Re: Free will and physics
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 11:02:26PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 07:46:46PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: At some level, yes. But all moralities aren't created equal. Some are clearly better than others, in that some will almost surely lead to a society that almost no one would want to live in. It depends on what is desired from morality. Some are better than others for reaching particular goals, certainly. But, that naturally leads to the question what goals? It's easy to label your goals rational and another's goals as irrational. I did not label goals rational and irrational -- in fact, in this thread I specifically stated that my stated goal was subjective. Your reply does not address my comment...I was just watching the Godfather. If everyone behaved as the dons in that movie, almost no one would want to live in the resulting world. And sure enough, the crime bosses are largely gone now. Most people realized what would happen if such a system were allowed to expand. This is not rational or irrational, it is just that most people don't like to live in such a world. As I said previously, this is mostly an accident of evolution and environment, but it is certainly true that most people share some of these basic sensibilities about what is desirable and what is not. I'll agree if you show that the conflict between the goals of different people is an illusion (i.e. you show that rational self interest is served by considering the needs of others as just as important as one's own), then you will have reduced the question of morality to a question of accurately gauging one's own self interest. But, that premise really doesn't match observation. The question is complicated enough, so that it is probably not possible to actually falsify that hypothesis, but the overwhelming amount of evidence is against it. Actually, the overwhelming amount of evidence is for it. That is why humans have progressed from animal-like apes, to tribes, feudalism, and finally liberal democracy with the rule of law. And progress has accelerated, especially with the transition to liberal democracy and rule of law. Part of the reason for that is the fact that, by the nature of the premise, you have set yourself a very high standard for proof. The existence of win-win situations, where the predominant strategy for the individual benefits all is not sufficient. Rather, it is necessary to show that win-lose scenarios do not exist to any significant extent. No, you are thinking much too small. There are indeed many win-lose scenarios if you look at thing myopically. But if you consider both the long-term and the interaction of others if they all followed a similar strategy, then the world is a big win-win scenario. I mentioned this previously, but again you failed to address it. Surely you don't think we could have made as much progress as we did in the 20th century with everyone acting myopically in their own self interest? How do you explain the huge growth in GDP per capita in the Western world in the last 150 years? Let me give just one counter example now. (Only one for space limitation, not for lack of examples.) Tonight, on the local news, there was an apartment fire. One man was taken to the hospital for smoke inhalation. He was at risk because, instead of just yelling fire and getting out of the complex, he went door to door knocking on the doors telling people to get out. He is up for a hero's award, which I think is reasonable. From a Christian standpoint, his actions are an example of the greatest form of love possible. But, from the standpoint of enlightened self-interest, his actions were irrational. On a cost/benefits basis, it was the wrong decision to make. Not necessarily. If I thought my neighbor(s) would be likely to take the same risks for me in the future, I would do it, and it would be in my self-interest, unless I could trick my neighbors (or they could trick me) into thinking I (they) would do it but really would not. Of course, then honesty and trustworthiness comes into it. If I didn't think my neighbors were honest and trustworthy in these matters, then I would be less likely to do it since it would be much less in my own self-interest. Sure, there are actions that can be identified as beneficial for the whole community if everyone does this. But, this begs the question why worry about what benefits others? Because if you don't (and enough others don't), they won't, and everyone loses. This can make for an interesting game theory problem, but in general the golden rule strategy is frequently the best game theory tactic. I looked up game theory, and found what seems to be a pretty decent source for it at: http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/eco/game/game.html That site is incomplete. Here are some key words for you: repeated Prisoner's Dilemma Robert Axelrod Tit-for-Tat
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm answering Erik's message in pieces, because it was extremely long. I' I'll start it with a general question, do people here think that there is rarely a real conflict between one's own interest and the interest of others? - Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 1:02 PM Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy? On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 07:46:46PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: At some level, yes. But all moralities aren't created equal. Some are clearly better than others, in that some will almost surely lead to a society that almost no one would want to live in. It depends on what is desired from morality. Some are better than others for reaching particular goals, certainly. But, that naturally leads to the question what goals? It's easy to label your goals rational and another's goals as irrational. However, that requires a definition of rational that differs from mine. Rational, to me, involves things like a reasoned deduction from axioms. Typically, in science, we have a model and compare the model with observation. A more general use of irrational is stating a set of priorities and performing actions that are inconsistent with those priorities. An example of this is smoking, while being very concerned about health risks from background radiation. If the small risk from background radiation is important, why isn't the large risk from smoking? But, some actions are arational. Choosing to sacrifice one's life defending another is inherently neither irrational or rational. It depends on one's set of priorities. If one is only concerned with one's own self interest, it is an irrational action: unless the alternative is a fate worse than death. However, if one believes in principals, then those principals can be worth dying for. If everyone went around indiscriminately hurting or killing each other, it would be an awful world indeed. Also, some moralities are parasitic, in that if everyone followed those morals, the desired result would not obtain I won't argue with that, but I don't think that's the question at hand. The question at hand is what will the plusses and negatives for that individual if that individual performs the action in question. You appear to argue that there is no significant conflict between rational self-interest and the greater good for all. I'll agree if you show that the conflict between the goals of different people is an illusion (i.e. you show that rational self interest is served by considering the needs of others as just as important as one's own), then you will have reduced the question of morality to a question of accurately gauging one's own self interest. But, that premise really doesn't match observation. The question is complicated enough, so that it is probably not possible to actually falsify that hypothesis, but the overwhelming amount of evidence is against it. Part of the reason for that is the fact that, by the nature of the premise, you have set yourself a very high standard for proof. The existence of win-win situations, where the predominant strategy for the individual benefits all is not sufficient. Rather, it is necessary to show that win-lose scenarios do not exist to any significant extent. I seems to me that you are both right, in a way. While it seems reasonable...:) to believe that a set of individuals in a group, all acting on their own self intrests, will ~eventualy~ do what is best for the greater good, the process of getting to that state on any particular axis will not necisarily be good for every individual independently. It has allways been my assumption that Morals (or ethics depending on your deinitions) are an attempt, all be it perhaps often unintentionaly, to direct the group in such a way that progress on any particular axis toward a state where everyoe is acting for the greater good without removing the benifiting for any one individual. No set of morals seems to work tword this end to such a degree that I personaly find stisfactory, but this dous provide a basis on which to compare one set against others. Further more, it is not just the idea as stated which is important for this comparison, but the system in actual practice, emergant properties and all. I have my own code hich I try ad live by, but I must admit that even that code is hard to follow. Hypocracy can create very interesting emergeant properties. So it seems to me that a good set of morals or ethics or..whatever you want to call it, should be constructed with enough insight that it is resilliant to hypocracy. Let me give just one counter example now. (Only one for space limitation, not for lack of examples.) Tonight, on the local news, there was an apartment fire. One man was taken to the hospital for smoke
Re: 28 Days Later
Michael Harney wrote: From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 10:01:23PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: Are there any explosions? I like explosions I hear T3 has explosions, but little else (haven't seen it myself). I haven't seen it myself, but I heard it has more than just explosions, it has Arnold Schwarzenegger getting beat up by a woman. :-) Ahh, just like the next Ca. Gubernatorial election. I hope. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Soul Man Barry White Dies
Jon Gabriel wrote: Behalf Of Robert Seeberger http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,12100,00.html An RB club in Manhattan was going to have a Get Well tribute party for him tomorrow. Now it's going to be a memorial. :( It's a bummer way to go out, especially for a guy who helped thousands of horny guys score over the past quarter century. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br¡n: A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy
At 11:45 PM 7/4/03 -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote: I've been so incredibly busy with work lately so I've been cutting back on posting Scouted stories to the list. (In fact, from here on in, they'll probably just wind up on my blog instead.) But I thought this might be of as much interest to brinellers as it was to me. It's an essay by Clay Shirkey entitled A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html) And in a related issue in today's news from CNN: SEX, MOB HITS, 'SIMS ONLINE' The popular commercial game, where thousands of people interact electronically, is turning into a petri dish of anti-social behavior. And that's raising questions about whether limits on conduct should be set in such emerging virtual worlds, even if they are huge adult playpens. http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/fun.games/07/05/misbehaving.online.ap/index.html --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
watching the watchers
Has someoen already posted this? http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/07/06/government.google.ap/index.html = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Irregulars query: air pressure in spinning habitats
What is the air pressure near the center of a spinning O'Neil type space habitat when the pressure at the rim is 1 atmosphere? What is the equation that tells you the pressure? On Earth, sea level air pressure averages approximately 1 bar (1013.25 mb or 1 atmosphere) and decreases as the altitude increases. At 5.5 km (18,000 feet), atmospheric pressure is about 0.5 bar. Suppose you were to construct a spinning space habitat, perhaps by melting, spinning, and putting an air bubble into a nickel-iron asteroid. Presumably, you would shape the habitat so it is a cyclinder that is wider than it is tall, for stability, with end caps that bulge outwards, for strength. Perhaps it looks somewhat like the following diagram, but with the end caps bulging outwards, and with the incoming sun (reflected from mirrors not shown) coming through the top window (marked by the ^ ) and reflected on to the surface from a central cone (marked by the | and +): ___^___ / \ ||| ||| ||| \___+___/ -- r -- `r' is the radius of the habitat. Suppose the habitat has a radius of 5 km Then, to produce at the rim a 10 m/s^2 acceleration, approximately one gravity, the habitat will need to spin once every 140 seconds. Am I right about the spin? My membory is that A = v^2/r, where A is the acceleration, equal to circumference/time-of-a-rotation, and v is the tangential velocity of the rim. | 4 pi^2 r Or, put another way, T = period-of-rotation = \ | -- \| A (let ((pi 3.14159265359) (r 5000) (A 10)) (sqrt (/ (* 4 (expt pi 2) r) A))) == 140.496 seconds Given this acceleration, and a pressure of 1 bar at the rim, what will be the pressures at a distance from the center of 3 km (i.e. 2 km altitude above the rim), at a distance from the center of 1 km, and at the center itself? What is the equation? Another question: At what rate do the temperatures and dew points converge in a spinning space habitat? In the Earth's atmosphere, when unstable, dry air rises, the temperature/dew point spread converges at a rate of about 8.2 deg C per km (4.4 deg F per 1000 ft). Thus, when the ambient temperature is 20 deg C and the relative humidity is 50%, clouds form at an altitude of approximately 1300 meters, or approximately 4300 ft, using pilots' rules of thumb for unstable air. What happens in a spinning space habitat? Again, assume that the ambient temperature at the surface (i.e., the rim of the habitat) is 20 deg C or 293.15 kelvin or 68 deg F, the pressure is 1 bar, the relative humidity is 50% (i.e., the dew point is 9.3 C or 282.45 K). Suppose a vent releases air with the same dew point as the ambient air but a little warmer temperature. Obviously, as the warmer air rises, it will head spinward. But will it cool enough as it rises to form a cloud? If so, at what altitude in the habitat? Incidentally, right now, on earth, my outside temperature is 27.2 deg C (81 deg F) and the relative humidity 45%. The dew point is 14.4 deg C (58 deg F) so by my convergence rate calculation, the base of the clouds should be at 1500 meters or 5100 ft. According to the automated measuring device at the local airport, the base of clouds is at 1400 meters or 4600 ft, so the rule of thumb is not bad. (I am taking these rules of thumb from an old, since replaced, US FAA handbook. The stated convergence rates are not exactly consistent for the two measuring systems: 4.4 deg F is 2.44 deg C, not 2.5 deg C. So 4.4 deg F per 1000 ft should be 8 deg C per km. This puts the bases of the clouds higher. On the other hand, when doing calculations in the airplane, which meant doing them in your head, the advice for people using the `English' system was to `divide by 4', not 4.4.) Note that all these temperatures involve the `dew point', not the `wet bulb' temperature. What is the difference between the two? Why does the wet bulb temperature depend on pressure, but the dew point temperature does not? Or does it really? By the way, the USA Today website, http://www.usatoday.com/weather/whumcalc.htm says the altitude of cloud bases, in meters, can be calculated by multiplying the temperature/dew point spread in deg C by 125. This calculation gives high bases, like mine using 8 deg C per km. (For deg F and feet, their multiplier is 222.) -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No baseball for a while so I thought I might stir the pot. Just finished Jane Leavy's excellent if reverential bio. It provides some insight into this extrarordinarly private man. She dispells notions that he did not really like baseball, or that he was aloof from teamates. But the main thing about him is his absolute dominance from 1961 through 1966. The statistics are daunting, 4 no hitters, an ERA of less than two, wining crutial games for the Dodgers at the end of the season and then in the world series often on 2 days rest. Other players of that era insist that he was the best. I know Gautam has argued in favor of Pedro Martinez but it seems to me that Pedro is not in the same league. As good as he Pedro has not been able to drag his team along with him. As good as he is he does not seem to have the ability to dominate the way Kofax could. Except that Koufax pitched in Dodger Stadium, off a 20 mound (the mound in Dodger Stadium was illegally high) in an era when the _batting title winner_ hit .301 in the American League, and the HR high was in the low 30s, IIRC. Pedro puts up ERAs similar to Koufax's when the batting title winner hits in the .370s, the HR champion hits 70 HRs, the mound is 10 high, and he does it in _Fenway Park_ (which favors hitters), not Dodger Stadium (then and now the best pitcher's park in MLB). In fact, until Koufax moved to Dodger Stadium, he wasn't an overwhelming pitcher. He was very good, but if I had to pick one pitcher of the post-war era to win a game for me, the list would go something like: 1. Pedro 2. Pedro 3. Tom Seaver 4. Roger Clemens 5. Greg Maddux 6. Koufax And I'm not even sure I'd put him that high. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars query: air pressure in spinning habitats
On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 07:22:39PM +, Robert J. Chassell wrote: What is the air pressure near the center of a spinning O'Neil type space habitat when the pressure at the rim is 1 atmosphere? What is the equation that tells you the pressure? Tricky. The only way I know of to get a simple equation is to make a couple approximations: (1) The temperature of all the air is the same, 300K (2) The air all rotates with the endcaps, speed proportional to radial distance from center In that case, the formula I come up with is P = P0 ( 1 - h/R ) ^ ( m v^2 / k / T ) where h is the distance above the floor of the habitat. If we make another approximation that the air is just N2 molecules, then m=4.8e-26 kg, and v^2 = 10R, and k=1.38e-23, and T=300K, then P = P0 ( 1 - h/R ) ^ 0.58 In reality, I'm not sure how good this formula will do. There is such gradient in air velocity with height. I think it may be necessary to take into account wind currents, and depending on the heating, thermal currents may be important. You may need to do a full simulation to get useful results. Am I right about the spin? My membory is that A = v^2/r, where A is the acceleration, equal to circumference/time-of-a-rotation, and v is the tangential velocity of the rim. | 4 pi^2 r Or, put another way, T = period-of-rotation = \ | -- \| A That is correct. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars query: air pressure in spinning habitats
At 05:26 PM 7/6/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 07:22:39PM +, Robert J. Chassell wrote: What is the air pressure near the center of a spinning O'Neil type space habitat when the pressure at the rim is 1 atmosphere? What is the equation that tells you the pressure? Tricky. The only way I know of to get a simple equation is to make a couple approximations: (1) The temperature of all the air is the same, 300K (2) The air all rotates with the endcaps, speed proportional to radial distance from center In that case, the formula I come up with is P = P0 ( 1 - h/R ) ^ ( m v^2 / k / T ) where h is the distance above the floor of the habitat. If we make another approximation that the air is just N2 molecules, FWIW, the usual assumption for using the ideal gas laws re: Earth's atmosphere at low altitudes is that it behaves as an ideal gas with a molecular weight of 29 (a average of 78% N2 with a molecular weight of 28 + 21% O2 with a molecular weight of 32 (and the 1% Ar with an atomic weight of 40 is generally ignored)). -- Ronn! :) Ronn Blankenship Instructor of Astronomy/Planetary Science University of Montevallo Montevallo, AL Disclaimer: Unless specifically stated otherwise, any opinions contained herein are the personal opinions of the author and do not represent the official position of the University of Montevallo. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No baseball for a while so I thought I might stir the pot. Just finished Jane Leavy's excellent if reverential bio. It provides some insight into this extrarordinarly private man. She dispells notions that he did not really like baseball, or that he was aloof from teamates. But the main thing about him is his absolute dominance from 1961 through 1966. The statistics are daunting, 4 no hitters, an ERA of less than two, wining crutial games for the Dodgers at the end of the season and then in the world series often on 2 days rest. Other players of that era insist that he was the best. I know Gautam has argued in favor of Pedro Martinez but it seems to me that Pedro is not in the same league. As good as he Pedro has not been able to drag his team along with him. As good as he is he does not seem to have the ability to dominate the way Kofax could. Except that Koufax pitched in Dodger Stadium, off a 20 mound (the mound in Dodger Stadium was illegally high) in an era when the _batting title winner_ hit .301 in the American League, and the HR high was in the low 30s, IIRC. Pedro puts up ERAs similar to Koufax's when the batting title winner hits in the .370s, the HR champion hits 70 HRs, the mound is 10 high, and he does it in _Fenway Park_ (which favors hitters), not Dodger Stadium (then and now the best pitcher's park in MLB). In fact, until Koufax moved to Dodger Stadium, he wasn't an overwhelming pitcher. He was very good, but if I had to pick one pitcher of the post-war era to win a game for me, the list would go something like: 1. Pedro 2. Pedro 3. Tom Seaver 4. Roger Clemens 5. Greg Maddux 6. Koufax And I'm not even sure I'd put him that high. What about Bob Gibson? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars query: air pressure in spinning habitats
At 05:26 PM 7/6/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 07:22:39PM +, Robert J. Chassell wrote: What is the air pressure near the center of a spinning O'Neil type space habitat when the pressure at the rim is 1 atmosphere? What is the equation that tells you the pressure? Tricky. The only way I know of to get a simple equation is to make a couple approximations: (1) The temperature of all the air is the same, 300K (2) The air all rotates with the endcaps, speed proportional to radial distance from center Good assumptions. By the way, the original post was also asking about weather. One way to produce a temperature gradient is to have the air near the axis cooled by being near the window, while the air at the rim is heated by the sunlight. But the degree of cooling depends on details of the habitat which are not specified... In that case, the formula I come up with is P = P0 ( 1 - h/R ) ^ ( m v^2 / k / T ) where h is the distance above the floor of the habitat. If we make another approximation that the air is just N2 molecules, The formula above seems to be assuming that pressure at the axis is zero, which is unrealistic. At a guess, I would say that the air pressure throughout the habitat will be pretty much the same. And it will be at whatever value the habitat is PRESSURIZED to. The extra pressure at the rim of the habitat is caused by the weight of the air above it. The radius of the habitat is 5 km, so a small region at the rim has a 5 km column of air above it. But note that weight goes as distance from the center, so higher parts of the column don't contribute as much to the pressure as they would on Earth. Also note that the column over the region is really a wedge, bringing another factor of r/5 (or 1 - h/R) into play. ---David Integral omitted, I don't work on Sundays. : ) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars query: air pressure in spinning habitats
On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 07:36:53PM -0400, David Hobby wrote: The formula above seems to be assuming that pressure at the axis is zero, which is unrealistic. Actually, having a pressure near 1 atmosphere at the center is unrealistic. There is nothing to provide such a pressure. The pressure should be very low at the center. It won't be exactly zero, but the formula I gave is just an approximation. At a guess, I would say that the air pressure throughout the habitat will be pretty much the same. And it will be at whatever value the habitat is PRESSURIZED to. Bad guess. There will be a pressure gradient from the center to the edge. The question specified it was pressurized to about 1 atmosphere at the rim. The pressure falls off from there as you move towards the center. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 5:16 PM Subject: Re: Sandy Kofax Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No baseball for a while so I thought I might stir the pot. Just finished Jane Leavy's excellent if reverential bio. It provides some insight into this extrarordinarly private man. She dispells notions that he did not really like baseball, or that he was aloof from teamates. But the main thing about him is his absolute dominance from 1961 through 1966. The statistics are daunting, 4 no hitters, an ERA of less than two, wining crutial games for the Dodgers at the end of the season and then in the world series often on 2 days rest. Other players of that era insist that he was the best. I know Gautam has argued in favor of Pedro Martinez but it seems to me that Pedro is not in the same league. As good as he Pedro has not been able to drag his team along with him. As good as he is he does not seem to have the ability to dominate the way Kofax could. Except that Koufax pitched in Dodger Stadium, off a 20 mound (the mound in Dodger Stadium was illegally high) in an era when the _batting title winner_ hit .301 in the American League, and the HR high was in the low 30s, IIRC. Pedro puts up ERAs similar to Koufax's when the batting title winner hits in the .370s, the HR champion hits 70 HRs, the mound is 10 high, and he does it in _Fenway Park_ (which favors hitters), not Dodger Stadium (then and now the best pitcher's park in MLB). In fact, until Koufax moved to Dodger Stadium, he wasn't an overwhelming pitcher. He was very good, but if I had to pick one pitcher of the post-war era to win a game for me, the list would go something like: 1. Pedro 2. Pedro 3. Tom Seaver 4. Roger Clemens 5. Greg Maddux 6. Koufax And I'm not even sure I'd put him that high. What about Bob Gibson? Nolan Ryan? xponent Local Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
How about Juan Marichal? -- Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
On Friday, June 27, 2003, at 03:21 am, Dan Minette wrote: You and I have a different understanding of spiralling, then. The non-European ethnic makeup of GB is 2.8%. They are optimistically projecting enough immigration to make this about 6% or so in 20 years. And its the shining star. California already has white non-Hispanics as the biggest minority, not the majority. Texas will follow in about 2 years. Yes, one can see a significant minority of non-Europeans in London. That's because that is a haven for non-whites in GB. Contrast that with my neck of the woods where neither of the two mayoral candidates were European. http://society.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4605024,00.html Two boroughs of Britain have more black and Asian people than white people for the first time ever, according to figures from the 2001 census published today. Data from the £200m survey showed that there were 4.5 million people from ethnic minorities in the UK in 2001 - 7.6% of the total population. The ethnic minority population of England rose from 6% in 1991 to 9% in 2001. Whites made up 39.4% of people living in the east London borough of Newham and 45.3% in Brent in the north-west of the capital. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1556901.stm Britain's ethnic minorities are growing at 15 times the rate of the white population, newly-published research shows. Data collected by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) between 1992-1994 and 1997-1999 showed that the number of people from minority ethnic groups grew by 15% compared to 1% for white people. The figures also revealed that on average Britain's ethnic minorities have a much younger age profile. The average age for the white population surveyed in the 1997-1999 period was 37 or less but only 26 for ethnic minorities. The report concluded: Their young age structure and the consequential large number of births and relatively small number of deaths helps to explain the disproportionate contribution of minority ethnic groups to population growth in the 1990s. Significantly the ethnic group with the youngest age profile were those who described themselves as mixed with 58% being aged 14 or under. Overall their numbers increased by 49% in the periods surveyed - the second largest growth among black groups. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again. -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 28 Days Later
In a message dated 7/5/2003 6:21:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I thought the stupid tunnel trip and the expedition into the gas-station house were awfully cheap. Maybe the gas station but I thought the tunnel was cool; after all it is horror sci fi movie and characters in such movies must behave stupidly. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 28 Days Later
In a message dated 7/5/2003 6:21:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I thought the stupid tunnel trip and the expedition into the gas-station house were awfully cheap. Maybe the gas station but I thought the tunnel was cool; after all it is horror sci fi movie and characters in such movies must behave stupidly. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 28 Days Later
In a message dated 7/5/2003 6:21:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I thought the stupid tunnel trip and the expedition into the gas-station house were awfully cheap. Maybe the gas station but I thought the tunnel was cool; after all it is horror sci fi movie and characters in such movies must behave stupidly. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 28 Days Later
In a message dated 7/5/2003 6:21:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I thought the stupid tunnel trip and the expedition into the gas-station house were awfully cheap. Maybe the gas station but I thought the tunnel was cool; after all it is horror sci fi movie and characters in such movies must behave stupidly. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 28 Days Later
In a message dated 7/5/2003 6:21:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I thought the stupid tunnel trip and the expedition into the gas-station house were awfully cheap. Maybe the gas station but I thought the tunnel was cool; after all it is horror sci fi movie and characters in such movies must behave stupidly. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
In a message dated 7/5/2003 6:31:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, TomFODW writes: There is an unfortunate tendency among some of Koufax's admirers, especially those who have known him, to elevate him into some kind of human paragon. Granted that he appears to be a highly decent, respectful, dignified person, the fact remains that he is, basically, someone who had an astounding God-given ability that he got the absolute most out of. He was a great baseball player; there's nothing wrong with being a great baseball player, but let's not make him out to be anything more than that. He's not Albert Schweitzer, he's not Martin King But your description of him is precisely one he would agree to. That is the person that comes through in the book. He disavows anything more. When he did not pitch on Yom Kippur this was not a political act and not really a religous one (Kofax is the prototypical non-observant Jew. And yet his act was in the modern parlance empowering to Jews. He accepted this and tried to be a role model ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
Dan Minette wrote: Let me give just one counter example now. (Only one for space limitation, not for lack of examples.) Tonight, on the local news, there was an apartment fire. One man was taken to the hospital for smoke inhalation. He was at risk because, instead of just yelling fire and getting out of the complex, he went door to door knocking on the doors telling people to get out. He is up for a hero's award, which I think is reasonable. From a Christian standpoint, his actions are an example of the greatest form of love possible. But, from the standpoint of enlightened self-interest, his actions were irrational. On a cost/benefits basis, it was the wrong decision to make. Isn't this just an example of _enlightened_ self interest? Certainly the guy could have saved his ass and gotten out right away, but as the result of a little risk taking, he has raised his stature in the community. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
But your description of him is precisely one he would agree to. That is the person that comes through in the book. He disavows anything more. When he did not pitch on Yom Kippur this was not a political act and not really a religous one (Kofax is the prototypical non-observant Jew. And yet his act was in the modern parlance empowering to Jews. He accepted this and tried to be a role model I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that Koufax himself would not go along with others' overestimation of him? I certainly agree with you on that, since that was my unstated point: that it was his admirers and not him who have the unfortunate tendency I noted. Koufax himself has been an extremely private person. An admirable one, but there are lots of admirable people who don't have their friends trying to glorify them. -- Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars query: air pressure in spinning habitats
Erik Reuter wrote: On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 07:36:53PM -0400, David Hobby wrote: The formula above seems to be assuming that pressure at the axis is zero, which is unrealistic. Actually, having a pressure near 1 atmosphere at the center is unrealistic. There is nothing to provide such a pressure. The pressure should be very low at the center. It won't be exactly zero, but the formula I gave is just an approximation. Sure there is something to provide the pressure! The habitat won't let air out, and you've pumped it up to the point where there is 1 atm at the rim. Or? At a guess, I would say that the air pressure throughout the habitat will be pretty much the same. And it will be at whatever value the habitat is PRESSURIZED to. Bad guess. There will be a pressure gradient from the center to the edge. The question specified it was pressurized to about 1 atmosphere at the rim. The pressure falls off from there as you move towards the center. But look, here's a quote from the original question: At 5.5 km (18,000 feet), atmospheric pressure is about 0.5 bar. This is for Earth, and sounds about right. So even for Earth, you get a pressure of .5 atm at around 5 km high for a surface pressure of 1 atm. But the gradient will be weaker in the habitat, for the two reasons I mentioned in my previous post: 1) Weight falls off closer to the axis. 2) The region of space above a given square on the surface is wedge-shaped instead of box-shaped, tapering as it goes up. ---David Appeal to Authority: Rama had air at the axis, and Clarke was usually good on physics. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dan Minette wrote: Let me give just one counter example now. (Only one for space limitation, not for lack of examples.) Tonight, on the local news, there was an apartment fire. One man was taken to the hospital for smoke inhalation. He was at risk because, instead of just yelling fire and getting out of the complex, he went door to door knocking on the doors telling people to get out. He is up for a hero's award, which I think is reasonable. From a Christian standpoint, his actions are an example of the greatest form of love possible. But, from the standpoint of enlightened self-interest, his actions were irrational. On a cost/benefits basis, it was the wrong decision to make. Isn't this just an example of _enlightened_ self interest? Certainly the guy could have saved his ass and gotten out right away, but as the result of a little risk taking, he has raised his stature in the community. Do you really think that is what he was thinking at the time? Just becouse that ~could have been~ his motivation doesn't mean that we can make any argumenats based on that possiblity in support of enlightened self intrest. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparision of ecconomic growth
--- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday, June 27, 2003, at 03:21 am, Dan Minette wrote: You and I have a different understanding of spiralling, then. The non-European ethnic makeup of GB is 2.8%. They are optimistically projecting enough immigration to make this about 6% or so in 20 years. And its the shining star. California already has white non-Hispanics as the biggest minority, not the majority. Texas will follow in about 2 years. Yes, one can see a significant minority of non-Europeans in London. That's because that is a haven for non-whites in GB. Contrast that with my neck of the woods where neither of the two mayoral candidates were European. http://society.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4605024,00.html Two boroughs of Britain have more black and Asian people than white people for the first time ever, according to figures from the 2001 census published today. Data from the £200m survey showed that there were 4.5 million people from ethnic minorities in the UK in 2001 - 7.6% of the total population. The ethnic minority population of England rose from 6% in 1991 to 9% in 2001. Whites made up 39.4% of people living in the east London borough of Newham and 45.3% in Brent in the north-west of the capital. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1556901.stm Britain's ethnic minorities are growing at 15 times the rate of the white population, newly-published research shows. Data collected by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) between 1992-1994 and 1997-1999 showed that the number of people from minority ethnic groups grew by 15% compared to 1% for white people. The figures also revealed that on average Britain's ethnic minorities have a much younger age profile. The average age for the white population surveyed in the 1997-1999 period was 37 or less but only 26 for ethnic minorities. The report concluded: Their young age structure and the consequential large number of births and relatively small number of deaths helps to explain the disproportionate contribution of minority ethnic groups to population growth in the 1990s. Significantly the ethnic group with the youngest age profile were those who described themselves as mixed with 58% being aged 14 or under. Overall their numbers increased by 49% in the periods surveyed - the second largest growth among black groups. This is sad because minorities use this information to combat any attempts at birth restrictions calling them racists. The world is over-populated as it is, we need to start setting restrictions now before it get's so out of hand that we have a catastrophe. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars query: air pressure in spinning habitats
On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 09:28:52PM -0400, David Hobby wrote: Sure there is something to provide the pressure! The habitat won't let air out, and you've pumped it up to the point where there is 1 atm at the rim. Or? No, that is counteracted by the rotational motion. But look, here's a quote from the original question: At 5.5 km (18,000 feet), atmospheric pressure is about 0.5 bar. This is for Earth, and sounds about right. So even for Earth, you get a pressure of .5 atm at around 5 km high for a surface pressure of 1 atm. But the gradient will be weaker in the habitat, for the two reasons I mentioned in my previous post: 1) Weight falls off closer to the axis. 2) The region of space above a given square on the surface is wedge-shaped instead of box-shaped, tapering as it goes up. Bad inference. The earth is much larger than the habitat described. I calculated the pressure based on my assumptions. If you have different assumptions, then state them. If you think my formula is wrong based on the assumptions, then state a better one. Mine probably isn't wrong, however, given the assumptions. It is a fairly simple calculation. The chemical potential of an ideal gas is proportional to k T ln[ n[h] / nq ], where n is the concentration of particles per unit volume. The potential energy in the reference frame due to the rotation is m v^2 ln[1 - h/R ]. Add that on to the internal potential of the ideal gas and solve for n assuming the chemical potential is constant with height (which it is in equilibrium, by definition of chemical potential). By the ideal gas law at constant temperature, pressure is proportional to n. Thus the result I quoted. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 8:14 PM Subject: Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality? Dan Minette wrote: Let me give just one counter example now. (Only one for space limitation, not for lack of examples.) Tonight, on the local news, there was an apartment fire. One man was taken to the hospital for smoke inhalation. He was at risk because, instead of just yelling fire and getting out of the complex, he went door to door knocking on the doors telling people to get out. He is up for a hero's award, which I think is reasonable. From a Christian standpoint, his actions are an example of the greatest form of love possible. But, from the standpoint of enlightened self-interest, his actions were irrational. On a cost/benefits basis, it was the wrong decision to make. Isn't this just an example of _enlightened_ self interest? Certainly the guy could have saved his ass and gotten out right away, but as the result of a little risk taking, he has raised his stature in the community. He had to be taken to the hospital. It wasn't a little risk. I certainly would not have risked my life just so that I could be called a hero on TV. I hope I would have the courage to risk my life so others wouldn't die. The first is nothing more than the type of stupid glory seeking; the latter is heroic. The moment will fade, and he will have few, if any, tangible rewards for his actions. The real reward is that he understands that he did the right thing. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
Jan Coffey wrote: --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't this just an example of _enlightened_ self interest? Certainly the guy could have saved his ass and gotten out right away, but as the result of a little risk taking, he has raised his stature in the community. Do you really think that is what he was thinking at the time? Just becouse that ~could have been~ his motivation doesn't mean that we can make any argumenats based on that possiblity in support of enlightened self intrest. Our culture glorifies heroism, does it not? It's been ingrained upon us from the time we are small children that to sacrifice one's own short term self interest for the good of a larger group - especially helpless individuals - is a good thing and will generally be rewarded. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 9:13 PM Subject: Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality? Jan Coffey wrote: --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't this just an example of _enlightened_ self interest? Certainly the guy could have saved his ass and gotten out right away, but as the result of a little risk taking, he has raised his stature in the community. Do you really think that is what he was thinking at the time? Just becouse that ~could have been~ his motivation doesn't mean that we can make any argumenats based on that possiblity in support of enlightened self intrest. Our culture glorifies heroism, does it not? It's been ingrained upon us from the time we are small children that to sacrifice one's own short term self interest for the good of a larger group - especially helpless individuals - is a good thing and will generally be rewarded. You are seriously arguing that I'm going to be on TV if this looks good, so I'll risk death is a more likely motive than My God, those people will die if I don't do something, I better act.I know, Gautam risked his life to save another...do you want to ask him if it was a bid for glory? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 5:16 PM Subject: Re: Sandy Kofax Gautam Mukunda wrote: Except that Koufax pitched in Dodger Stadium, off a 20 mound (the mound in Dodger Stadium was illegally high) in an era when the _batting title winner_ hit .301 in the American League, and the HR high was in the low 30s, IIRC. Pedro puts up ERAs similar to Koufax's when the batting title winner hits in the .370s, the HR champion hits 70 HRs, the mound is 10 high, and he does it in _Fenway Park_ (which favors hitters), not Dodger Stadium (then and now the best pitcher's park in MLB). In fact, until Koufax moved to Dodger Stadium, he wasn't an overwhelming pitcher. He was very good, but if I had to pick one pitcher of the post-war era to win a game for me, the list would go something like: 1. Pedro 2. Pedro 3. Tom Seaver 4. Roger Clemens 5. Greg Maddux 6. Koufax And I'm not even sure I'd put him that high. What about Bob Gibson? Nolan Ryan? xponent Local Maru rob You mean the guy who's at least part owner of that minor league team that plays not too far from my house? :) The one that's got a housing development near that local ballpark named after him, and a street, as well? And something about the minor league *team* being named after him, sorta (the Express)? Yeah, he was pretty good. Where does he fall in the ranking? Julia went to 1 game so far, and they lost, but since it was a Friday, there were fireworks after the game, and *that* was really cool, anyway ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
In a message dated 7/6/2003 8:15:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, TomFODW writes: I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that Koufax himself would not go along with others' overestimation of him? I certainly agree with you on that, since that was my unstated point: that it was his admirers and not him who have the unfortunate tendency I noted. Koufax himself has been an extremely private person. An admirable one, but there are lots of admirable people who don't have their friends trying to glorify them. My point is that the biography does not idolize him as a person. The author idolizes him as an athlete and appreciates him as a man. But I would make the point that Kofax seems unique in his maintaining his dignity and his refusal to cash in on his celebrity. But rather then argue this I would suggest that you read the book to learn of his small kindnesses and his interactions with others. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Just a Fire Break Check (was Religion, etc)
John wrote- I will concede that I have been somewhat disappointed by the fact that very few people have spoken up to affirm that the behavior of several atheists on this List has been out-of-line in terms of respecting the people of faith who are also members of this community. :( Still, this was not entirely unsurprising, as the Community has always preferred to rely upon self-correction of behavior detrimental to the List, and has always been slow to build the critical mass of opinion towards censuring or even most drasticly, taking action, against another List Member. I am sure that it also doesn't help that we no longer have Jo Anne Bird around to ding listmembers who step out of line. Still, I think that part of the great Brin-L experiment is to become self-regulating in the interests of creating our own little on-line civilization, without resorting to the use of moderators. I think that raising my concerns that the uncivil actions of certain List-Members were having a detrimental effect upon the Community was an entirely appropriate course of action. I think you will find that there are no clear rights and wrongs here, no heros and no villians, just a hot topic that is a tinderbox and people who recognize the grey areas as much as the extremes of the discussion. Largely we try and respect what members are passionate about, there is also a certain amount of background noise and same old, same old that I think we tolerate from each other. There is always a chance that someone will stomp on any given post- and if it is something you are passionate about you may risk getting your feelings trampled. Religion/or not is one of those topics the players and responses tend to stay passionate and true to form. Religion or not is largely a personal decision in our society and the whole basis of faith is intangible- it is not a matter of building consensus. Sometimes threads mutate and live on for weeks, sometimes threads/topics die quickly... no matter how much anyone wants to make the list hospitable to religion/safe from religion it isn't the perogative of any individual to dictate what it is/isn't. Perhaps I have been idealistic in thinking of tolerance as the opposite of intolerance, perhaps the word tolerance is not comprehensive enough when it comes to interaction (tolerance may be more passive action of non posters?- not firmly sure on this yet). (Looking back Jon did a better job than I pointing out the need for both respect and tolerance.) What I see lacking is respect for each other- one need not agree with a position, but at least respect the other person's ability to have an opinion different from you. There are really no candidates for great shining white knight (to be above reproach) in recent heated discussions. Frankly, people seem to be coming across like those not seeing their opinion are mentally deficient for not being able to see matters of faith/no faith. Serious discussion is lots of work this is not a race for speed points or dig quality points. Sometimes I think people don't respond since the topic has not exceeded some kind of reasonable response threshold for posters. Joanne is still around as far as I know, but sometimes I have to figure you would rather not have/need one of the list goddesses, crones, aunts saying something like don't make me pull this car over or stop fighting about whose half of the seat you are sitting on (do we really have no males that have threatened to ding- or the male equivalent of smote). Some topics will not come to consensus. There is a fundamental principle of adult learning that might be helpful in understanding why the group may be slow to change.. learning is based on a perceived need to change something. Quite simply, some people just don't see a need to change and others saying things harsher, more condescendingly, will generally not assist people in identifying a need (or cognitive dissonance) to promote change. Granted list business is partly my responsibility as much as it is any other list members, but I try and keep a few fire breaks around to help keep things in perspective. Dee ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What about Bob Gibson? Doug A good addition to the list. Not sure exactly where I would put him. Not as good as Clemens or Seaver, but up there with the others, definitely. Since I _know_ someone is going to mention Nolan Ryan - not a chance. Ryan struck out a lot of people, and he pitched _forever_. Definitely an inner circle Hall of Famer. But he also walked an enormous number of people. His career winning percentage (for example) isn't actually all that high. IIRC Nolan Ryan never won a _single_ Cy Young in his entire career. Clemens has, I believe, 6. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about Juan Marichal? Tom Beck An excellent pitcher, but I don't think you could really say that he was up there with Seaver or Clemens. I don't have a copy of the new Historical Baseball Abstract handy, but I'm fairly confident that James wouldn't even have put him in the top 10. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 9:59 PM Subject: Re: Sandy Kofax --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What about Bob Gibson? Doug A good addition to the list. Not sure exactly where I would put him. Not as good as Clemens or Seaver, but up there with the others, definitely. Since I _know_ someone is going to mention Nolan Ryan - not a chance. Ryan struck out a lot of people, and he pitched _forever_. Definitely an inner circle Hall of Famer. But he also walked an enormous number of people. His career winning percentage (for example) isn't actually all that high. IIRC Nolan Ryan never won a _single_ Cy Young in his entire career. Clemens has, I believe, 6. I remember seeing Ryan in his later Houston years. IIRC, he had one losing season (well maybe it was a 15-14 season) when he led the league in ERA. He would lose a number of 2-1 and 1-0 ballgames. It was amazing. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
Dan Minette wrote: Our culture glorifies heroism, does it not? It's been ingrained upon us from the time we are small children that to sacrifice one's own short term self interest for the good of a larger group - especially helpless individuals - is a good thing and will generally be rewarded. You are seriously arguing that I'm going to be on TV if this looks good, so I'll risk death is a more likely motive than My God, those people will die if I don't do something, I better act.I know, Gautam risked his life to save another...do you want to ask him if it was a bid for glory? Read what I wrote, Dan. It is ingrained upon us by our culture that saving others is a good thing. If I were a goat or a chicken, sensed danger and saw a way out (and none of my offspring were threatened), I'd bag ass because nothing in my upbringing taught me that I should help the other chickens, or that it was a good thing. Indeed, many humans (most?) fall back upon these instincts when their life is threatened. Why does he say My God, those people will die if I don't do something, I better act.? Would the stories he's been told from youth about the good guy saving lives - the television shows, the movies, the real life stories on the news at least be a factor? We're taught, hell, _trained_ that to be the hero is the right thing to do and has its rewards. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sandy Kofax
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I remember seeing Ryan in his later Houston years. IIRC, he had one losing season (well maybe it was a 15-14 season) when he led the league in ERA. He would lose a number of 2-1 and 1-0 ballgames. It was amazing. Dan M. I'm not denying he was a phenomenal pitcher. He was a phenomenal pitcher. He could pitch on my team any time :-) But his lack of control just made him a less phenomenal pitcher than someone like Seaver or Clemens. Although the common conception of Ryan is that he pitched for a number of bad teams, in fact the winning percentage of the teams he pitched for in his career when he did not pitch is actually pretty good. I'm not saying Nolan Ryan wasn't a great pitcher - I'm saying Nolan Ryan wasn't one of the top 5-10 pitchers of all time. He was an incredible pticher - I'd just rather have Clemens or Seaver for career value, or Pedro for peak value. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 10:05 PM Subject: Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality? humans (most?) fall back upon these instincts when their life is threatened. Why does he say My God, those people will die if I don't do something, I better act.? Would the stories he's been told from youth about the good guy saving lives - the television shows, the movies, the real life stories on the news at least be a factor? We're taught, hell, _trained_ that to be the hero is the right thing to do and has its rewards. Well I certainly wasn't. I was taught to do the right thing because it was right. I was also taught that there was often a very stiff penalty for doing the right thing, but one should do it anyways. The point I was making was that people do the right thing because they believe in right and wrong. It doesn't have to be faith in God, but it is still faith based. By pointing out that these principals are just lies and myths, one is undercutting the community. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars query: air pressure in spinning habitats
On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 09:28:52PM -0400, David Hobby wrote: Appeal to Authority: Rama had air at the axis, and Clarke was usually good on physics. Rama had a radius of about 8km. They entered near the axis and began descending in spacesuits. After descending 2km, they found the pressure was about 300millibars. Not enough to breathe, although Mercer briefly sniffed the air, but he put his helmet back on afterwards. Gravity was 0.1 earth gravities at that point. Slightly below that, they were able to breathe the atmosphere. The surface gravity was 0.6 earth gravities. I didn't see a mention of the pressure at the surface. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Comparison of economic growth
At 06:41 PM 7/6/03 -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: [snip for brevity] This is sad because minorities use this information to combat any attempts at birth restrictions calling them racists. The world is over-populated as it is, we need to start setting restrictions now before it get's so out of hand that we have a catastrophe. Didn't we have this discussion a few months ago? Something about everybody moving to Texas? --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars query: air pressure in spinning habitats
At 09:52 PM 7/6/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 09:28:52PM -0400, David Hobby wrote: [snip] FWIW, a Google search for space habitat atmospheric pressure returns 23,900 hits, some of which actually seem to relate to the question at hand . . . --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Another backward step for human rights
News Release Issued by the International Secretariat of Amnesty International AI Index: AMR 51/096/2003 (Public) News Service No: 161 4 July 2003 USA: Six named under Military Order: Another backward step for human rights Yesterday's decision by President Bush to name six detainees under the Military Order he signed in November 2001 is another retrograde step for human rights in the US-led war against terrorism and will further undermine the USA's claims to be a country that champions the rule of law, Amnesty International said today. The Military Order is a fundamentally flawed document and should be revoked, Amnesty International said. We deeply regret that the President has taken his country one step closer to running trials that will flout basic standards of justice. The six detainees have been named as people suspected of being members of al-Qa'ida or otherwise involved in terrorism directed against the United States, according to the Pentagon. This means that they can be held indefinitely without charge or trial under the Military Order or charged and tried in front of military commissions, executive bodies with the power to hand down death sentences. It now falls on the appointing authority, currently Deputy Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz, to determine whether or not to refer any charges that may be levelled against these six people to a military commission. The fundamental flaws of this process include: · The Military Order is discriminatory. US nationals will not be tried by military commission, even if accused of the same offence as a foreign national. Under the Order, selected foreign nationals will receive second-class justice, in violation of international law which prohibits discriminatory treatment, including on the basis of nationality. · The commissions would allow a lower standard of evidence than is admissible in the ordinary courts, including hearsay evidence. The Pentagon guidelines for the operation of the commissions do not expressly exclude statements extracted under coercive methods. · The military commissions would entirely lack independence from the executive. The President has given himself or Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld (who last week appointed his Deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, to this role) the power to name who will be tried by the commissions, to appoint or to remove the members of those commissions, to pick the panel that will review convictions and sentences, and to make the final decision in any case. · In violation of international law, there will be no right of appeal to an independent and impartial court established by law. Instead, there would be a review by a three-member panel appointed by the Deputy Secretary of Defence. Any trial before these military commissions would be a travesty of justice, Amnesty International said. We urge the US administration to rethink its strategy before it causes any further affront to international fair trial norms and any more damage to its own reputation. Background The authorities have not made public the names of the six detainees. At a Pentagon briefing yesterday, a senior Pentagon official acknowledged that the authorities may not identify the six named individuals, saying that there would only be as much transparency as practicable. The Pentagon refused to say if the six detainees are among the more than 650 individuals currently held without charge or trial in its Naval Base in Guantánamo Bay. Many of these detainees have been held for well over a year in conditions the totality of which may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of international law. None has had access to a court, to legal counsel, or to relatives. Most are held in tiny cells for up to 24 hours a day with minimal opportunity for out-of-cell exercise. Rooms are said to have been prepared at Guantánamo Bay in which to conduct military commissions, and the possibility of locating an execution chamber at the Naval Base have recently been discussed. For further information, please see: USA: The Guantánamo scandal continues - http://amnesty-news.c.tclk.net/maabejdaaY0OXbb0ifPb/ USA - Military commissions: Second-class justice - http://amnesty-news.c.tclk.net/maabejdaaY0OYbb0ifPb/ USA: Presidential order on military tribunals threatens fundamental principles of justice - http://amnesty-news.c.tclk.net/maabejdaaY0OZbb0ifPb/ For all human rights documents on the USA - http://amnesty-news.c.tclk.net/maabejdaaY0O0bb0ifPb/ You may repost this message onto other sources provided the main text is not altered in any way and both the header crediting Amnesty International and this footer remain intact. Only the list subscription message may be removed. Past and current Amnesty news services can be found at http://www.amnesty.org/news/. Visit
Re: Irregulars query: air pressure in spinning habitats
Erik Reuter wrote: On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 09:28:52PM -0400, David Hobby wrote: Sure there is something to provide the pressure! The habitat won't let air out, and you've pumped it up to the point where there is 1 atm at the rim. Or? No, that is counteracted by the rotational motion. Sorry, I have no idea what you mean here. But look, here's a quote from the original question: At 5.5 km (18,000 feet), atmospheric pressure is about 0.5 bar. This is for Earth, and sounds about right. So even for Earth, you get a pressure of .5 atm at around 5 km high for a surface pressure of 1 atm. But the gradient will be weaker in the habitat, for the two reasons I mentioned in my previous post: 1) Weight falls off closer to the axis. 2) The region of space above a given square on the surface is wedge-shaped instead of box-shaped, tapering as it goes up. Bad inference. The earth is much larger than the habitat described. I calculated the pressure based on my assumptions. If you have different assumptions, then state them. If you think my formula is wrong based on the assumptions, then state a better one. I'm going straight from Robert Chassell's post. The habitat is a cylinder with r = 5 km. It rotates so that there is 1 g at the rim. It is full of just enough air so that the pressure at the rim is 1 atmosphere. I am assuming room temperature, not that this is very critical. His first question was about the pressure distribution. No, an analogy with the Earth is fine. I'm not using the entire Earth, just a box shape of air over a small square on the surface. If you want, I'll surround it by curtains to make sure the air is undisturbed. But I can calculate the pressure distribution inside the box, and the result will be a good approximation of the actual pressure distribution since all I'm neglecting are winds. As I said, I'm not calculating the distribution just now. It's not really a fair tactic to say that I must. Mine probably isn't wrong, however, given the assumptions. It is a fairly simple calculation. The chemical potential of an ideal gas is proportional to k T ln[ n[h] / nq ], where n is the concentration of particles per unit volume. The potential energy in the reference frame due to the rotation is m v^2 ln[1 - h/R ]. Add that on to the internal potential of the ideal gas and solve for n assuming the chemical potential is constant with height (which it is in equilibrium, by definition of chemical potential). By the ideal gas law at constant temperature, pressure is proportional to n. Thus the result I quoted. Oh, so this is what you were doing. This sounds like a fine approach, although I'm shaky on your potential energy term. If I differentiate the potential energy, I should get the centrifical force. To simplify, let's use the distance from the axis as the variable: r = (R-h). Then your potential energy is m v^2 ln[r/R], and its derivative with respect to r is C/r for some constant C. This is wrong, force should go linearly with r. Right? ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Rama: air pressure in spinning habitats
Erik Reuter wrote: On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 09:28:52PM -0400, David Hobby wrote: Appeal to Authority: Rama had air at the axis, and Clarke was usually good on physics. Rama had a radius of about 8km. They entered near the axis and began descending in spacesuits. After descending 2km, they found the pressure was about 300millibars. Not enough to breathe, although Mercer briefly sniffed the air, but he put his helmet back on afterwards. Gravity was 0.1 earth gravities at that point. Slightly below that, they were able to breathe the atmosphere. The surface gravity was 0.6 earth gravities. I didn't see a mention of the pressure at the surface. I read _Rendezvous with Rama_, years ago. I thought there was a part where they sent an ultra-light pedalled aircraft along the axis to explore. Do I have the wrong book? Yes, they entered at the axis. Yes, the radius was 5 miles. Got me... ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
Dan Minette wrote: The point I was making was that people do the right thing because they believe in right and wrong. It doesn't have to be faith in God, but it is still faith based. By pointing out that these principals are just lies and myths, one is undercutting the community. Faith has nothing to do with it, IMO. Cooperative behavior is successful, that's why we are who we are. Saving lives is a manifestation of cooperative behavior. What do lies and myths have to do with it? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 10:36 PM Subject: Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality? Dan Minette wrote: The point I was making was that people do the right thing because they believe in right and wrong. It doesn't have to be faith in God, but it is still faith based. By pointing out that these principals are just lies and myths, one is undercutting the community. Faith has nothing to do with it, IMO. Cooperative behavior is successful, that's why we are who we are. Saving lives is a manifestation of cooperative behavior. Right, and raping and pillaging is an example of exploitive behavior. They are both part of human nature. Saving lives is good, raping and pillaging is bad. Now, I can't prove that; its a matter of faith for me. What do lies and myths have to do with it? Because the reason people cooperate is, typically, because they share principals. For example, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. People have sacrificed their lives for these principals. It was not a matter of enlightened self interest. They believed them to be true. Now, obviously, they cannot be proven empirically. The question is, do you believe they are true, or not? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
Dan Minette wrote: ... Right, and raping and pillaging is an example of exploitive behavior. They are both part of human nature. Saving lives is good, raping and pillaging is bad. Now, I can't prove that; its a matter of faith for me. What do lies and myths have to do with it? Because the reason people cooperate is, typically, because they share principals. Yeah, I remember in High School, we all shared the same awful Principal. We cooperated to make his life Hell... : ) For example, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. People have sacrificed their lives for these principals. It was not a matter of enlightened self interest. They believed them to be true. Now, obviously, they cannot be proven empirically. The question is, do you believe they are true, or not? Good point. Such beliefs are not usually based in fact, but are strongly held. So in a sense, they are based on faith. But somehow it feels like a completely different KIND of faith than the faith required to believe in a god. Help! ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars query: air pressure in spinning habitats
On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 11:19:38PM -0400, David Hobby wrote: As I said, I'm not calculating the distribution just now. It's not really a fair tactic to say that I must. Sure it is fair. The question asked for an equation (or specific numbers). I gave an equation. You say it is wrong, but don't provide any number or equations. derivative with respect to r is C/r for some constant C. This is wrong, force should go linearly with r. Right? Right. I had the wrong potential energy. It should be 0.5m(w h)^2. Here is the corrected formula for the pressure in the habitat as a function of height h: P = P0 exp[ - ( h / R )^2 / ( 2 k T / ( m g R ) ) ] = P0 exp[ - ( h / R )^2 / 3.45 ] So, David, you were right that the pressure is not zero at the center, but you were wrong about it being constant throughout the habitat. Pressure is down to about 0.75 atmospheres at the center. Interestingly enough, it seems Clarke had the pressure being too low at the center of Rama. So maybe it isn't such a good idea to rely on a SF book rather than an actual calculation. Of course, it helps to have someone check the calculation for mistakes -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 12:12:18AM -0400, David Hobby wrote: Good point. Such beliefs are not usually based in fact, but are strongly held. So in a sense, they are based on faith. But somehow it feels like a completely different KIND of faith than the faith required to believe in a god. Help! William already pointed out that God is irrelevant to that system as described by Dan. But Dan did not reply. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
Erik Reuter wrote: On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 12:12:18AM -0400, David Hobby wrote: Good point. Such beliefs are not usually based in fact, but are strongly held. So in a sense, they are based on faith. But somehow it feels like a completely different KIND of faith than the faith required to believe in a god. Help! William already pointed out that God is irrelevant to that system as described by Dan. But Dan did not reply. Yes, I've got that. But why do we believe in Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or whatever? I read Dan's post as saying that this was also faith. I pretty much agree. So how is it different from deistic faith? It does FEEL different to me, but I can't pin down the difference. ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars query: air pressure in spinning habitats
Erik Reuter wrote: On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 11:19:38PM -0400, David Hobby wrote: As I said, I'm not calculating the distribution just now. It's not really a fair tactic to say that I must. Sure it is fair. The question asked for an equation (or specific numbers). I gave an equation. You say it is wrong, but don't provide any number or equations. Yes, but I gave arguments showing that it did not give reasonable results. ... So, David, you were right that the pressure is not zero at the center, but you were wrong about it being constant throughout the habitat. Pressure is down to about 0.75 atmospheres at the center. ... I believe I said about constant. I can deal with .75 atmospheres when I go into the mountains. And getting lighter as I climbed would be interesting... ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't this just an example of _enlightened_ self interest? Certainly the guy could have saved his ass and gotten out right away, but as the result of a little risk taking, he has raised his stature in the community. Do you really think that is what he was thinking at the time? Just becouse that ~could have been~ his motivation doesn't mean that we can make any argumenats based on that possiblity in support of enlightened self intrest. Our culture glorifies heroism, does it not? It's been ingrained upon us from the time we are small children that to sacrifice one's own short term self interest for the good of a larger group - especially helpless individuals - is a good thing and will generally be rewarded. Doug You know, I voluntere on a regular basis for psitions which might place me in danger and might have a significant benifit for others. (Floor safty warden at work for instance) I don't think I once considered glorification or reward. I also do not beleive that any of my associates consider this either. I know that if I had been in the position of the gentalman in question, I would have felt -responsible- for the lives of those people who didn't know. I would have continued as long as possible becouse of duty and responsability rather than a desire for fame, social status, or reward. It is actualy... shifted down, I would have felt guilty if I hadn't, I would not have been able to live with myself. What I really don't understand is how anyone else could be any different. In my experiance they are not, so I will have to disagree with you. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Faith has nothing to do with it, IMO. Cooperative behavior is successful, that's why we are who we are. Saving lives is a manifestation of cooperative behavior. Right, and raping and pillaging is an example of exploitive behavior. They are both part of human nature. Saving lives is good, raping and pillaging is bad. Now, I can't prove that; its a matter of faith for me. Why can't you prove that? I think that it is rather self evident, but certainly you could set up an experiment to prove the above. What do lies and myths have to do with it? Because the reason people cooperate is, typically, because they share principals. For example, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The reason people cooperate is because they are more successful when they do. I'm sure that you wouldn't argue that cooperative behavior in any of a number of daily endeavors, from making breakfast to a project at your place of employment, is more successful than uncooperative behavior. Morals are just an extension of this basic principal. People have sacrificed their lives for these principals. It was not a matter of enlightened self interest. They believed them to be true. Now, obviously, they cannot be proven empirically. The question is, do you believe they are true, or not? I think that the anecdotal evidence is overwhelming but why couldn't they be proven? You can't conceive of a series of experiments, given adequate time, that would pit a moral societies against immoral ones? Impractical but not impossible. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars query: air pressure in spinning habitats
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 12:38:36AM -0400, David Hobby wrote: Yes, but I gave arguments showing that it did not give reasonable results. Not at all convincing arguments, with no numbers or equations. I believe I said about constant. I can deal with .75 atmospheres when I go into the mountains. And getting lighter as I climbed would be interesting... So what is no longer constant to you? If it went down to 0.5 atmospheres? Because it would have if R were 10 or 11km instead of 5km. By the way, I just re-read Rama. The atmosphere changes quite a bit later on after the Cylindrical Sea melts. That was what allowed the Dragonfly pilot to breathe near the axis. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Just a Fire Break Check (was Religion, etc)
Gautam Perhaps I have been idealistic in thinking of tolerance as the opposite of intolerance, perhaps the word tolerance is not comprehensive enough when it comes to interaction (tolerance may be more passive action of non posters?- not firmly sure on this yet). (Looking back Jon did a better job than I pointing out the need for both respect and tolerance.) What I see lacking is respect for each other- one need not agree with a position, but at least respect the other person's ability to have an opinion different from you. First we have to define what we mean by these words: Tolerance: To many americans I think tolerance means putting up with others differences and accepting someone for what they intend, rather than how they come across based one ones personal cultural norms. In other macro cultures tolerance means trying to interact with others in they way they expect based on the other's cultural norms. Consider the example where onep erson (A) were to act so drasticaly different that to another person (B) it would generaly be considred offensive. 1) If B were an American (or others who have the same model) B would most likely ~be tolerant~ and first assume that not offense was intended. 2) However if B was rasied with another bodel of tolerance, B would likely consider A to be intolerant and to be very offended. What is more if A in this case was following the American model, A would mow find B to be intolerant. I think that this defines the American version of multi-culturalism often refered to (and misunderstood) as a melting-pot. The American model gives a greatest common denominator result, while maintaining a high degree of individuality. The alternative Multi-Cultural model results in a least common denominator result (much more in line with what many think when they hear melting-pot) and results in much less individuality. You may disagree with this, but I think it provides a starting point from which to discuss tolerance and what it means. I think it might have something to do with the NA influences on my own personal microculture, but I personaly fail to see how anyone has really been ~that~ intolerant. It is hard to define the existance of a lack of respect for anothers viewpoint. Clearly, simply restating already stated consept is a symptom, but then one must diagnose and that is where it becouse dificult. Consider an example where person (A) is restating something to person (B). 1) It may be that person (B) has not shown a good understanding of what (A) said. (B) may not be respecting what A has to say, or may not be respecting that what (A) has said may have important subtle differences to what (B) is expecting. (B) may be purpously ignoring certain features of (A)'s consepts or arguments. In short it may be a sign that (B)is lacking respect. 2) (A) could simply be ignoreing everything (B)sais and simply repeating. (A) may be lacking respect. Defining a lack of respect is more troublesome than it may at first appear. While it may be more obvious that the lack of respect exists, it is not necisarily obvious who specificaly is lacking respectfulness. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
Jan Coffey wrote: --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You know, I voluntere on a regular basis for psitions which might place me in danger and might have a significant benifit for others. (Floor safty warden at work for instance) I don't think I once considered glorification or reward. So you wouldn't feel rewarded with a perfect safety record? I also do not beleive that any of my associates consider this either. I know that if I had been in the position of the gentalman in question, I would have felt -responsible- for the lives of those people who didn't know. I would have continued as long as possible becouse of duty and responsability rather than a desire for fame, social status, or reward. It is actualy... shifted down, I would have felt guilty if I hadn't, I would not have been able to live with myself. What I really don't understand is how anyone else could be any different. In my experiance they are not, so I will have to disagree with you. But even if your only reward is that you performed your duty, that is still a reward of sorts. And why is it your duty? Because your duty is an example of cooperative behavior and we have learned that cooperative behavior is successful. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 10:05 PM Subject: Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality? humans (most?) fall back upon these instincts when their life is threatened. Why does he say My God, those people will die if I don't do something, I better act.? Would the stories he's been told from youth about the good guy saving lives - the television shows, the movies, the real life stories on the news at least be a factor? We're taught, hell, _trained_ that to be the hero is the right thing to do and has its rewards. Well I certainly wasn't. I was taught to do the right thing because it was right. I was also taught that there was often a very stiff penalty for doing the right thing, but one should do it anyways. The point I was making was that people do the right thing because they believe in right and wrong. It doesn't have to be faith in God, but it is still faith based. By pointing out that these principals are just lies and myths, one is undercutting the community. Even if one points out that some story or another is a lie or myth, does not effect the reality of right and wrong. If you throw away the crutch of the myths and lies and are left with nothing but the hard reality right is still right and wrong is still wrong. The strength in that is far grater than any strength on can recieve from blind faith. Not only that, but it is infaliable, where as faith is not. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
--- David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 12:12:18AM -0400, David Hobby wrote: Good point. Such beliefs are not usually based in fact, but are strongly held. So in a sense, they are based on faith. But somehow it feels like a completely different KIND of faith than the faith required to believe in a god. Help! William already pointed out that God is irrelevant to that system as described by Dan. But Dan did not reply. Yes, I've got that. But why do we believe in Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or whatever? I read Dan's post as saying that this was also faith. I pretty much agree. So how is it different from deistic faith? It does FEEL different to me, but I can't pin down the difference. What if there is not faith involved at all. Doing the right thing makes the world a better place to be, and makes you feel good. Not doing the right thing makes you feel bad, and makes the world a worse place to be. Where is the faith? Faith is a lie told to the un-ivolved to try and get them to mimick the intelegant. An intelegant person has no use for faith. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No conflicts between selfishness and morality?
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You know, I voluntere on a regular basis for psitions which might place me in danger and might have a significant benifit for others. (Floor safty warden at work for instance) I don't think I once considered glorification or reward. So you wouldn't feel rewarded with a perfect safety record? Absolutly. But there is a difference between that and doing it for some public reward. I know that as a waredn I am more likely to die in the building becouse I am valunteering to be one of the last out. But I do it becouse I have seen what happens when everyone simply runs for the exit in panic and without guidance. I also do not beleive that any of my associates consider this either. I know that if I had been in the position of the gentalman in question, I would have felt -responsible- for the lives of those people who didn't know. I would have continued as long as possible becouse of duty and responsability rather than a desire for fame, social status, or reward. It is actualy... shifted down, I would have felt guilty if I hadn't, I would not have been able to live with myself. What I really don't understand is how anyone else could be any different. In my experiance they are not, so I will have to disagree with you. But even if your only reward is that you performed your duty, that is still a reward of sorts. And why is it your duty? Becouse I am capable of keeping my head and others are notSo maybe I do it out of a sense of superiority, or becouse of some alfa or T type tendancies. There is definatly reward in that :) But it seems to be my duty becouse others do not want, or can not perform the function. I was one of the people on my flour who got the calm in face of danger trait whether it is genetic or learned behavior. The knowledge of that makes me responsibile. Because your duty is an example of cooperative behavior and we have learned that cooperative behavior is successful. yes, I know it is the successful model and I am interested in more successful models being reslized. Still I don't volunere becouse I want to be looked on with approval. Having that orange vest hanging in my office is more of a source of ridicule than respect. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
