a professor of Economics at the time. I know some people like to claim that social scientists are "soft" and incapable of real science, but I instantly saw why his proposal was ridiculous. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Chicken and Egg
John Garcia wrote: > On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Lance A. Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >> Charlie Bell said the following on 7/17/2008 3:32 AM: >> >>> Welcome to my world. IT Support at a law firm at the mo... *banging >>> head on desk* I love my job, I love my workplace, but bloody hell it >>> can be frustrating at times! >>> >> I feel your pain, brother. :-) I'm the sole in-department sysadmin for >> the Dept. of Statistical Science at Duke University. I have a flat spot >> on my forehead just like yours. >> >> --[Lance] >> -- >> GPG Fingerprint: 409B A409 A38D 92BF 15D9 6EEE 9A82 F2AC 69AC 07B9 >> CACert.org Assurer >> ___ >> http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l >> >> > > I've worked in IT in the private, public and educational sectors and I was > never more frustrated than when I worked at a university. > Some of the dumbest people I ever met had PhDs and were teaching. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "I was never ruined but twice: Once when I lost a lawsuit, and once when I won one." -- Voltaire ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Chicken and Egg
Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > At 06:35 PM Tuesday 7/15/2008, Lance A. Brown wrote: > >> Ronn! Blankenship said the following on 7/15/2008 7:24 PM: >> >> >>> Now how about an actually helpful response for those who do not have >>> access to another computer at home? >>> >> Well, how about this: >> >> Before plugging your new computer into a network connection: >> >> 1. Go to Office Depot, Staples, etc. and buy a copy of your favorite >> Anti-Virus/anti-spam/anti-malware program and install it. Make sure it >> is running. >> 2. If your favorite package doesn't include a firewall, make sure the >> Windows Firewall is activated. >> 3. Plug in the network connection and wait for the computer to get an >> address >> 4 Open Internet Explorer and go to http://update.microsoft.com/ and run >> the software updates. >> >> That should give you a decent chance to get updated before your machine >> is compromised. >> >> Your best bet is still to go out and buy a router or access point so you >> can just flat out avoid a lot of the scans. >> >> --[Lance] >> > > > > None of which means anything to the average non-technical person who > is buying a computer for his/her kids to use for school or a > grandmother finally buying a computer to view pictures of her > grandchildren who live out of state, who is not going to have access > to anywhere to read such information before they buy, much less the > knowledge or ability to do anything about it. What do you have for them? > > > . . . ronn! :) > It has been said several times so far, and it is the #1 best thing you can do: get a NAT router. They are cheap, and they will stop all of the "Internet Background Radiation", and give you enough time to download updates and install a security application. It is a box that goes between your computer and the Internet, and even Grandma can understand that. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 Si hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: USA Presidential Race
Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > At 09:04 AM Monday 6/9/2008, John Garcia wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Alberto Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >> >>> John Garcia wrote: >>> >>>> Now that it looks like it's McCain vs. Obama (listed in alphabetical >>>> order) I was wondering what you all think of this matchup. I'm especially >>>> interested in what >>>> our friends from outside of the USA think. >>>> >>>> >>> Here in Brazil it seems that McCain will easily win, and that Obama >>> is like a fringe candidate, just there to "prove" that Dems aren't >>> racist bigots (and Hillary was there just to "prove" the non-sexism). >>> >>> Alberto Monteiro >>> >>> ___ >>> http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l >>> >>> >> Hmmm. >> That's interesting. Last summer, someone asked me who I thought would be the >> next President and I replied >> "Some rich white guy". Now that I've heard Obama, I do think that he has a >> very good chance of being elected. >> Just how many voters will either vote for McCain or stay home is unknown. >> Not very many people are willing to give >> what may be seen as a "racist" answer to pollsters. >> > > > > Is the implication that voters must either vote for Obama or be > bigots, iow, the only reason anyone would not vote for Obama is > because he is black and they are racist? > > > . . . ronn! :) > I don't know exactly what John Garcia intended, but I took this to be a reference to the well known Bradley Effect (sometimes called the Wilder Effect) in which the polls project a higher vote for black candidates than what ultimately materializes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect I have trouble explaining this phenomenon without using racism, but others may be more ingenious than I. However, I think there is some evidence that it won't play such a big factor this year. At least in the primaries within the Democratic Party it looks to me like pre-election polls have been generally accurate within their margins of error. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." -- John Stuart Mill ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Peak Water
Anyone who was interested in our recent discussion about water resources may be interested in an article in Wired magazine. It is available online at http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-05/ff_peakwater. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." -- Eleanor Roosevelt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tornado!
William T Goodall wrote: > On 15 May 2008, at 15:56, Julia Thompson wrote: > > >> What's the best way to clean dirt off a flatscreen monitor? (Note >> that >> the monitor has its BACK to the wall that has the broken window) >> > > > Isopropyl alcohol and a microfibre cloth. > Note that you should only put a little of the isopropyl on the cloth and then clean the screen. *Never* put any liquid directly on the screen. You can ruin it that way. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "God made an idiot for practice. Then He made a school board." -- Mark Twain ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: quality of life...
Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > At 09:37 PM Tuesday 5/13/2008, jon louis mann wrote: > > >>we should be able to use technology >> to level living standards, and improve the quality of life, >> > > > > But as Keith said, the people at the "Club of Rome"/"Limits to > Growth" meeting didn't want to hear that. They specifically are > among the elites in the environmental movement about whom I have been > "ranting" since 1975 and even earlier . . . ;) > The Club of Rome was clearly wrong in a number of ways, but it may matter *how* they were wrong. As I posted earlier, they failed to consider some fairly well known economic principles about how markets respond to price changes. They did a simplistic straight-line projection of resource consumption in comparison to known deposits/reserves, and then concluded that these deposits/reserves would be gone within a relatively short time. This ignores several factors: 1) As supplies fall relative to demand, prices will rise. 2) As prices rise, consumers will find ways to economize so straight-line projections of demand cannot be accurate. 3) As prices rise, previously un-economic deposits/reserves become economic, thus increasing supply. 4) As prices rise, there is a strong incentive for increased exploration for new supplies. 5) As prices rise, there is an economic incentive to look for substitutes and for technical research in alternatives. All of these things did in fact happen in response to the oil price increases of the 1970s. Consumers did begin to demand more fuel efficient automobiles, appliances started to get energy usage labels, proven reserves of oil automatically increased as marginal deposits became profitable, new oil fields were found and developed, and alternative energy supplies received increased funding for research, and became cheaper to provide as a result. All of these things together resulted in a collapse of oil prices in the 1980s. This collapse is what caused the slow-down in research and funding for alternative energy sources; there was no longer a strong economic incentive to pursue this type of research. Of course, economic factors operate in reverse. As prices fell, people started buying gas-guzzlers again, and demand resumed going up. The SUVS were a result. Of course, that sets the stage for another round of prices increases, as we have seen. (Obviously, the war in Iraq and demand from industrializing countries are also important factors here.) In the latest reports I have seen, you can get a great deal on a used SUV; lots of people want to sell them, and there are few buyers. Now, do we conclude from this that there are *no* limits to growth? I think not. Just because the Club of Rome had a flawed analysis does not mean that there are no limits. What does the analysis look like if we say that resources will never completely run out, but will instead become progressively more expensive? Does paying $10/gallon for gas look a lot better than running out? How about $20/gallon? At what prices is gas effectively unobtainable to most people? Further, as I have argued, there is a growing crisis over water supplies. This is a renewable resource, of course. but there are serious issues about the rate of use relative to the rate of replenishment. >> instead of >> for spreading conspicuous consumption, waste and poillution to third >> and fourth world countries... >> > > > > I agree. I think there technological fixes are possible that can > bring "less developed" (which I think is the current PC term for what > used to be called "third world" and "fourth world") countries up to a > par with developed countries without the amount of pollution and > waste and such which accompanied the rise of the first people to get > to that level. No, I can't list them here now because I think many > of them need to be developed. I do think that like many other things > (frex the overworked examples of the Manhattan Project and putting a > man on the Moon) they are the kind of things which _can_ be developed > if we as humanity in general and the appropriate leaders (government, > business, religious and other charitable organizations, etc.) in > specific set the goal of raising everyone up to equality without > waste, including frex steps such as sharing new technology with > everyone rather than looking for the way to maximize profit from and > power over their customers. Obviously it will take a shift in the > mindset of many toward altruism rather than selfishness, but that > mindset shift is what we should be doing anyway as "members of a > civilization." > > > Idealistic List Conservative (And Yes Non-Evil Religion Contributes > To Making
Re: Economists
Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > ObMADMagazine: Was the subject line supposed to be "Ecch-onomists"? > > > At 01:28 PM Tuesday 5/13/2008, Kevin B. O'Brien wrote: > > >> But the most interesting critique I can recall was by Michael Porter, >> who wrote a pretty well-received book called "The Competitive Advantage >> of Nations". He simply pointed out that anyone who advocated reducing >> the standard of living of our citizens as a sound policy was not living >> in a reality-based community. >> > > > > How do the demands^H^H^H^H^H^H^H recommendations of the > environmentalists fare under that analysis? > Much better, if I can believe the polling data. I would again distinguish between short-run and long-run results. No one argues that addressing environmental concerns can be done without short-term costs. But if people believe that the long-run benefits are compelling, they seem willing to pay those costs. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "When I am right, I get angry. Churchill gets angry when he is wrong. We are angry at each other much of the time." -- Charles De Gaulle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ecconomists
difference between the U.S. and Japan was only one of several differences, and no one ever mentioned the other differences: Japanese companies had fewer executives, a flatter hierarchy, and paid their executives comparatively less than in the U.S. Moreover, the environment was different in other ways, such as different government policies (I'm sure we are all aware by now that the U.S. is the only developed economy to rely on private firms to provide health coverage). And in hindsight, the only major industry to be really threatened waas the Automobile industry, and I honestly cannot think of an industry that has been managed so reliably badly as the U.S. auto industry. Those guys could screw up a free lunch, as my father used to say. But the most interesting critique I can recall was by Michael Porter, who wrote a pretty well-received book called "The Competitive Advantage of Nations". He simply pointed out that anyone who advocated reducing the standard of living of our citizens as a sound policy was not living in a reality-based community. So the bottom line is that in a world where all markets are perfectly competitive, and no one has any market power, it is pretty easy to prove that unrestricted trade is going to be a good thing. But in the real world, where many markets are controlled by a handful of firms, it is not nearly as clear that this result holds, particularly when the firms themselves have often become trans-national and owe nothing to the country of thier origin. As to your second question, I admit this is an area where I have not kept up. I will observe that the time frame you posit coincides pretty neatly with a Republican administration, and one fact that is pretty firmly established by now is the economy nearly always does worse when the Republicans occupy the White House. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "Military justice is to justice what military music is to music."-- Georges Clemenceau ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Why is Big Oil is more influential in California than Texas
Dan M wrote: > So, my question is, given the fact that California is far more liberal >>> than >>> Texas, how did this happen? >>> >> Large swaths of California -- the Central Valley -- are quite >> conservative. >> > > That's true, and there are very liberal congressional districts in Texas. > But, I'd guess that many people who consider themselves environmentalists > would oppose the idea of windmills filling the ocean off the Bay area coast, > with only shipping channels interrupting the views of nothing but wind > turbines for as far as the eye could see. Don't cut my house value and NIMBY > seems to be strong motivations. > Remember that the Kennedy family led the charge to prevent wind power that would affect their views around Cape Cod. NIMBY trumps liberalism quite easily, and there is no necessary correlation between being liberal and doing the right thing. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "I fired MacArthur because he wouldn't respect the authority of the President. I didn't fire him because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was." -- Harry S. Truman ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Conservative members of Brin-L
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > avid Land wrote: > >> Some of the conservatives who once participated actively on this >> list`still pop up from time to time (consider this a shout-out to Gautam), >> but are mostly quiet these days because Barack Obama hasn't been >> elected`yet. >> > > This reminded me that I'm both an Obama delegate and, probably, the one who > has been the strongest advcocate of relatively conservative causues...well > conservative3 by Brin-L standards. :-) > You're a delegate? Sweet! I think the labels can be a bit misleading. There was a time in my life when I could vote for a Republican if s/he were the better candidate, but since the gang of crooks, liars, and religious bigots took over the Republican party I have had to give that up. I suspect some of my positions (particularly on fiscal prudence and paying for what you get) would be called conservative by some folks, and yet I have become very enthusiastic about Obama. The signs I have seen so far suggest to me that he is more of technocrat/wonk than an ideologue, and that may surprise some people once he is elected. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 A good politician, under democracy, is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar. -- H.L. Mencken ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: culling the species
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > All the doomsayers of the 70s predicted > prices for copper, iron ore, etc. would go through the roof. The main culprit here is the Club of Rome, which is famous for publishing "Limits to Growth" and "Mankind At The Turning Point". Hotelling's Rule (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotelling%27s_rule) would have been a clue to anyone who looked at it. For those who are not used to the arcane language of professional economics, let me give a simple explanation. If you own a non-renewable resource, such as a copper mine, you can dig the copper now, take the money, and invest it; or you can leave the copper in the ground until next year, and take advantage of a potential price increase to get for more for it when you dig it out. The equilibrium solution in a simple model is that the price of the resource (i.e. copper) should increase at a rate equal to the interest rate. As to why this happens, the short answer is that if it did not, people would change their behavior, and by so doing, they would make it come true after all. I can give a longer explanation, but most normal people seem to display eyes glazing over whenever an economist explains anything. Now, this result holds for a simple model, and the world is nothing like a simple model, but it illustrates some important principals nonetheless. As supplies decrease, we should expect prices to increase, and when prices increase behavior changes in response. For example, in the 1970s we had several oil price shocks that pushed prices what were then all-time highs. In the short-term, people got gouged, but in the longer term they changed their behavior, and as a result demand fell and prices by the late 1980s were near historical lows (at least recent history; I don't know what 19th c. prices were like.) The behavior chage can take a variety of forms, such as increased use of substitutes, conservation, increased search for new supplies, etc. So Dan is entirely correct to be skeptical about a claim that resource limitations are going to be a near-term problem. As he says, local disturbances would result (for some reason Detroit has never quite understood that oil prices might ever go up, so they are always caught out every time it happens), but it is not a global catastrophe in any reasonable sense of the term. Where I disagree with Dan is his implication that since one class of potential problems didn't materialize, no problems will ever materialize. Over-population is not the same sort of thing as resource usage (though it can contribute to it). I would not call it unprecedented, since it has happened locally, as has climate change. (Ever notice that the bread-basket of the Roman Empire is now a desert?), but the scale on which it is happening is truly new. I was just listening to Science Friday the other day, talking about the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Apparently, lakes were forming on the surface, and they were starting to investigate when the lakes started disappearing. And by disappearing, I mean in minutes. They told of one lake that was kilometers wide that disappeared in 90 minutes. They computed the rate of flow as 3x that of Niagara Falls. And now they only observe from a safe distance. Maybe it will all turn out to be just a minor localized disturbance, but a whole lot of climatologists seem to think it is pretty serious, so I am inclined to go that way. And there is always the Fermi paradox to keep in mind. Back in the 1960s some of us wondered if the reason there were no other advanced civilizations out there is that they blew themselves up with nuclear weapons or something like that. Now there is an alternative possibility, they they could not escape the Malthusian trap and destroyed themselves and their environment. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "In large states public education will always be mediocre, for the same reason that in large kitchens the cooking is bad." -- Nietzsche ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Global Warming
Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: > Kevin B. O'Brien blasphemed: > >>> Or does IAAMOAC mean that civilized behavior includes throwing >>> other people under the wheels in order to save themselves? >>> >> I don't recognize the acronym you used, >> >> > WHAT??? You herectic scum! > > Alberto Monteiro > > PS: "I am a member of a Civilization" - Brin's motto I thought his motto was CITOKATE? Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "I confess I enjoy democracy immensely. It is incomparably idiotic, and hence incomparably amusing." - H.L. Mencken ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: culling the species
Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > At 08:34 AM Tuesday 4/29/2008, Kevin B. O'Brien wrote: > > >> "Man is the best computer we can put aboard a spacecraft... and the only >> one that can be mass produced with unskilled labor." -- Wernher von Braun >> > > > I wonder if he said that before or after Asimov? > Got me with that one. I have no idea. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "It does not matter how slowly you go so long as you do not stop." -- Confucius ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Global Warming
Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > At 08:29 AM Tuesday 4/29/2008, Kevin B. O'Brien wrote: > >> I think that it is clear that nature will restore a balance if >> necessary. If we are indeed over-populated (and I suspect that is the >> case), the balance will be restored through the 4 Horsemen of the >> Apocalypse, in some kind of combination. Whether Ronn will find that >> less offensive I cannot say. >> > > > > There's a vast difference between people dying despite everything > possible at the time being done to save them and some people > channeling E. Scrooge and saying that it would be A Good Thing for > other folks to die and "reduce the surplus population." Or does > IAAMOAC mean that civilized behavior includes throwing other people > under the wheels in order to save themselves? > I don't recognize the acronym you used, but in any case I was talking in terms of restricting reproduction, not practicing euthanasia. If we leave it to the Four Horsemen, I am certain the worst of it will fall on those populations that are poor, and that will hardly look any better. It will take more than just population control, I suspect, but ignoring root causes is no way to solve the problem. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "A woman who takes her husband about with her everywhere is like a cat that goes on playing with a mouse long after she's killed it." -- Saki ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: culling the species
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Original Message: > - > From: Kevin B. O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:56:38 -0400 > To: brin-l@mccmedia.com > Subject: Re: culling the species > > > > >> If not, why do you think that the present level of population is >> unsustainable? In the US, at least, farms are much more productive and >> > are > >> farmed in a far more sustainable manner than they were 50-100 years ago. >> Indeed, my father-in-law's old farm has been gaining topsoil over the last >> decade or so as a result of improvements in soil management. >> >> That is good, but you yourself have made very persuasive arguments with >> respect to global warming that there is no feasible way to cut back on >> carbon emissions per capita. >> > > What I said was that, with present technologies, we shouldn't expect China > to do that. So the world warms, and the best farming zones shift north. > Canada and Siberia will gain, others will lose. On the whole, higher > rainfall is exspected. Only China? You don't expect anything from India, or the rest of the world? I am fairly certain that everyone in the world want to have the same standard of living that we in the wealthy west have. A quick-and-dirty estimate is that this will require about a 6x increase in output per capita. And that output will come with some load of pollution, energy use, carbon emissions, etc. I don't think you can be quite so Panglossian with these trend lines. > Fishing suffers from the tragedy of the commons. Whale's were overhunted a > century ago, yet the green revolution of the '60s massively cut into world > hunger. I recall when India needed massive imports of US food just to keep > its people alive. Until the latest stupidity with regard to biofuels, food > shortages were almost always caused by men with guns who kept food away > from starving people and by real studid government policies. > I don't quite see why applying the label "Tragedy of the Commons" voids the main point here. For there to be healthy fisheries there needs to be a balance between the rate of reproduction and the rate of withdrawal, and that has clearly been violated here, with fisheries collapsing just about everywhere you look. And this is a fairly recent phenomenon. I think the correlation to population pressure is pretty robust. >> For example, the so-called bread basket of the U.S. used to be called >> the great desert. >> > > The Great Desert was in the SW. > see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Desert > >> What changed that was to drilling of wells to tap the >> Oglala aquifer, turning places like Kansas and Nebraska into prime farm >> land. >> > > My experience with farming is that corn and soybean farming relies little > on irrigation. Those problems do exist, but more in the arid SW regions. > If you look at places like Iowa and Illinois and Minn., 3 out of the 4 big > corn producers, you see little irrigation. The environmentalists keep > yelling non-sustainable, but these areas are not depleting reservoirs in > order to farm. > I'm pretty sure I never brought up Iowa, Illinois, or Minnesota. I brought up the depeltion of the Oglala Aquifer, and you can find more on this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer. Note that it is a deposit of ground water laid down 2-6 million years ago, and is begin depleted at a rate equal to the flow of 18 Colorado Rivers every year. "There are a number of Great Plains areas where large-scale irrigation developments are important. Perhaps the most noteworthy of these is on the High Plains from Colorado and Nebraska to Texas. The area is underlain by the Oglala aquifer, a vast underground geologic reservoir under 250,000 square kilometers of the area that contains an estimated 2 billion acre-feet of water. (An acre-foot is the volume of irrigation water that covers 0.4 hectares to a depth of 0.3 meters.) This is "fossil" water, much of it deposited more than a million years ago. About a quarter of the aquifer's area is irrigated, almost entirely with Oglala water. The High Plains is a major agricultural region, providing, for example, two-fifths of America's sorghum, one-sixth of its wheat, and one-quarter of its cotton. Irrigated lands here produce 45 percent more wheat, 70 percent more sorghum, and 135 percent more cotton than neighboring nonirrigated areas. Groundwater withdrawals have more than tripled since 1950, to more than 20 million acre-feet annually." Source: http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/geography/geog11.htm Now, if it runs from Colorado and Nebraska to Texas, I&#
Re: culling the species
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >> Ah, I see your point. Mass executions are indeed hideous. I was thinking >> about population control from the breeding side. And I have indeed >> attempted to lead by example. I was sterilized at age 20, and have no >> children. Mind you, I do think that either we rein in population size, >> or a lot of people die on other hideous ways. Is it a whole lot better >> to avoid mass executions so that we can have mass starvation, or mass >> plagues, or mass wars? >> > > I'm not sure what rein in means. You know that the world is rapidly > approaching the ZPG fertility rate, right? At the moment, the world > fertility rate is 2.5 (CIA Factbook 2008 estimate). In developed > countries, the replacement rate is 2.1. In underdeveloped countries it can > range from 2.5 to 3.5. For the world at large, it's about 2.33. > Considering the fact that the fertility rate in the 70s was between 4 and > 5, we are extremely close to ZPG fertility rates now. I'd expect, unless > there is an overwhelming reversal in trends, that we'll be under ZPG > fertility rates in 5-10 years (we were at 2.8 worldwide in 2000). Does > this count as rein in? > > If not, why do you think that the present level of population is > unsustainable? In the US, at least, farms are much more productive and are > farmed in a far more sustainable manner than they were 50-100 years ago. > Indeed, my father-in-law's old farm has been gaining topsoil over the last > decade or so as a result of improvements in soil management. > That is good, but you yourself have made very persuasive arguments with respect to global warming that there is no feasible way to cut back on carbon emissions per capita. With a large population, that means climate change is pretty much unavoidable. When I look at other indicators, such as the collapse of fisheries due to overfishing, and shortages of fresh water pretty much every place we look, to name just a couple, it seems to me that the common factor in all of these is a population that is above sustainability. For example, the so-called bread basket of the U.S. used to be called the great desert. What changed that was to drilling of wells to tap the Oglala aquifer, turning places like Kansas and Nebraska into prime farm land. The problem is that we are essentially mining this resource in a non-renewable manner. The water in this aquifer was collected over millions of years, and we are using it up in decades. When it is gone, Kansas and Nebraska will return to being desert, and what happens to food supplies then? If you look globally, water supplies are strained just about everywhere. This is one example of a bottleneck factor. To me it seems obvious that the present level of population is higher than the environment can support sustainably in the long-term. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about." -- John von Neumann ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: culling the species
Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > At 10:23 PM Monday 4/28/2008, jon louis mann wrote: > >> i care more about the extinction of plant and animal species than >> humanity. >> jon >> >> >> h... i really don't think taking my own life will help matters... >> jon >> > > > But in either case the result for you is the same. > > > I'm simply trying to get across in this discussion how offensive I > find it when anyone suggests that the death of every human on Earth > or a substantial fraction of them is A Good Thing, especially when > the people making the suggestion are clearly talking about Someone > Else doing the dying, and one way to get across how offensive it is > is to ask the people who are convinced that it would be such A Good > Thing why they don't lead by example instead of (implicitly or > explicitly) expecting Someone Else who does not necessarily agree > that it would be A Good Thing if most or all humans died off to do > the dying . . . > Ah, I see your point. Mass executions are indeed hideous. I was thinking about population control from the breeding side. And I have indeed attempted to lead by example. I was sterilized at age 20, and have no children. Mind you, I do think that either we rein in population size, or a lot of people die on other hideous ways. Is it a whole lot better to avoid mass executions so that we can have mass starvation, or mass plagues, or mass wars? Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "Man is the best computer we can put aboard a spacecraft... and the only one that can be mass produced with unskilled labor." -- Wernher von Braun ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Global Warming
jon louis mann wrote: > what I find offensive is the implication I often get from members of > the environmental movement that accomplishing their goals requires some > sort of eugenics, with statements like some of them have made like "the > carrying capacity of the Earth with people practicing a > sustainable lifestyle is at most something like half a billion people." > And not just because certainly I and everyone else who has any sort of > health problems or otherwise are not in perfect health and physical > shape will be among the 90%+ who will find themselves > considered part of the "surplus population" under such circumstances. . > . > . . . ronn! :) > > i doubt that there are many environmentalists who actually advocate > drastic measures to attain sustainability. i think balance will be > achieved either through technology, or through collapse. > jon > I think that it is clear that nature will restore a balance if necessary. If we are indeed over-populated (and I suspect that is the case), the balance will be restored through the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse, in some kind of combination. Whether Ronn will find that less offensive I cannot say. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "Good artists borrow ideas. Great artists steal them." -- Igor Stravinsky ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Addressing Global Warming
Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > At 09:29 PM Monday 4/28/2008, Doug Pensinger wrote: > > >> Ronn!'s argument seems to imply that the environmental movement requires >> some sort of eugenics to succeed and I find the implication offensive. >> > > > And what I find offensive is the implication I often get from members > of the environmental movement that accomplishing their goals requires > some sort of eugenics, with statements like some of them have made > like "the carrying capacity of the Earth with people practicing a > sustainable lifestyle is at most something like half a billion > people." And not just because certainly I and everyone else who has > any sort of health problems or otherwise are not in perfect health > and physical shape will be among the 90%+ who will find themselves > considered part of the "surplus population" under such circumstances . . . > But then what *is* the sustainable carrying capacity of the Earth? And is uncontrolled breeding by human beings really feasible as a long-term policy? The fact that you don't like the implications does not, in itself, make their argument bad. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Looking for the mouse
Mauro Diotallevi wrote: > On 4/28/08, Curtis Burisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Excellent, excellent article posted on Slashdot today: >> >> >> >> http://www.herecomeseverybody.org/2008/04/looking-for-the-mouse.html >> >> > > That was a truly insightful article. Thanks for sharing. And for > those who might be avoiding the article because they think the "mouse" > in the URL refers to Disney, don't worry, it refers to a computer > mouse. And a four-year-old girl. And a DVD player. Trust me on > this, it's worth it. > I also found it very insightful. As soon as I finished I wanted to send it to other people to read. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "Ninety-nine per cent of the people in the world are fools and the rest of us are in great danger of contagion." --Thornton Wilder ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: _60 Minutes_ last night?
Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > Comments? > > (<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/04/60minutes/main3994925.shtml>) > It is nice that they have plans, and I hope it happens. But it is far from a done deal at this point. Just imagine when some Congresscritter looks at the money being spent, and starts to imagine how it can be used for their own pet projects. Mars trip vs. Bridge to Nowhere. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "Why is it that when we talk to God we're said to be praying, but when God talks to us we're schizophrenic?" -- Lily Tomlin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
What the heck is "Maru"?
I have been reading this list for months, and I don't know what this is about. I suppose some kind of in-joke, but would someone explain it to me? Thank you, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "Military justice is to justice what military music is to music."-- Georges Clemenceau ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: magic formula
On Sun, 2007-09-23 at 08:15 -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "Robert J. Chassell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 6:18 AM > Subject: RE: magic formula > > > > My belief is that in the last generation, large US capitalistic > > organizations have favored more feudalistic governance, inequality, > > and technological hindrance than before. > > > > On the subject of technological hindrance, can you think of any > examples? I won't speak for Robert, but offhand I would nominate pretty much every telco and media company. The U.S. has telephone service that is rapidly becoming *worse* than Third-world as the telcos desperately hang on to their monopoly by blocking every advance they can. And the media companies have been trying to stop progress since at least the time Jack Valenti was frothing at the mouth over how VCRs would mean the death of Hollywood. The DMCA is one giant bit of technological hindrance. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "Technology is a way of organizing the universe so that man doesn't have to experience it." -- Max Frisch ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Study: Cell-Phone Radiation Affects Brain Function & it's Cumulative
At 12:10 PM 5/3/2006, Dave Land said something remarkably like (but somehow subtly different from): On Apr 28, 2006, at 8:54 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 10:44 PM Friday 4/28/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Q. for Dr. Z. or anyone else who may have the necessary expertise: Is there any way for a subject to use a cell phone while undergoing a cranial MRI? For that matter, is there any type or frequency of EM radiation that a cell phone produces which is more powerful than that which would be experienced by a person undergoing a MRI of his/her brain? If not, how could any effects be definitively attributed to the cell phone radiation? well - your cell phone would immediately be sucked up against the magnet unless you held on tight. I am not sure if it could work at all (mine sure doesn't when I am in the MR suite). If it did work it would probably mess with the MR signal which is after all a radiofrequency signal. That was what I thought, but it is nice to have it confirmed by an expert. My experience with MRIs comes mostly from having my head examined, but I'm pretty sure that the room is a Faraday cage to contain the substantial RF output, so it would be just about impossible to make a cell phone work in there. You'd probably have to build a cell inside the room (or use a simulator, as seen on "Myth Busters"). At the hospital where I work the MRI is indeed inside metal walls, which had the result that pages were not received on the floor below the MRI room. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "Democracy means government by the uneducated, while aristocracy means government by the badly educated." -- G.K. Chesterton Help fight SPAM. Join CAUCE. http://www.cauce.org/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bush, Sheehan & Irony...
At 08:39 AM 2/1/2006, Gary Nunn said something remarkably like (but somehow subtly different from): I find it ironic, that on the same news page as Sheehan's arrest story, is a link to a Bush quote from his State of the Union address: Bush: 'We Will Act Boldly in Freedom's Cause' http://tinyurl.com/c5jym http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/StateOfTheUnion/story?id=1564265 I guess that freedom doesn't extend to grieving mothers with an opinion. Police Remove Protester Cindy Sheehan From State of the Union Address for Wearing Anti-War T-Shirt http://tinyurl.com/9kmpf http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1564588 She should have expected it. The crime of lese majeste always carries stiff penalties. -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "Military justice is to justice what military music is to music." -- Georges Clemenceau Help fight SPAM. Join CAUCE. http://www.cauce.org/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
