Julia wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Richard Baker asked:
pitch manure,
What's that?
Herbivore poop. Great fertilizer!
Or shovel sh*t, to be succinct.
Doug
___
Chris Frandsen wrote:
FYI, a classmate and friend, Skip Bacevich was interviewed by Bill
Moyers on PBS.
Here is a link to the broadcast. He says some tough things but I think
he speaks the truth.
www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/profile.html
New York Times article, may require registration.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/31/world/americas/31brazil.html?themc=th
So you Brazilians have visions of world domination, eh Alberto?
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Ronn! wrote:
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 . . .
If it were just the politicians I might agree with you, but I think that the
whole system has been
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
William wrote:
Is there no limit to the depraved wickedness of the religionists?
What's wicked about bringing children into the world that you have the
resources to support and nurture?
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Bruce
If that were their motivation, I'd agree. But at 8-10 or more per
family, and with the fundamentalist neopentecostal homeschooling those
kids receive, they'll be able to elect their own theocrats to office
at virtually every level of our government in about 30-40 more years
or so.
Julia wrote:
Would you consider some excuses to be reasonable?
Of course. The one I think is lame, though, is that they are somehow saving
the planet by deciding not to have children.
And, if responsible, enlightened people are having children, at what point
do they get to decide how
Jon wrote:
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply,
and replenish the earth, and subdue it. surely you don't believe that gawd
created man to have dominion over every living thing that moves on the
earth?
it is not a sacrifice, doug, it is a duty to the
Jon wrote:
are you suggesting that it is rational to have more enlightened children
Yes.
to balance those who are raised by cults and jihadists, etc.?
I don't know about balancing anything, but I do believe that the more
enlightened people, the better off we'll all be.
the mormons
Jon wrote:
it's wicked because it creates even more scaricities among other children
in undeveloped countries whose parents do not have the resources to support
and nurture.
Bulls__t. The problems in underdeveloped nations will be ameliorated when
their people become more educated. We
Jon wrote:
it is a numbers game, doug, and as long as it continues the planet will
suffer. it is not realistic to suggest that enlightened people will save the
planet by breeding. people who are able to enjoy the fruits of their wealth
are not about to invest in breeding units of labor
Bruce wrote:
That's another matter entirely than restricting childbirth. That's a
value distinction as to who is more or less entitled to reproduce.
And on that, I will agree with you, that some parents are probably
better candidates to reproduce the species than others. But, as a
member
Jon wrote:
the problem, doug, is that many undeveloped nations rich in resources are
governed by despots who need to maintain an ignorant population in poverty
so they can continue to use the wealth for their own purposes. when
advanced societies enable this so they can continue their
Very cool, thanks for that, Rob.
I think I'll now go fall asleep to the original...
Doug
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Rceeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In case you missed this on VH1 last night, an almost perfect rendition with
great fidelity.
If you can catch a rerun of this your
Warren wrote:
Just as Bush is not the personification of everything wrong in the world,
Almost everything... 8^)
Doug
Hi Jo Anne! How are the Grand babies?
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Ronn! quoted:
(Fortune Magazine) -- Let me tell you about Bill Gates. He is
different from you and me. First off, the billionaire co-founder of
Microsoft has always been something of a utopian. In his mind, even
the world's knottiest problems can be solved if you apply enough IQ.
So what's
jon wrote:
People are running for an office, but it's barely worth
my time to vote at all. I'm certainly not going to
do any research on the candidates. (Think Dogcatcher, or
the Board of Directors of that company you have one share
in, ...) In that case, I routinely vote for
Dan wrote:
We see that Texas has almost twice the wind energy of California and that
the total of what's been built from Jan 1 2005 to March 31, 2008 and the
present contruction is 9 times larger for Texas than California. Yet, I've
read may posters here say that it's the manipulation of the big
Dan M wrote:
But, as you noted elsewhere, your general position is against the broad
middle of the viewpoint of the US. That sort of viewpoint is not
unwelcome
here. I think it is safe to say that folks who see a lot of
reasonableness
in mainstream Republican ideas do not post much
Olin Elliott wrote:
I agree. I often don't participate in conversation threads online
(including on this forum) for precisely that reason, because they seem to
degenerate too easily into name calling and other nastiness. I like having
a moderated forum, but the problem is always how to draw
Ray wrote:
On May 5, 2008, at 8:58 AM, Mauro Diotallevi wrote:
IAAMOAC is his original motto, at least seven years old (see
http://www.davidbrin.com/parting.html but I think I remember him using
it before that).
He certainly did use it earlier than that. The earliest message I have
Dan wrote:
My argument is that we shouldn't think of green energy as merely a test of
our will. It is also dependant on the lay of the land. Past behavior
doesn't guarantee future behavior, but it's much more likely that, in 10
years, we will have a 1 terabyte drive for $100 than have a
Ronn! wrote:
The point, however, is that you seldom hear of any rich, white,
American environmentalists offering to stop polluting and green the
planet by composting themselves . . . ;)
The message I'm getting is that you think environmentalists are inherently
racist, but that seems to
Wayne wrote:
Seems to me, he is just pointing out the irony in the fact that the Green
Movement is a product of affluence which is a product of technology. And
more specifically that the Green movement is antipathetic to the
technology
that has given them the time and resources to become
John Garcia wrote:
I suspect that people who are caught up in the daily struggle of
survival,
getting shelter, water, some grains to eat aren't placing the same weight
on
environmental issues as we in the affluent countries are.
Shelter, water and food _are_ environmental issues aren't
Ronn! wrote:
Good Friday! Happy Purim, Eid, etc...
Very interesting as my son was married yesterday and while many of his new
wives Persian family members knew it was the Narouz, I'm sure the kids
didn't know any of that when they chose the date.
Doug
Alberto wrote:
Ronn! asked:
There's a religion that believes in wearing holey underwear?
I guess this was a rhetorical question, but the surprising answer
is a qualified yes.
Afro-brazilian religion Umbanda (which is a mix-up of European
Roman Catholicism, French philosopher Allan
Ronn! wrote:
Julia wrote:
Well, in the immortal words of Bill Cosby, First you're going to say it,
then you're going to do it! so clean underwear may not be what you need.
Okay, I'm a little confused as to how that applies to the situation
described, where your mother worries that after the
Curtis wrote:
I'm pretty new here too ... I haven't seen anything of this kind of
conversation. But maybe sci-fi has moved on a bit beyond merely banal
spaceflight -- perhaps the topic had become a bit too commonplace, and the
genre as a whole has moved onto other more sophisticated foci?
William wrote:
Dan M wrote:
So, given this state of the mundane, I hope you can see why I do not
believe
in a God rooted in the mundane.
Neither do I. And I also don't believe in a god rooted in the
transcendent :-)
Or potting compost Maru.
Oh, I _so_ believe in potting compost...
Charlie wrote:
Well, we are going to be unique in the universe. Evolution isn't going
to follow the same path twice (if snowflakes are all unique, then
intelligent life, which is much rarer, will be unique to a greater
degree...) However, most atheists I know who have any sort of science
Max wrote:
I wrote:
Sheesh, we can't even remember lessons learned from a war a few
decades
ago and we're going to perfect godhood? 8^)
Certainly we don't seem quite up to the challenge at the moment, but if
Kurzweil's tracking for the upcoming singularity is correct we may have
to
Charlie wrote:
Of course I consider the possibility. In fact, given the size of the
universe, I'd be surprised if there weren't some sort of
transcendental or sublimed beings of mind or something.
But that's a fair cry from saying that there's a being above and
outside the universe that
Warren wrote:
There's one god for Earth. Other planets each have their own gods.
(That's not facetious; it's LDS doctrine.)
Inhabited planets? Do they the gods get the planets when they're
undeveloped and tend them like gardens? How are they dolled out?
Doug
Pluto! WTF am I supposed to
Dan wrote:
Well, I think that type of god would be a very poor excuse for God. It
reduces God to the mundane, and removes the transcendental nature of God.
Only to those that reach God's level of knowledge, eh?
I think the question and the comments made within this thread of whatever
Warren wrote:
snip
Thus, under LDS doctrine, if you remain righteous and are
sealed (married in a temple) to a spouse, when you and your spouse
ascend to the highest plane of heaven, you will be given your own
world to populate with your own spirit children born into mortal bodies.
Yikes.
Jon wrote:
I prefer a mundane god, myself, or perhaps a species evolving to the
point of singularity and modifying its own genetic structure to self
uplift in order to become transcendent.
Jon M.
Just a stranger on the Bus?
Doug
'cept the Pope maybe in Rome, maru
Not that speculative fiction really influences my personal philosophy, but
in reading Bank's Matter I am reminded why I doubt rather than I am assured
that there are no gods. If you believe in some sort of technological
singularity, its easy to imagine how an intelligent entity such as a human
Ronn!
You are well over a century late with that conjecture ;):
http://lds.org/hf/art/display/1,16842,4218-1-5-143,00.html
I made no claim concerning originality.
from the website:
As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be
So why would there only be one? Or is there just
Max wrote:
Hi Max, welcome to the list.
Well, anything can be a possibility. So yes, I consider it a
possibility. But on the other hand, have we any evidence of higher life
forms? No. So I still don't believe in them either, be they
man-become-god or your average
From Bank's new culture novel, _Matter_, no spoilers:
A temple was worth a dozen barracks; a militia man carrying a gun could
control a small unarmed crowd only for as long as he was present; however, a
single priest could put a policeman inside the head of every one of their
flock, for ever.
Gautam wrote:
That being said...Dan is right, I'm a big McCain supporter.
snip
I respect and admire McCain as well, but...
Beyond personal qualities: McCain is the one person I'm sure will make
torture illegal, which is, to me, a matter of national honor and thus
absolutely
Hi Gautam, how are you? I hope you'll stay with us for a while. I'd
especially be interested in your perspective on the Presidential contest
which continues to be one of the most interesting in my lifetime. What do
you think of McCain? I know your buddy George Will has expressed
reservations.
Dan wrote:
$50 says he's a McCain supporter. :-)
Now that wouldn't be a fair bet, would it?
Are you sure he doesn't want to rewrite the constitution so its in God's
standards?
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Dan wrote:
1) Are you interested in a discussion on the vision of myself and at least
one other person who was an active poster that discussions are often
thwarted by pronouncements that come as if they come from Olympus, rather
than arguments that folks want others to discuss so the author
jon wrote:
what is IANAC?
I am not a crook?
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Robert wrote:
Totally different game played by different rules and using a
completely different strategy and tactics.
Didn't you get the memo?
No, Rob, I didn't get any memo, why don't you clue me in. I've heard more
about the attacks on CoS in the last week or so than I've heard about
Robert wrote:
This time next year Barack Obama will be President (probably)
Good luck. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect. If McCain is the
Republican nominee, I give him better than even odds to win.
Doug
___
Robe wrote:
I'm not looking at exit polls myself,
Looks good for a McCain/Huckster ticket.
I think the actual election
results are showing a change in the wind.
I'm normally an optimist, but the deck is stacked against progressives. We
all know about Rove and the Swiftboaters. They
Rob wrote:
But it sure is fun to watch, and who knows, they might just get some
reform out of the COS. G
You know, I'm sympathetic towards the outrage directed towards the CoS, but
it makes me want to scream Where's the [EMAIL PROTECTED]@#$ outrage about
what's
going on in the White
William wrote:
But the numbers I believe are the ones from serious scientific surveys
Maru.
But the Wiki article isn't very conclusive is it? It's prefaced with this:
Measuring the prevalence of various sexual
orientationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientationis
difficult because
William wrote:
If gay men don't marry women then there are more available women than
straight men.
Unless lesbians buy into the polygamy thing, this is probably a wash.
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Julia wrote:
You're failing to take into account lesbians who have absolutely no
interest in men. (Like several people in one of my social circles)
That might balance things out somewhat there, putting you back to square
one.
It was an intriguing suggestion, though.
Oops, didn't see
Dave wrote:
Yes, it's amazing how a practice of your Church of roughly 100 years ago
which, by some accounts, was not all that widely practiced, and
by no means _the_ defining characteristic of the Church) is all that
most people seem to know about. To some extent, you can thank HBO's Big
William wrote:
On 27 Jan 2008, at 21:49, Julia Thompson wrote:
If the Scientologists have a schism, each side's lawyers will be so
busy
suing the other side that it'll all collapse sooner rather than
later, and
that will be the end of that.
Or they could be like the Sunni and
So has anyone else read Kieth's story?
Kieth, have you considered, rather than transformation into a spirit
world, a transformation into some sort of nano-construct that could exist
independent of the clinic?
Doug
___
William wrote:
snip
So while the data suggest some health benefits from social
engagement, they are anything but a ringing endorsement of the health
benefits of religion or religious faith, per se.
It would make sense to me that individuals with some sort of social support
group might have
Robert wrote:
Orions Arm Maru
Hmmm. Went to the website (briefly) and read the Wiki article. I hate the
idea of the archailects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archailect. I would
hope that if the technology to transcend is discovered that it would become
available to anyone that was
Julia wrote:
(And, the concensus as to whether or not to go to the ER with a potential
broken toe is, If you want prescription painkillers, sure, but there's
not a whole heck of a lot they'll actually *do* for you. So, I'm going
to wait until Monday and see how bad it is then, and if it's
Kieth wrote:
I worked out a mechanism for this to happen.
http://www.terasemjournals.org/GN0202/henson.html
This is part of an unfinished longer story that describes a world
carefully maintained by AIs that were designed from motivation up to
*like* taking care of human works--especially
Some one on the Culture list posted a link to the prologue of the new Banks
Culture novel that is available in the U.S. at the end of next month. I had
already pre-ordered it, but this tidbit peaked my interest further.
http://www.orbitbooks.net/matter-extract
Doug
Not a Git Maru
Martin Lewis wrote:
Gmail is based on the records management philosophy that you shouldn't
delete things. You can star or label things so that they are easy to
find and the search feature is the best there is (understandably.)
I imagine that I'll delete stuff in some of my labels
Ronn! wrote:
And it saves time and trouble when you get a subpoena from the Feds . . .
Something tells me that if the Feds are after your ass, whether or not you
have archived mail isn't going to make a whole lot of difference.
Doug
___
Nick wrote:
Um... William, if Huckabee is elected president of my country, would you
have room for me and my family in yours?
What's the difference between Huckabee and Bush, other than Huckabee is
probably smarter and more articulate than most of his pets?
Doug
John Garcia wrote:
Amending the Constitution is not as easy as Huckabee may wish, (pun
intended) Gracias a Dios. See http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html.
If
elected, he won't be able to just wave his hand and have it done.
You know, a few years ago I would have said the same thing
Julia wrote:
I use filters to apply labels.
Yes, it seems to work well. There was even an instructional video in the
help.
Check the spam filter on a regular basis, sometimes it flags something as
spam which really, really isn't. (Such as mailing lists posts you
wanted in your
I wrote:
Julia wrote:
If you send anything to a mailing list from gmail, it will not turn up
in
your gmail inbox. This is a feature of gmail, a rather annoying one,
IMO.
Very annoying.
Except I just got this in my shiny new gmail box.
Doug
Julia wrote:
I eliminate the stuff I don't want to save and archive the stuff I don't
want to refer to very often but still want to hang on to.
I'm trying to figure out how to use the labels and filters right now, but it
already seems to know how to filter out most of the spam. Do you use
OK, I set up a Gmail account such that it should receive mail from my
zo.comaddress and it should send mail using that address. I sent test
messages
from another mail program and did not receive them on Gmail but did receive
them in that program. I sent test messages from Gmail and received them
Dan wrote:
Popular science programs (especially on places like the Discovery
channel) often/usually overstate the scientific certainty in such
matters.
We're discussing Diamond's book Collapse, as is indicated in the subject
header, and while I have no objection whatsoever to your
Bob wrote:
Good to here from you. So even though you are clearly wrong about 9/11
(everyone knows that it was a mutant energizer buddy sent by the Bush
daughters because they could not count up to 103 and were therefore
insulted by the
towers) I hope you have some more insight into the
Dan wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of Gary Denton
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 1:33 AM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
I'll just make a brief interjection that a new study
On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 21:17:25 -0500, Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you're going to decorate nipples, body-paint is much better.
Makeup-quality airbrush body paint is kick-ass, in fact. And you can
get it in metallic colors, so you could have a metallic star, but it
wouldn't be
Ronn! wrote:
Dave wrote:
I think he means the nipple-like protrusion on the top of the
rock.
Yeah, I saw that, but, like you, I was looking for something else . . .
I was struggling because I thought that the photo was
entitled Kids and Grandkids, so I was looking for them in the
On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 01:25:36 -, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I guess that I don't understand why it is invalid to also assume that
warming will increase ocean temperatures, and so increase the number of
storms.
I'm just referencing what I've read, John, Here's an article
JDG wrote:
I'm not sure that enough is known about Easter Island culture to
directly connect the moai to religion. I'm not sure that Diamond ever
conclusively demonstrates it in his Chapter (although it has been a
while since I read it now.) It certainly seems possible that the
building of
On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 01:59:56 -0400, Gary Nunn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Naturalist, 44, killed by stingray on diving trip, Australian media
report
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14663786/
There's got to be a comment somewhere that contains the word crikey,
but
I've got nothing
I think
Just wanted to add my belated felicitations. I hope you're enjoying your
honeymoon in Cyprus.
May you have a long and exceedingly happy marriage!
--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 15:49:52 -0700, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 9/2/06, PAT MATHEWS [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
TIME! Everything's been repeated - asserted, not debated - several times
over and we're getting into battling assertions now with ad hominem
trimmings.
I resent that. I
Deborah wrote:
I presume you are asking rhetorically, since oil
certainly springs to mind...The interwoven fate of
those 3 islands isn't quite a metaphor for us,
however, since we could (with some difficulty and a
great deal of expense) use more coal for heating,
convert more corn or biomass to
Alberto wrote:
Doug Pensinger wrote:
Anyone reasonable can see that instance of a subset is not the whole.
JDG is an atheist.
JDG is a devout Catholic.
It was a typo. JDG is so religious, that he is almost a Prophet -
at least, he is the best listmember to predict the future.
If I
So what relevance is there here for us? Pitcairn and Henderson remind me
of the lonely outposts in outer space we read about in science fiction
novels. Is there some resource supplied to us by lonely outposts that
we could hardly live without? Would we go to war over this resource? If
we
Dave Land wrote:
Anyone reasonable can see that instance of a subset is not the whole.
JDG is an atheist.
JDG is a devout Catholic.
--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Charlie wrote:
What's an example of a non-religious cult?
Fanatical Macophiles? 8^)
--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
JDG wrote:
Thanks for keeping this alive John. I have been exceptionally busy for
the last few weeks, but I have read beyond the next chapter. Is anyone up
for kicking off the discussion on Chapter 3? If not, I'll have something
by Wednesday evening. I know JDG was interested in Chapter
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 00:51:06 -, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
As for the connection of Katrina to global warming, I think that
advocates of doing something about global warming do themselves no
favors by making such arguments. After all, these arguments connecting
specific weather
Alberto wrote:
I can compare Bangladesh with the poorest areas in my hometown,
Rio de Janeiro, who is located between sea and mountain[*].
_If_ rising sea waters is not a myth [**], then the coastal areas
would be the first to sink. But no poor guys worry about ecology,
and keep doing
On Bob wrote:
I just disagree with Alberto's statement that ecology is for rich
people.
Bangladesh is one of the poorest nations in the world and is most
vulnerable to rising sea levels. Do you think that they’ll be
shouting Jobs, not dry land?
In a sense ecology is for the rich; it is
Jim Sharkey wrote:
I am generally a believer in global warming, but you're citing a
city below sea level, situated on the hurricane-prone gulf, whose
commerce lifeblood eroded what protections the terrain had provided,
as a counterargument to the point that the poor are more concerned
about
Alberto wrote:
You fail to mention something in this dichotomy: an economical
disaster will trigger an ecological disaster, much worse than
the ecological disaster that may come if we do nothing;
People who lose their jobs don't give a f--- about
the environment. Ecology is for rich people,
I often wonder what California looked prior to 1849. Today, inland from
the ocean the landscape is dotted with huge, majestic live oak trees; were
there thousands more before the forty-niners came and cut them down for
their various gold mining related pursuits? What did the coastal redwood
JDG wrote:
I'm jumping in a little late here, and will get to Doug's post on
Chapter 1 in a moment, but I thought that I'd also post some
thoughts on the Introduction.
Welcome to the discussion, John, glad to have you join us.
snip
Secondly, Diamond makes clear in his introduction that one
Jim wrote:
I have a bit of a problem with this idea that environmentalism and
economics are mortal enemies. There has to be some middle ground.
In fact, in the long run, environmentalism makes good business sense. The
problem is that so many businesses in this country don't take the long
Brother John wrote:
Have you ever driven through the Bitterroot Valley south of Missoula,
Montana?
No. Montana is one of sevenor eight states I've never set foot in.
I have done it only once, but I was deeply impressed with the beauty of
it, and the size of the huge wood frame houses along
Bob wrote:
What struck me was the absence of any easy answers. There are people of
good will but they cannot agree. The issue of the long term effects of
mining of non-renewable resources is more difficult and profound than I
realized. I see no solution other than to hold the companies
Jim Sharkey wrote:
Two questions:
1) I've never been involved in one of these, so, what exactly do we do?
2) When do we start?
Jim
Oy, people chomping at the bit. Sorry. I was going to get it started
tomorrow night but I'll get it going tonight.
What I intended to do is post a brief
Collapse by Jarred Diamond
Part One: Modern Montana
Chapter One: Under Montana's Big Sky
Diamond picks Montana for his first chapter because he can gage the
attitudes of the people that live there, because it provides a contrast to
the more fragile societies discussed in later chapters and
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:21:21 -0800, Brother John [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Doug Pensinger wrote:
Brother John wrote:
Consider the marvelous book by Jared Diamond called /Guns, Germs and
Steel. /It is almost all conjecture. It is very good conjecture
perhaps, but conjecture nevertheless
Brother John wrote:
You don't have to convince me. But notice how willing they are to have
children and then make great sacrifices to feed them. We used to be
like that ourselves. It is a pity that we are not still. Today we
would much rather abort them, something these Hispanic
201 - 300 of 1541 matches
Mail list logo
