Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
I'll just make a brief interjection that a new study suggests that Diamond got it wrong. Easter Island forest deprivation was more likely caused by rats brought by the colonists, who also arrived much later then previously thought. The human depopulation was caused by slave traders and diseases introduced by Europeans.. It also appears that the islanders began building moai and ahu soon after reaching the island. The human population probably reached a maximum of about 3,000, perhaps a bit higher, around 1350 A.D. and remained fairly stable until the arrival of Europeans. The environmental limitations of Rapa Nui would have kept the population from growing much larger. By the time Roggeveen arrived in 1722, most of the island's trees were gone, but deforestation did not trigger societal collapse, as Diamond and others have argued. There is no reliable evidence that the island's population ever grew as large as 15,000 or more, and the actual downfall of the Rapanui resulted not from internal strife but from contact with Europeans. When Roggeveen landed on Rapa Nui's shores in 1722, a few days after Easter (hence the island's name), he took more than 100 of his men with him, and all were armed with muskets, pistols and cutlasses. Before he had advanced very far, Roggeveen heard shots from the rear of the party. He turned to find 10 or 12 islanders dead and a number of others wounded. His sailors claimed that some of the Rapanui had made threatening gestures. Whatever the provocation, the result did not bode well for the island's inhabitants. Newly introduced diseases, conflict with European invaders and enslavement followed over the next century and a half, and these were the chief causes of the collapse. In the early 1860s, more than a thousand Rapanui were taken from the island as slaves, and by the late 1870s the number of native islanders numbered only around 100. http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/53200?fulltext=trueprint=yes or http://tinyurl.com/ldwbm Gary Denton OddsEnds - http://elemming.blogspot.com Easter Lemming Liberal News -http://elemming2.blogspot.com http://www.apollocon.org June 22-24, 2007 I ncompetence M oney Laundering P ropaganda E lectronic surveillance A bu Ghraib C ronyism H ad enough? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
What should we believe when there is no reliable information?
On 9/9/06, Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a vital point: ABC was _given_ the public airwaves -- a multi-billion dollar gift. People had to decide to drive to the theater and pay ten bucks to see the Moore film if they chose to. ABC will air Path to 9/11 for free for two consecutive nights to an audience that has a hard time discriminating between reality and fiction when the fiction is presented as reality. I think I see a way forward: ABC can run a crawler under the entire miniseries (giving it that breaking news feel) stating THIS PART HAPPENED ... THIS PART IS FICTIONAL ... THIS PART IS PROPAGANDA. I am deeply puzzled by the events of 9-11. I am a conspiracy theorist and have been from my earliest teen years in the 1950s. But I have always felt I could tell the likely conspiracy theories from the obvious bunk and baloney. I have never gone in for UFO testimonials, stories about pyramids and so-called Watchers, the hollow earth and other weirdness. I do find likely, however, that multibillion dollar banks and other private financial institutions have a great deal of influence on governments around the world and that they are involved in the financing of our wars throughout history. And since corruption in government is so commonplace in countries around the world and throughout history, it is reasonable to suppose that these vast accumulations of capital in private hands are in some cases involved in that corruption and that huge bribes take place that are never detected or prosecuted, and so forth. But I am really confused about the 9-11 attacks. What part happened? What part is fiction? What part is propaganda? Sure Osama bin Laden may have had something to do with it, but how sure are we that he was not working at someone's behest? If our government is genuinely concerned about terrorism, why do they continue to drag their feet in securing our ports and borders? If millions of illegal aliens come into our nation every year, how can our government be sure that there are no terrorists coming in and bringing weapons of mass destruction with them? Were controlled demolitions involved in the collapse of the WTC towers? How can we be sure one way or the other? If the towers were brought down with controlled demolitions, who could have done it? Why would they do it? Did not Hitler and his followers have something to do with the burning of the Reichstag in Germany during the rise to power of the Nazis in that country? Could the attacks on 9-11 have been something like that? My access to the Internet has caused me to become increasingly skeptical about virtually all information sources. I no longer know how to tell good information from bad information, something I used to think I was good at. I am now confused to the point where I do not know what to believe about anything. It seems like almost everything is smoke and mirrors and media hype. What do you think? Is the official government story about 9-11 accurate? Or are we being fed an official line that is covering up something far more sinister? I just don't know any more. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 9/7/06, The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: John W Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] I confess that I do not know as much about atheism as an atheist does, or a least not as much that is correct. But neither do atheists know as much about religion as religious people do, at least not as much that is correct. Some things you cannot understand correctly from the outside looking in. In all advanced fields of learning including both science and religion, most of the knowledge can be learned only after learning the prerequisites. Without those prerequisites, a student must remain ignorant. I know some science, but not much beyond the level of my mathematics which only goes as far as high school algebra, geometry and trigonometry. However, I know the scriptures rather well compared with most. And one thing I can state with dead certainty: The scriptures cannot be correctly understood unless you believe them. Therefore, statements made about religion (scriptures) by atheists are almost always made from a position of bustling ignorance. A. I know more about 'scripture' than you do. Much more. B. I've read the bible, more times than you will for the entire rest of life. C. I've read more about the bible than you ever will. D. I Own more translations of the Bible than there are regulars on this list. E. You know nothing. You are a Fvcking idiot and a troll. It is not hard for me to see why you use the handle that you do in email. Think about what you have just written. How could you be sure you know more about scripture than I do when you do not know how much I know? How could you know you have read the Bible more times than I have when you do not know how many times I have read it? Ditto to your assertion labeled C above. As for your assertion labeled D, does owning many translations necessarily mean that you understand any of them? It seems to me that a person might become confused if he owned too many translations, especially if he had no criteria for knowing which of the translations were any good. Have you ever considered that all of the translations might be bad? If that were so, just how much would your knowledge of the Bible be worth then? Is every one you disagree with a lowbrow explitive deleted idiot and a troll? Or just me? You strike me as a person who thinks himself much smarter than he really is and much better educated than is the actual case. Your opinions might be a bit more convincing if they were expressed with a little more humility. As my Uncle Bob used to say, It isn't what you don't know that hurts you. It's what you know that's not so. Lots of people know a great deal more than I do. I'm sure that you do. I do not know very much. Hardly anything. But I suspect that a great deal of what you know is false, perhaps all of it or nearly all of it. If that is the case, then your lofty education really isn't much of an education at all. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 9/7/06, Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So you want your brothers and sisters to die in large numbers through famine, pestilence and war? Or have you just failed to write clearly enough to convey what you really mean? I would rather my brothers and sisters, the whole human race, would stop killing each other unnecessarily. But if we are all just organisms, nothing more, then why would abortion and birth control be any better for controlling population than war, pestilence and famine? If we are in effect nothing more than so many bacteria in a petrie dish called Earth, what possible difference could it make which method is used for controlling the growth of the culture? In fact, when you consider how much disgusting and unnecessary slaughter, poverty and starvation there is. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to throw the petrie dish into an autoclave and have done with the bacterial culture within it. Nothing at all is better than what has been going on. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 9/8/06, Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John W Redelfs wrote: So what? In the USA people need to eat less anyway. And globally, there needs to be a reduction in population that could most easily be effected by widespread starvation. People extol the virtues of abortion and birth control, but doesn't starvation, disease and war control over population just as well? No. Starvation and War have, historically, made no impact on the growth of population - probably they even had the opposite effect. And disease should be quite devastating - like AIDS in Africa - to have a significant effect. Well, when you consider that mankind has been around during historical times for over 6,000 years, and when you consider that accurate census data has only been available for a little of a hundred years, and when you consider that such data has been available only in those parts of the world where there are accurate censuses taken, I find it hard to take your above assertion seriously. How could you or anyone possibly know? I may be wrong, because I do not have a lot of confidence in history, but it is my understanding that the One Hundred Years War that took place in Europe following the Protestant Reformation had a huge impact on the population of Europe for many decades. Historical records seem to indicate that the Black Death of the 14th Century had an enormous impact. Some reputable paleoanthropologists who have made a life's study of prehistoric America now believe that when Europeans made first contact with the natives of America, that smallpox preceded them everywhere they went and was responsible for the relative emptiness of the Americas which actually had a much larger population than has been previously thought. But you may be right. I just have no confidence that you are. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
Jonathan Gibson wrote:
Nuclear Islamic Terrorism is far more dangerous than Nuclear
Communism. They had something to lose, while the islamic fanatics
don't - not even if the retaliation would reduce every sacred
islamic place to radioactive dust.
Nonesense. Why do the puppetmasters pushing suicide bombers have
less to lose than the soviet aparatchniks did? There are any number
off technical, political, cultural, etc, reasons for a ffoolish
leadership to intentionally, or by blender, trigger nuclear bombs.
The scale of mistakes is obviously much worse under the old Cold
War than an isolated nuke going off here or there. Losing Morder,
er Washington DC, to an attack would be bad, but nothing compared to
globe-straddling nuclear winter after a typical US-v-USSR script.
The scale is obvious and one you don't address.
Of course it's hard to estimate probabilies of future events,
and even harder to estimate probabilities of alternate-history
events [what was the chance, from 1945-1990, of an all-scale
nuclear war? Of a limited nuclear war? Since it didn't happen,
the probability is zero! :-P], but I was thinking, above, about
a single individual risk.
[OTOH, I don't believe that when the next A-bomb explodes
killing millions of civilians, it will be an act of war by
a nation against another nation. Most likely it will be terrorism,
blackmail by international crime, students playing with
things they don't know, or students doing it for fun].
But what is the solution to North Korea's problem? There's no
simple solution. Not even starving the kp-ians to death does
any good. Maybe offering a huge bribe to kp's dictator, making
sure he will spend the rest of his life in some tropical
paradise and nobody will ever touch him or his fortune could
solve that problem, but this would establish a predecent that
would make every dictator try to get the same bonus.
Well, invading Iraq certainly didn't slow them down now did it?
I don't know. Khaddaffi [whatever its spelling] seems quite tame
now.
Additionally, we now lack a sharp military instrument to enforce our
disagreements with them. Simple solutions sold grandly and to a war
drumbeat rarely work and are never really simple.
Engage them. Infiltrate and subvert with hugs and kisses that win
over their people as you disarm their installations. It's a
patience game. One this administration is congenitally unable to
process. It doesn't fit the branding they've pushed lately as uber-macho.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Did this process work anywhere? It sounds like the opposite of
don't feed the trolls.
I feel for you and yours. Your agitation for action is understandable.
I advocate drying up the weaponry funds by taking out the profits.
They lost some drug profits, not because drugs are legal, but because
they don't control the synthetic drug trade - from what I've heard,
we will remember with nostalgia the good old days when teens smoked
marijuana and snorted coke: these new drugs are one level more evil
than MC.
[I think this message has reached the highest Echelon count:
nukes, drugs, terrorism, Iraq, KP... Did we miss anything?]
Clearly the war on drugs as it has been waged since... Nixon {!}
are failing whereas Holland has an actual working system that
minimizes harm.
I will do the minimal thing; there's an election in a month, and I
will probably vote for those that have these ideas.
BTW, I didn't have data when I wrote, but this Sunday's newpaper
had a study showing that the drug dealers are losing income from
Coke and Marijuana, and they are compensating it with bank robbery
and flash kidnappings - just as I said.
Well, then the correct procedure is to harden those areas and beef
up enforcement.
Easy to say, hard to implement. The police system takes a huge
share of the drug trade.
You can't just shrug and say there is no winning,
because there are victories. You just cited one, but industries
like gangs demand feeding and until the machinery is starved into
downscaling it will grow like a cancer. Marginalizing this crowd is
the only way to make them into mere nuisances instead of dire
threats. Is it starve a cold and feed a fever, or other way around?
If you want to use Medicine methaphors, we can't kill the disease
by killing the patient :-)
Alberto Monteiro
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars
Yawn, Andrew you are becoming as predictable as a one-note Samba. OK, I have time just now... let's really start to dance and see what moves you got beyond boyish bluster. Clear the floor, everyone. Thermal suits and flame-throwers at the ready? On Sep 11, 2006, at 10:39 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 11 Sep 2006 at 9:49, Gibson Jonathan wrote: My, AndrewC, you are a prickly one aren't you? You come out all fire and scorching brimstone from the get-go on this topic. Expect push-back. It's called reason, applied, and a defence of a tolerant view. And Except what I'm getting from you isn't push-back, it's mudslinging. LoL... my, aren't we full of ourselves? Wasn't your first sentence something about blithering retards? Your defense of tolerance is just a silly offensive attempt to distract from a weak position. Charging into the thread with bipolar words of IN-tolerance is a sure way to win an argument - NOT. Your obviously keen to inflame, or is English a second language for you in order to plead ignorance? Explain in your own caustic words just how this approach is reasonable. Mudslinging it might actually be if I'd told everyone something like... PC-minded developers are micro-cephalic cretins who are simply too congenitally scared to venture beyond the safety fencing of the Gates herd... and can you prove you don't have a MicroSoft brand seared on your hindquarters? If I was mudslinging. As much fun a dance partner as you may turn out to be, up to now I've seen little reason to give you much more than a few throw away lines. You're boring me, frankly, but I'm toe-stepping bravely on hoping to salvage a conversation out of this in spite of your two left feet. By the standards of clerks, teachers, bus drivers, cooks, you sir, are a technophile. Let's call them Normals for this conversation. Your Absolute rubbish. A lot of them these days have digital cameras, have digiboxes, have ipods. I don't have any camera, I don't have a TV whatsoever, I don't have a MP3 player. None of these things are USEFUL to me. Tech is a pure tool - that I have kepy skills as a tech is because those skills are purely useful, it gets me cheaper PC's and is considered a useful skill by others. Monkeys can also push colored buttons and make sign language, but they aren't uplifted - yet. Riddle me this: can regular folk program such devices? Do they have a working understand of hardware substrates? Read functional flow diagrams of how it works? Open the instructions and follow along? Face it: If your making games you've forgotten more computer technology than regular folk will ever know exists. Assuming this isn't your first game job. WARNING: You maintain a stale air about you might want to check your sell-by date because you appear to be peddling old goods. Good thing your proud of being so damn cheap. Tech is a means to an end. I don't care if you paint chapel ceilings with cherubs farting rainbows when your not spouting off about your critically superior abilities: to most people what little you've described of yourself counts as a techie. Too bad if this bursts some thin bubble you hold dear, but its the relative scale I'm talking about that you can't seem to address. Widen the topic if your so offended by the expectation you yourself have created here. It begs the question: Why are you ashamed of having technical knowledge? Isn't it just another hat you can wear? there are vast technical reaches remain unexplored - you are in fact in that specialized subspecies known as the Game Developer. There is no subspecies called Game Developer when it comes to views of technology. The vast majority are technophile, I am not. Games are just ONE medium, and the medium is not the message. I simply found your claim of ignorance odd and wondered why. Interest, not ignorance. Got your Marshall Macluhan memorized yet? I haven't heard anybody spew his good words so much since... college. Put it up there on a shelf next to Edward Tufte when you think you've got it down pat. All you've said about yourself is in tech terms within a tech conversation. You said you where NOT a techie as prelude to a technical explanation. I simply differ on your terms. You were pleading ignorance of the deep technology one COULD be conversant with. You know, there's always someone richer and thinner than oneself. I was pointing out a lack of perspective on where along that tech spectrum you might actually sit. I read your words - the first time. Some people think an enormous HVAC system hanging on the outside off building is an engineering solution whereas I'd call it an eyesore that reflects poor planning and design. That's nice. I don't care - if it works better than the other soloutions, then aesthetics can take the back seat. Again, function and not flash is what I care about. What a limited web we weave... Your assertion that function is the measure
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
On Sep 12, 2006, at 5:29 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Jonathan Gibson wrote:
Nuclear Islamic Terrorism is far more dangerous than Nuclear
Communism. They had something to lose, while the islamic fanatics
don't - not even if the retaliation would reduce every sacred
islamic place to radioactive dust.
Nonesense. Why do the puppetmasters pushing suicide bombers have
less to lose than the soviet aparatchniks did? There are any number
off technical, political, cultural, etc, reasons for a ffoolish
leadership to intentionally, or by blender, trigger nuclear bombs.
The scale of mistakes is obviously much worse under the old Cold
War than an isolated nuke going off here or there. Losing Morder,
er Washington DC, to an attack would be bad, but nothing compared to
globe-straddling nuclear winter after a typical US-v-USSR script.
The scale is obvious and one you don't address.
Of course it's hard to estimate probabilies of future events,
and even harder to estimate probabilities of alternate-history
events [what was the chance, from 1945-1990, of an all-scale
nuclear war? Of a limited nuclear war? Since it didn't happen,
the probability is zero! :-P], but I was thinking, above, about
a single individual risk.
[OTOH, I don't believe that when the next A-bomb explodes
killing millions of civilians, it will be an act of war by
a nation against another nation. Most likely it will be terrorism,
blackmail by international crime, students playing with
things they don't know, or students doing it for fun].
Y.
It's a minor background condition of the wee novel I hack away at. I
make the point in context of a global defense system in orbit that has
cost America a huge chunk of her treasure and is left impoverished. A
nuke is slipped in by tramp steamer or 18-wheeler {now that the NAFTA
superHWY is being built} and America is left with nobody to exact
revenge against and the high tech crown does no good.
But what is the solution to North Korea's problem? There's no
simple solution. Not even starving the kp-ians to death does
any good. Maybe offering a huge bribe to kp's dictator, making
sure he will spend the rest of his life in some tropical
paradise and nobody will ever touch him or his fortune could
solve that problem, but this would establish a predecent that
would make every dictator try to get the same bonus.
Well, invading Iraq certainly didn't slow them down now did it?
I don't know. Khaddaffi [whatever its spelling] seems quite tame
now.
That actually begun under Clinton and one of the few negotiated deals
this administration followed through on.
I feel for you and yours. Your agitation for action is
understandable.
I advocate drying up the weaponry funds by taking out the profits.
They lost some drug profits, not because drugs are legal, but because
they don't control the synthetic drug trade - from what I've heard,
we will remember with nostalgia the good old days when teens smoked
marijuana and snorted coke: these new drugs are one level more evil
than MC.
[I think this message has reached the highest Echelon count:
nukes, drugs, terrorism, Iraq, KP... Did we miss anything?]
Hey, I'll take any victory we can.
Clearly the war on drugs as it has been waged since... Nixon {!}
are failing whereas Holland has an actual working system that
minimizes harm.
I will do the minimal thing; there's an election in a month, and I
will probably vote for those that have these ideas.
BTW, I didn't have data when I wrote, but this Sunday's newpaper
had a study showing that the drug dealers are losing income from
Coke and Marijuana, and they are compensating it with bank robbery
and flash kidnappings - just as I said.
Well, then the correct procedure is to harden those areas and beef
up enforcement.
Easy to say, hard to implement. The police system takes a huge
share of the drug trade.
My wife brought home Man On Fire with Denzel Washington last night so I
had a vivid reminder of just what you describe. Fantastic movie.
Maddening, all that vice and corruption.
If the poverty was equalled out the crime wouldn't be as harsh and
prevalent. That's the Achilles Heel of Latin America.
Wishing you well,
- Jonathan -
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
I don't think the downfall of Egypt (and WHICH downfalln too?) would be due to resource depletion neccessarily, since the downfall was due to conquest by external forces (with vastly superior organization, resources, etc) at a time when monumental construction was out... IIRC, thinking back to my college classes, the downfall of both the Old and Middle kingdoms came during times of political unrest... Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h) Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. -Original Message- From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 14:10:41 To:Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2) jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip ...You mention that it was critical that they conserve these resources - and perhaps I am being a bit of a devil's advocate to ask why? So that they would be able to continue to build moai into the future? O.k. obviously the loss of the trees resulted in a demonstrable loss in quality of life for all Easter Islanders.I wonder, however, if the decline in quality of life would be an almost inevitable consequence of a society on such a small and isolated piece of land at that technology. No. In later chapters he cites a couple of other Polynesian islands that avoided ecological collapse by (1) strict population regulation and (2) cultivation of useful trees. (Japan was also cited for its top-down approach to reforestation, but you were specifically talking about Polynesians, IIRC.) These are Tikopia and the New Guinea highlands, Chapter 9. Tikopia is reported to be 1.8 sq. miles in surface, and to have been occupied [by humans] continuously for almost 3000 years. pg. 286, hardback copy. The methods used for population control varied from contraception through abortion, infanticide, and suicide-by-sea-voyaging -- not what I'd call ideal, although it seemed to work for them. :P Their use of a tiered forest for food and wood, however, was/is quite clever. Would it really have been possible for such a civilization to develop sustainable forestry technology? Yes - see the Tikopia solution. Although that island also has the favorable factors he listed for productivity (soil renewal by volcanism/dust, decent rainfall, etc.); Easter was poor in these IIRC. And if so, wouldn't this just make the moai construction an irrelevant detail of an otherwise almost inevitable outcome? No. Anytime a culture squanders its resources, it runs the risk of destroying itself; it may be made worse by the natural environment (like Greenland) or climatic change (frex the little ice age). An aside: has anyone proposed that part of what led to the downfall of Egypt was its resource depletion by building monuments to/for the dead? Although they certainly survived many centuries - and of course had a very large area to exploit, with neighbors to plunder and so forth. Debbi who got to recheck the book out, 'cause it wasn't on hold! :) __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
Hundred Years War predates the Prodestant Reformation by nearly 75 years... Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h) Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. -Original Message- From: John W Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 04:07:33 To:Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: The Morality of Killing Babies On 9/8/06, Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John W Redelfs wrote: So what? In the USA people need to eat less anyway. And globally, there needs to be a reduction in population that could most easily be effected by widespread starvation. People extol the virtues of abortion and birth control, but doesn't starvation, disease and war control over population just as well? No. Starvation and War have, historically, made no impact on the growth of population - probably they even had the opposite effect. And disease should be quite devastating - like AIDS in Africa - to have a significant effect. Well, when you consider that mankind has been around during historical times for over 6,000 years, and when you consider that accurate census data has only been available for a little of a hundred years, and when you consider that such data has been available only in those parts of the world where there are accurate censuses taken, I find it hard to take your above assertion seriously. How could you or anyone possibly know? I may be wrong, because I do not have a lot of confidence in history, but it is my understanding that the One Hundred Years War that took place in Europe following the Protestant Reformation had a huge impact on the population of Europe for many decades. Historical records seem to indicate that the Black Death of the 14th Century had an enormous impact. Some reputable paleoanthropologists who have made a life's study of prehistoric America now believe that when Europeans made first contact with the natives of America, that smallpox preceded them everywhere they went and was responsible for the relative emptiness of the Americas which actually had a much larger population than has been previously thought. But you may be right. I just have no confidence that you are. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
John W Redelfs wrote: Starvation and War have, historically, made no impact on the growth of population - probably they even had the opposite effect. And disease should be quite devastating - like AIDS in Africa - to have a significant effect. Well, when you consider that mankind has been around during historical times for over 6,000 years, and when you consider that accurate census data has only been available for a little of a hundred years, and when you consider that such data has been available only in those parts of the world where there are accurate censuses taken, I find it hard to take your above assertion seriously. How could you or anyone possibly know? Archeological data, taxation data, etc. *** Of course *** there are errors, but you can't expect human sciences to be error-free when even exact sciences are filled with measurement errors. I may be wrong, because I do not have a lot of confidence in history, I can see that. but it is my understanding that the One Hundred Years War that took place in Europe following the Protestant Reformation had a huge impact on the population of Europe for many decades. _The_ One Hundred Years War happened much earlier, between the Crusades and the Renaisance. Those wars that followed the Protestant Reformation were not collectively named, except for the 30 Years War in (now) Germany. Historical records seem to indicate that the Black Death of the 14th Century had an enormous impact. Yes, it had. But for only a short period. If you plot population data of Europe over the years, you will see a drop caused by War and Pestilence. But if you erase those years and try to fit a projecting line, it's as if those years were normal. The meaning of this is clear: as soon as the cause for the drop vanishes, population repleshes with a vengeance, resuming its growth _as if there were no Wars or Pestilence_. Some reputable paleoanthropologists who have made a life's study of prehistoric America now believe that when Europeans made first contact with the natives of America, that smallpox preceded them everywhere they went and was responsible for the relative emptiness of the Americas which actually had a much larger population than has been previously thought. But you may be right. I just have no confidence that you are. I may be wrong - that's how science works, and we aren't exactly scientists [we have no data!]. But look at the Americas: even if this effect in the Native Population is real [I think so, but let's be skeptic], it was only a short-time effect, and, when Europeans came, they filled all the niches emptied by Natives with a corresponding explosion. Maybe in 30 or 50 years, after AIDS eliminates most Africans, Africa will be occupied by 1 billion chinese and 1 billion indians. But I'm almost sure that the population of Africa will not keep going down for a long time. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
Damon Agretto wrote: Hundred Years War predates the Prodestant Reformation by nearly 75 years... I've heard some people mention those Religious Wars as The Second Hundred Years Wars, and the sequence of France-England Wars that began in c.1700 and ended in 1815 as The Third Hundred Years Wars. Of course, if we want to be accurate _and_ optimistic, we should call all the european wars from the Peloponesian War to the Fall of Berlin's Wall as The Two and a Half Thousand Years War. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?
Hullo,
I sympathize.
As someone with a good nose for bull-shite I tend to side with your POV
on this. What we are all witness to is the old signal to noise ratio.
As the publishing sphincters have been loosened {so to speak} first
with the DTP revolution and now the web allows any all manner of
voices to be heard. I don't have the time I'd like to explore this
just now, but I think the general idea is to go back to those sources
you've trusted and build a chain of related and trusted outlets from
there.
More later, I'm sure.
- Jonathan -
BTW - Is it impertinent to ask whatever happened to our WTC questions
now?
On Sep 12, 2006, at 4:27 AM, John W Redelfs wrote:
On 9/9/06, Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a vital point: ABC was _given_ the public airwaves --
a multi-billion dollar gift. People had to decide to drive to the
theater and pay ten bucks to see the Moore film if they chose to.
ABC will air Path to 9/11 for free for two consecutive nights to
an audience that has a hard time discriminating between reality
and fiction when the fiction is presented as reality.
I think I see a way forward:
ABC can run a crawler under the entire miniseries (giving it
that breaking news feel) stating THIS PART HAPPENED ...
THIS PART IS FICTIONAL ... THIS PART IS PROPAGANDA.
I am deeply puzzled by the events of 9-11. I am a conspiracy theorist
and
have been from my earliest teen years in the 1950s. But I have always
felt
I could tell the likely conspiracy theories from the obvious bunk and
baloney. I have never gone in for UFO testimonials, stories about
pyramids
and so-called Watchers, the hollow earth and other weirdness. I do
find
likely, however, that multibillion dollar banks and other private
financial
institutions have a great deal of influence on governments around the
world
and that they are involved in the financing of our wars throughout
history.
And since corruption in government is so commonplace in countries
around the
world and throughout history, it is reasonable to suppose that these
vast
accumulations of capital in private hands are in some cases involved
in that
corruption and that huge bribes take place that are never detected or
prosecuted, and so forth.
But I am really confused about the 9-11 attacks. What part happened?
What
part is fiction? What part is propaganda? Sure Osama bin Laden may
have
had something to do with it, but how sure are we that he was not
working at
someone's behest? If our government is genuinely concerned about
terrorism,
why do they continue to drag their feet in securing our ports and
borders?
If millions of illegal aliens come into our nation every year, how can
our
government be sure that there are no terrorists coming in and bringing
weapons of mass destruction with them? Were controlled demolitions
involved
in the collapse of the WTC towers? How can we be sure one way or the
other? If the towers were brought down with controlled demolitions,
who
could have done it? Why would they do it? Did not Hitler and his
followers
have something to do with the burning of the Reichstag in Germany
during the
rise to power of the Nazis in that country? Could the attacks on 9-11
have
been something like that?
My access to the Internet has caused me to become increasingly
skeptical
about virtually all information sources. I no longer know how to tell
good
information from bad information, something I used to think I was good
at.
I am now confused to the point where I do not know what to believe
about
anything. It seems like almost everything is smoke and mirrors and
media
hype.
What do you think? Is the official government story about 9-11
accurate?
Or are we being fed an official line that is covering up something far
more
sinister? I just don't know any more.
John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe
we can play together.
***
All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Jonathan Gibson
www.formandfunction.com/word
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
JohnR said: I may be wrong, because I do not have a lot of confidence in history, but it is my understanding that the One Hundred Years War that took place in Europe following the Protestant Reformation had a huge impact on the population of Europe for many decades. The Hundred Years War lasted from 1337 to 1453. The Reformation was started by Luther in 1517. Were you thinking of the Thirty Years War? Rich GCU Hundred, Thirty, Whatever ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?
On Sep 12, 2006, at 10:16 AM, Gibson Jonathan wrote: BTW - Is it impertinent to ask whatever happened to our WTC questions now? Someone, I'm not sure who, but I think it may have been Dan Minette, wrote to the list that Gautam's friend on the 9/11 commission was disinclined to answer further questions at this time. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
Damon said: IRC, thinking back to my college classes, the downfall of both the Old and Middle kingdoms came during times of political unrest... It's quite hard at this distance to determine the causes of the end of the Old and Middle kingdoms when we can only barely discern even the symptoms. What is clear is that the end of both was a gradual process, with a weakened central authority coexisting with strengthening regional administrations for many decades, rather than a dramatic downfall. (There was a tendency towards regionalism throughout Egyptian history, especially when weakened pharaohs allowed administrative or religious posts in the nomes to become hereditary. A strong king was largely one who could impose his will in appointing people to these posts.) In the case of the First Intermediate Period, it's been suggested that a period of reduced inundations of the Nile in turn reduced the agricultural surplus on which the Old Kingdom regime depended, and local people looked to local powers to provide for them during a time of famine. The Second Intermediate Period saw the Nile delta dominated by the Hyksos kings, who invaded Egypt from Palestine. The Middle Kingdom had seen a gradual infiltration of Egypt by asiatics (including people from the Eastern Desert) and perhaps the support of these people for the Hyksos invaders proved the deciding factor. (As I've already said, the increased power of the priesthood of Amun was a factor in the end of the New Kingdom, as was the erosion of the Egyptian empire in Palestine and Syria under pressure from the Hittites.) Rich GCU Not An Expert ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
I have my links at home, but IIRC Europe was able to match the pre-plague population within appprox. 150 years. So yes, population rebounded pretty fast... Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h) Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. -Original Message- From: Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:54:38 To:Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: The Morality of Killing Babies John W Redelfs wrote: Starvation and War have, historically, made no impact on the growth of population - probably they even had the opposite effect. And disease should be quite devastating - like AIDS in Africa - to have a significant effect. Well, when you consider that mankind has been around during historical times for over 6,000 years, and when you consider that accurate census data has only been available for a little of a hundred years, and when you consider that such data has been available only in those parts of the world where there are accurate censuses taken, I find it hard to take your above assertion seriously. How could you or anyone possibly know? Archeological data, taxation data, etc. *** Of course *** there are errors, but you can't expect human sciences to be error-free when even exact sciences are filled with measurement errors. I may be wrong, because I do not have a lot of confidence in history, I can see that. but it is my understanding that the One Hundred Years War that took place in Europe following the Protestant Reformation had a huge impact on the population of Europe for many decades. _The_ One Hundred Years War happened much earlier, between the Crusades and the Renaisance. Those wars that followed the Protestant Reformation were not collectively named, except for the 30 Years War in (now) Germany. Historical records seem to indicate that the Black Death of the 14th Century had an enormous impact. Yes, it had. But for only a short period. If you plot population data of Europe over the years, you will see a drop caused by War and Pestilence. But if you erase those years and try to fit a projecting line, it's as if those years were normal. The meaning of this is clear: as soon as the cause for the drop vanishes, population repleshes with a vengeance, resuming its growth _as if there were no Wars or Pestilence_. Some reputable paleoanthropologists who have made a life's study of prehistoric America now believe that when Europeans made first contact with the natives of America, that smallpox preceded them everywhere they went and was responsible for the relative emptiness of the Americas which actually had a much larger population than has been previously thought. But you may be right. I just have no confidence that you are. I may be wrong - that's how science works, and we aren't exactly scientists [we have no data!]. But look at the Americas: even if this effect in the Native Population is real [I think so, but let's be skeptic], it was only a short-time effect, and, when Europeans came, they filled all the niches emptied by Natives with a corresponding explosion. Maybe in 30 or 50 years, after AIDS eliminates most Africans, Africa will be occupied by 1 billion chinese and 1 billion indians. But I'm almost sure that the population of Africa will not keep going down for a long time. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
Well, to be frank, I've never heard these terms. And while I have no problems overturning sacred cows (- dislike the nebulous term The Rennaisance and reject the terms Dark Ages), I don't think the Wars of Religion, nor the Napoleonic wars to be sufficiently related to be lumped together... Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h) Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. -Original Message- From: Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 15:04:04 To:Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: The Morality of Killing Babies Damon Agretto wrote: Hundred Years War predates the Prodestant Reformation by nearly 75 years... I've heard some people mention those Religious Wars as The Second Hundred Years Wars, and the sequence of France-England Wars that began in c.1700 and ended in 1815 as The Third Hundred Years Wars. Of course, if we want to be accurate _and_ optimistic, we should call all the european wars from the Peloponesian War to the Fall of Berlin's Wall as The Two and a Half Thousand Years War. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars
On 12 Sep 2006 at 6:38, Gibson Jonathan wrote: Face it: If your making games you've forgotten more computer technology than regular folk will ever know exists. Assuming this isn't your first game job. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the *attitude* a person takes towards technology! I'm in games because I'm interested in telling a story, games happen to be the medium. I also write short stories. (And yes, if you're interested I would post a spare one to the list). Technology *itself* has no interest to me, just its uses. It begs the question: Why are you ashamed of having technical knowledge? Isn't it just another hat you can wear? Why do you have a problem with the fact that some people who can use technology don't view it as sacred? I simply differ on your terms. No, you're being rude and insulting because I'm bursting your preconceptions. Sure, function is important, but I simply argue it's best to have both. Okay, so you care about it. I don't. I don't claim that anyone else should share my views, but don't speak for me. Your arguing it's either-or. No, that is YOUR argument. What I said was that I don't rate how something looks in the criteria for if I will find something useful or not. Sure, once I've decided to get something, if I have 2 items which do it for the same price I'll pick the prettier. But that's litterally the last consideration on my list. interface the iPod success proves Ease Of Use is a term with teeth. And interface is a pure useability issue. Thing is, my minidisk recorder is also easy to use. So why should I spend cash on something else? (the ability to record is, for me, required). Sure, it could be better, Sure, it could be cheaper. So what? Time will do that. Dream on. Future devices will have DRM lockdowns which make them considerably less useful. Heck, iPod's do for their legal tunes and its getting more restrictive every other update or so. To me, that's a pure restriction on function. I'd use my mini-disc too, if it wasn't broken. Or even my old DAT machine, but again, time has taken it's toll on moving parts. Shrug, mine isn't. When it does, or when someone shows me another device with a clear and useful advantage over my minidisk recorder will I look at getting something else. with such pride over self-proclaimed reasoning skills and purity of Again, your assumption. I never typed anything of the sort. let me give a little history Guess what? I could care less, since you're rude. Your fooling nobody but yourself with this usefulness-only mantra. I never said I was trying to fool anyone, you're just being a fool by assuming that I was trying to. I didn't say I was, you just went right ahead and assumed it. your trying to ship a frivolous, time-sucking, distraction of a game no-less! I'm shipping a story, in the form of a game. The medium is not the message. Rogue Trooper, for example, is basically a paen on the futility of war. You apparently can't take criticism Yes, I can. But you're plain insulting - you're reading again and again things I never typed and are responding rudely to them. I haven't seen one piece of critisism, just techno-snobbery. according to what you've offered to this conversation. I take a wider view because I need versatile image generation easy media integration: found primarily on Macs since the dawn of this multimedia era. Microsoft has been playing catchup a long time on this one. Oh completely. And the guys on 2000AD comics, same company and next door, *do* use Mac's. All the game dev guys use PC's, though, since every single tool we use is written for the PC - historical inertia, user base and the console developer tools keep it that way. There is no choice to the matter for the game developer. It's how it is, and you deal with it. (Ports are allready a cornered market...) Re-iterative design cycles are there for a reason and user testing and Okay, two things: Firstly, game devs don't interact directly with users, in the main. That's what publishers do, and they return reports to the dev. No, it's not ideal but it's the publishers cash. We get new hires to play the games Second, you're trying to say that, somehow, an emphasis on function in my purchasing descisions - and that is what I've been talking about, pure and simple - carrys over to my game design work. Because it does and it doesn't - I'm quite aware of the aeesthetic angle of games, but I'm also one of the people who prefers a minimal interface for immersion. allowing this Trojan beast into all reaches of our government and business. *laughs* That's a case for Linux, *not* the Mac. Explain yourself with some clarity - if you can. No, I've been perfectly plain. Stop making assumptions and it's quite clear. Surprise, this isn't a pub pissing-match. You decided to be a tech-snob and to make assumptions, shrug, going on the offensive about
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
On Sep 11, 2006, at 10:24 AM, Gibson Jonathan wrote: On Sep 11, 2006, at 9:51 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Jonathan Gibson wrote: Because the USA may be the target of nuclear terrorism. OTOH, nuclear terrorists might explode a bomb anywhere they can, just to show they have it. OK. How does this make any difference? We faced nuclear megadeath of enormous proportions for decades w/o erosion of our rights - well, actually we have, but that's another topic - or, at least the ones we curtailed are a comfortable pain we are already long familiar with. Nuclear Islamic Terrorism is far more dangerous than Nuclear Communism. They had something to lose, while the islamic fanatics don't - not even if the retaliation would reduce every sacred islamic place to radioactive dust. Nonesense. Why do the puppetmasters pushing suicide bombers have less to lose than the soviet aparatchniks did? They've got followers who believe they will live forever in paradise with 72 maidens ready to attend to all their needs, for one. The Sovs weren't being motivated by a desire to find eternal bliss; they just wanted to take over the world. They had a vested interest in remaining on this planet in their bodies. The radical Islamics, like any other group of right-wing ultra-religious idiots, do not. Engage them. Infiltrate and subvert with hugs and kisses that win over their people as you disarm their installations. It's a patience game. One this administration is congenitally unable to process. It doesn't fit the branding they've pushed lately as uber-macho. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. It's not just shortsightedness; there's a clear power struggle going on here. One has to wonder why secrecy is so damned important to the administration … and the more one wonders, the less one likes the conclusions. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Morality of Killing Babies
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Baker Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 4:21 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: The Morality of Killing Babies Dan said: Actually, it is possible, with a simple assumption, to do more than that. Again, I fully admit that there is no proof, but I think that...if the transcendental is partially and imperfectly discerned by humans, then one can reach some general conclusions about our best bets at approaching the truth when it comes to ethics. I'll stop here to see if you think that is a presupposition that is worth exploring further. I'm always interested to hear what you have to say on such things, even though I'm fairly sceptical about the possibility of discerning anything transcendental. Rich I'm writing a short note just to let you know that I'm working on this. But, I'm happy to say I'm now very busy at work...and have only written about a page so far. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
