Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Warren Ockrassawar...@nightwares.com wrote: But you're not restricted from any of them. You listed certain things with minimal restrictions, but not ones that have more substantial restrictions. Can they? When was the last time you had to pay a full-billed price for a routine doctor's visit? Living on minimum wage? Now you are not talking about health insurance in the sense of the true meaning of insurance, but rather having someone else pay for someone's routine medical care. Which may or may not be something worth doing, but it is not insurance against unexpected events. It might not have been, but under the same coverage, someone else in my plan littered sextuplets, at a rough cost of a quarter of a million dollars. Was that worth it to me? Absolutely not. Nevertheless I keep the coverage, as she does, and I pay into it, as she does, to cover healthcare costs I will never have to face -- as she does. Which is inefficient. People are paying more than the care is worth because they are not spending their own money. And the sextuplets (or 4 or 5) were likely able to be predicted, since the woman was probably on fertility drugs. When people talk about how much America spends on health care, these are some of the reasons for the high spending. No, you'd pass off responsibility to the free market system, wouldn't you? Passing responsibility? I do not feel I am responsible for everyone in the US, or everyone in the world. But it does please me to help those who I can, and who seem to be in the most need and derive the most benefit from my help. But certainly if you think someone who is not getting care should be getting it, you could help them to obtain it by donating your own time or money. Yes. And that's what insurance is all about. No, insurance is not donation, it is receiving value for payment. And you live that, every day, by every choice you make? How do you know that? How do you know that by giving a few pennies of your income, and turning that into government revenue for the internet, highways and the FDA, you are not actually working either for or against someone else's freedom? That would not be directly. It would be indirectly. More significantly, how can you be sure that *keeping* those pennies will make a difference for you or anyone else? If I were sure about something, then I would perhaps feel justified coercing someone else to do something to obtain a better outcome. Being unsure about most everything, I respect everyone's right to choose as they see fit. You could afford less than one half of one day of radiation treatment -- on your life savings. As I said before, that is the purpose of insurance, which pools money and covers unexpected expenses. I think you know this. My point is that most health care plans are not just insurance, but are cafeteria plans, all-you-can eat. Would I be willing to help pay for that? Yes, just as much as I was glad that others paid to help me learn why I was sneezing so much I am not arguing against insurance. Far from it, I like and buy insurance. I am only arguing against coercion and interference with insurance consumers and providers. Oh, so you can't do both? Why not? Because I don't have enough money to keep everyone in the world alive and healthy forever. That has never been true in ten thousand years of human history. There are private roads. I am familiar with some in the Chicago/Indiana area. They seem to be working fairly well. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
John: I just don't live on the same planet that you do, I guess. There is nothing you wrote in the last post that makes rational or compassionate sense to me. There is nothing I can respond to. We're too different. All I can say is that I'm glad the Libertarians and Ayn Rand worshippers haven't taken over yet, and I really hope they never do, because if it happens, we're doomed as a society. Obviously. Since the Libs and AR folks don't seem to know what society actually means. -- Warren Ockrassa | @waxis Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Warren Ockrassawar...@nightwares.com wrote: There is nothing you wrote in the last post that makes rational or compassionate sense to me. There is nothing I can respond to. We're too different. Everyone is different. That makes the world an interesting and wonderful place. All I can say is that I'm glad the Libertarians and Ayn Rand worshippers haven't taken over yet, and I really hope they never do, because if it happens, we're doomed as a society. Obviously. Since the Libs and AR folks don't seem to know what society actually means. There are also people who do not seem to know what freedom actually means. Nor respect, respect enough to understand that each person knows what is best for themselves. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: WeChooseTheMoon
John wrote: I think I see a communication problem here. You talk of the free market as if it were a thing, like a replicator on Star Trek that provides food. When I talk of a free market, I mean the state of not restricting or coercing people in their choices to freely interact with each other. Freedom to choose as one wishes without being told what to do by others. No, there is no communication problem. In its most basic definition, a free market is a market that is free from government intervention. What has become painfully obvious in recent years is that as the market frees itself from governemental constraints, those in a position to manipulate it for their own benefit do so without regard for the greater good. In the case of health care, we have the free marketeers lobbying against any kind of government alternative to private insurance, but offering no substantial improvement over the status quo. The private health care companies wish to continue to 1. not insure anyone that can not pay their hefty premiums and co-pays 2.Pay as little as possible for people that _are_ insured and get sick 3. get the government to pay for as much of their costs as they can get away with and 4. make as much money as possible. The result being the f**ked up system we have today wherein we pay by far the most per capita and don't get the best care and don't even cover a huge segment of the population. So, to explore your question, there are non-coercive institutions that provide services and do not make a profit. They are usually called, aptly enough, non-profit corporations, or charities. People freely choose to support certain institutions which, in their judgment, provide a vital benefit to society. If non-profits and charities are such wonderful solutions, why do we still have such a massive problem? To get back on topic, if Americans had not been forced to pay to land people on the moon (or something else) but had instead decided where to spend their money themselves, undoubtedly some fraction of the spending would have gone to various charitable causes. If landing people on the moon were important enough to enough people, it could have been done by a non-profit (or profit) organization or organizations. But I think the fact is that landing people on the moon is not important enough to enough people. It mostly just appeals to a small number of special interests and looks good on a politicians record. Your pretext; that we were forced to pay for the Apollo program is fallacious. We elected the leaders that conceived of the program and re-elected the leaders that pledged to continue it. I have little doubt that if you polled the world about man's greatest achievements, the Apollo program would rank at or near the top of the survey. If you asked the people of this country today if Apollo was worth the money, well, here's the poll: [ http://www.gallup.com/poll/121736/Majority-Americans-Say-Space-Program-Costs-Justified.aspx ] I laud charitable organizations and the good work they do, but the idea that they could have an impact on problems such as health care is even a greater fallacy. We're an extremely rich nation and have been for quite some time, but when it comes to spending a grand on a new plasma TV or giving the money to charity, guess what we do most of the time. We give money to charity when it gives us a good tax break mostly. This is not to say that there are individuals that are extremely charitable, rich and poor alike. There are many people that give of themselves, but this generosity is not pervasive enough to make a dent in our larger problems. Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
Charlie said: It originated a long time before Benjy. Traders in the Mediterranean used a form of insurance to indemnify the trader against loss if the cargo was stolen, and mutualised risk was used by Chinese traders (who would spread their cargos across many vessels to lower the total risk). The Greeks and Romans had benevolent societies which are similar to modern mutuals. The idea of insurance goes back to at least the Old Babylonian period in the early second millennium BC. It's such an obvious idea that it wouldn't surprise me if it's even older than that. Rich ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On Jul 18, 2009, at 12:20 AM, John Williams wrote: There are also people who do not seem to know what freedom actually means. Nor respect, respect enough to understand that each person knows what is best for themselves. Evidently, for some people, freedom means the right to refuse to participate sensibly in rational arguments. Your presumption of the freedom to behave this way comes an exorbitant cost to others on this list, but you seem to have no problem demanding that we pay that price. Dave Pot. Kettle. Black. Maru ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
John wrote: No, it was not. The myriad government restrictions have a significant effect on costs. If regulations and restrictions have such a detrimental effect then why do other, more restrictive nations have much more efficient and effective health care systems? Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
Dave said: Your presumption of the freedom to behave this way comes an exorbitant cost to others on this list, but you seem to have no problem demanding that we pay that price. Really? And there I was thinking that it was easy to skim or skip posts that don't interest you, and even dialup networking costs are hardly exorbitant in most places. Rich VFP IPoAC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: WeChooseTheMoon
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 12:24 AM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: No, there is no communication problem. In its most basic definition, a free market is a market that is free from government intervention. What has become painfully obvious in recent years is that as the market frees itself from governemental constraints, those in a position to manipulate it for their own benefit do so without regard for the greater good. Except that, in recent years, the markets have been far from free. Government intrudes into virtually every market. Just look at the thousands of pages in the Federal Register, and how the number of pages has grown over the past decades. The most egregious manipulation is done by politicians. The private health care companies wish to continue to 1. not insure anyone that can not pay their hefty premiums and co-pays 2.Pay as little as possible for people that _are_ insured and get sick 3. get the government to pay for as much of their costs as they can get away with and 4. make as much money as possible. The result being the f**ked up system we have today wherein we pay by far the most per capita and don't get the best care and don't even cover a huge segment of the population. The private health care companies cater to those who pay them, which is primarily the government and employer groups. If there was actually a free market for health care plans chosen by individuals, there would likely be plans that are much better than what is available in the current government-controlled market. As for people who cannot afford even the least expensive health care plans, that is a whole different subject, but I would not be opposed to a voucher system, something like food-stamps for health care. Although I would prefer a voluntary charitable system. If non-profits and charities are such wonderful solutions, why do we still have such a massive problem? Because people are not choosing where to best spend there charitable dollars, but are having much of their surplus resources taken from them and the choices made by politicians pandering to special interests. Your pretext; that we were forced to pay for the Apollo program is fallacious. We elected the leaders that conceived of the program and re-elected the leaders that pledged to continue it. The only way there is no coercion is if those who did not vote for politicians who made the choices could opt out of having their money confiscated by the government for purposes they did not choose. And even for those who did vote for the politicians in question may not have supported spending money on the moon landings if they had been given a check box on their tax forms to give the money or not. I have little doubt that if you polled the world about man's greatest achievements, the Apollo program would rank at or near the top of the survey. I think you are probably correct about that. But if you asked those same people to donate $X in order to do it, I have little doubt that few of them would. That's human nature. We want a great deal, but when it comes down to paying for it, we find that what we want and what we really need are quite different. A free market allows people to efficiently get what they need, whereas government coercion allows politicians and special interests to wastefully get what they want. There are many people that give of themselves, but this generosity is not pervasive enough to make a dent in our larger problems. Which is to say that you believe you know better how people should spend their money than they do themselves. That people need to have their money confiscated and spent by the intellectual elite since otherwise people would spend it on a bunch of crap. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: If regulations and restrictions have such a detrimental effect then why do other, more restrictive nations have much more efficient and effective health care systems? That is a complicated subject, and I do not believe I claimed that there is a large detrimental effect on costs, but in the spirit of your one sentence question, I will give a once sentence reply: Many countries ration health care more than the US, thus restricting their people to less health care than people in the US, and by not allowing people to choose low- effectiveness care paid for by other people, they reduce overall spending without significantly reducing certain metrics of effectiveness (NOT including customer satisfaction, though) ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Dave Landdml...@gmail.com wrote: Your presumption of the freedom to behave this way comes an exorbitant cost to others on this list, but you seem to have no problem demanding that we pay that price. I respect your freedom to choose not to pay that price. I will not complain if you do not wish to read what I write. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On 18/07/2009, at 5:33 PM, Richard Baker wrote: Charlie said: It originated a long time before Benjy. Traders in the Mediterranean used a form of insurance to indemnify the trader against loss if the cargo was stolen, and mutualised risk was used by Chinese traders (who would spread their cargos across many vessels to lower the total risk). The Greeks and Romans had benevolent societies which are similar to modern mutuals. The idea of insurance goes back to at least the Old Babylonian period in the early second millennium BC. It's such an obvious idea that it wouldn't surprise me if it's even older than that. Yeah, that's what I was alluding to with Mediterranean traders. Guaranteed by Hamurabi (sp?) himself, IIRC. C. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
Charlie said: Yeah, that's what I was alluding to with Mediterranean traders. Guaranteed by Hamurabi (sp?) himself, IIRC. Oh, okay. And yes, it's mentioned in Hammurabi's law code (which was probably a set of examples of what the king would do or had done in different circumstances rather than an actual code of laws). But if I recall correctly, the Babylonians of that period didn't themselves trade much or at all in the Mediterranean basin, but by land into Anatolia and Egypt, across the Zagros mountains into what is now Iran and Afghanistan, and by sea through the Persian Gulf with the coast of Arabia and the Indus civilisation. (There was trade on the Mediterranean involving the Minoans, the Egyptians and others though, and it's very possible I may not recall correctly.) Rich ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: WeChooseTheMoon
Which is to say that you believe you know better how people should spend their money than they do themselves. That people need to have their money confiscated and spent by the intellectual elite since otherwise people would spend it on a bunch of crap. No, what I believe is that regarding matters that effect a group of people we often make better, more responsible choices when we act as a group rather than as an individual. We are inherently selfish, but we understand that selflessness is both more noble and more beneficial to the whole. Acting as individuals we will tend towards selfishness; as a group, less so. That said, individuality and indeed selfishness have attributes that the group can't always compete with. Competitiveness sparks innovation and motivates people to work hard and they should and do expect to reap the benefits of their labors. The trick is to balance the two by allowing our competitive nature to flourish while not allowing our baser nature to take paths that will be detrimental in the long run. I think that while without our individual attributes we wouldn't have come so far so fast, but that without the group we would sill have claws or hooves. Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: WeChooseTheMoon
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 1:47 AM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: No, what I believe is that regarding matters that effect a group of people we often make better, more responsible choices when we act as a group rather than as an individual. We are inherently selfish, but we understand that selflessness is both more noble and more beneficial to the whole. Acting as individuals we will tend towards selfishness; as a group, less so. Perhaps that is true, in an ideal system. But in practice, in the situations we have been discussing, a group means politicians, lobbyists, and special interests, and a lot of decisions that are in the selfish interests of the politicians and those who can exert influence over the politicians. In reality, I don't think the group decisions are any less selfish than the individual ones, except perhaps in quite small groups where everyone knows everyone else. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Charlie Bell char...@culturelist.orgwrote: Franklin founded the first one in the States, arguably the first of the modern mutuals. But he didn't invent shared or mutualised risk. Risk has been mutual forever. John Donne said it well: No man is an island, Entire of itself. Each is a piece of the continent, A part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less. As well as if a promontory were. As well as if a manner of thine own Or of thine friend's were. Each man's death diminishes me, For I am involved in mankind. Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls, It tolls for thee. The fundamental truth behind that writing is conveniently ignored by champions of liberty who insist that freedom frees them from a community's obligation to organize itself to care for those in need. It is a strange sort of liberation that frees us from our deepest bonds, best fought with its true name, greed. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Whatcha reading? (was Re: In despair for the state of SF)
Kevin wrote: Consider Phlebas first, right Charlie? 8^) That was the first (and so far only) Banks book I have tried. I got about half-way before I gave up. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL zwil...@zwilnik.com Linux User #333216 I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying. -- Woody Allen ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: WeChooseTheMoon
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of John Williams Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 12:32 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: WeChooseTheMoon On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: Absolutely not, but isn't that how the free market works; the people with money/power decide what's in the best interest of the people they control? People they control? Huh? Politicians and regulators control people. Free market allows people to choose for themselves. Then we have the ringing success of the U.S. health care system to tell us how well the free market works for sick people. The US health care system is not a free market. Medicare and Medicaid make up more than 50% of US health care spending Hmm, my sources (one is HHS) indicate that, as of the last measure, Medicaid spending was to be ~400 billion in 2008, according to Keiser, Medicare was $410 billion in 2007, and with several projected increases of 7% for 2007 to 2008 it would be about ~430 billion. Total healthcare costs for the US in 2008 was about 2.4 trillion, according to several sources. So, were talking about Medicare and Medicaid making up roughly 35% of total costs. How did you get 1.2 trillion for Medicare and Medicaid? Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Why not discuss the topic?
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Warren Ockrassa Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 10:55 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Why not discuss the topic? On Jul 17, 2009, at 8:07 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: There are arguements for the free market. My Congressman wants a free market solution, and I respect him because he doesn't pretend facts don't exist. But we have free market solutions. We've had them for decades. And for many, those solutions don't work. Agreed. But, where he and I agree and where a John would disagree is that a free market can be shaped by the laws within which it resides. For example, if you required insurance companies to accept pre-existing conditions, you would get rid of one of the major problems with the present system. If you got rid of the strong incentives for hospitals to refuse admissions and for insurance companies to deny claims, then aspects of the market can be helpful. For example, our local grocery store has a cheap clinic in it; with minimal overhead and total cost for minor problems (including those that would be major if left untreated). My son had a staff infection that could have killed him if left untreated, and the total cost of treatment without insurance was $60.00 (we have insurance with a modest per person deductable he didn't reach). The idea of insurance is that a large number of people pool their resources together to lighten the burden of loss for a few. (This is, in essence, socialism.) I wouldn't call it socialism, because it is pooling resources voluntarily because any one of those who pooled it could be the unlucky guy/gal. I bet, if you knew you'd never get in an accident and if it wasn't required, you'd be far less likely to pay 2500/year for car insurance just to help those who do get into accidents. It's also a very Christian concept, for those who are of that mind. Inasmuch as ye do it unto the least of these, my brethren, ye do it unto me.) That's a different concept...it's about helping folks who need it. In fact, Jesus directly compared this to helping those who you know will be in a position to help you later. I'll give you a personal example of this. When we took in a teenager who was thrown out of the house by her drug addict mom and was living in a used car her grandfather had given her (I'd say a quarter step above homelessness), we didnt do it because we thought we or our kids would be homeless. We did it because, as Christians, we felt called to do so. (And I am not saying that the non-Christians on the list wouldn't do thisI'd just say that they'd have a parallel feel for the moral requirement to do so). Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Why not discuss the topic?
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of John Williams Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 12:41 AM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Why not discuss the topic? No chutzpah required, since I am convinced that the recession is largely the result of unforeseen consequences of imperfectly understood regulations and interactions between them, of people and businesses finding ways to game regulations, and of wrong-headed government bailouts of people and businesses who would have lost money in a free market which would disincentivize such behavior in the future, but instead the bailouts incentivize such things. OK, are you arguing that the bubbles and busts in history when government had all but no regulation were products of that small regulation because government regulations is known a priori to be the cause of all problems in the market? That one cannot look at multiple cases with small and large regulations, and compare them to get a decent rough estimate of the effect government regulations? Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: WeChooseTheMoon
Hi Doug, everyone. I think that both groups the free market sometimes make better decisions than individuals, but that the answer to life the universe and everything, returning to the moon and health care, is finding ways to allow groups to make better decisions than individuals every single time. I don't think that a free market by itself is able to do this. I've been thinking about this in several different contexts lately. When I think of there being nearly 7 billion humans on Earth today, I don't see that as an environmental disaster about to happen, I see it as a huge reservoir of knowledge and untapped computational decision making power. I think a huge problem for humanity is that 99% plus of intellectual effort is spent reinventing the wheel, and that free and open knowledge sharing and finding ways of enabling it are the keys to reducing duplication of effort and a better future for the human race. I think a lot has happen lately in the realm of web 2.0 and the development of software collaboration tools, and I hope this will start to result in increased intellectual productivity in the not to distant future. I've spent a fair bit of time over the last nine months working on a wiki to help Australian Local Governments share information, and I think if more people started and contributed to similar initiatives I think that would be a step in the right direction. I've read as much as I can about google wave and I think that will help. I have gotten excited about open source software and where its going. And I've recently read about networked improvement communities, and I am trying to find out more, with a view of joining a few or promoting them. I'm optomistic about the future of the world, and even if there id not a singularity around the corner, I think good things are. Regards, Wayne. I recently read a bit about - Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 6:47 PM No, what I believe is that regarding matters that effect a group of people we often make better, more responsible choices when we act as a group rather than as an individual. We are inherently selfish, but we understand that selflessness is both more noble and more beneficial to the whole. Acting as individuals we will tend towards selfishness; as a group, less so. That said, individuality and indeed selfishness have attributes that the group can't always compete with. Competitiveness sparks innovation and motivates people to work hard and they should and do expect to reap the benefits of their labors. The trick is to balance the two by allowing our competitive nature to flourish while not allowing our baser nature to take paths that will be detrimental in the long run. I think that while without our individual attributes we wouldn't have come so far so fast, but that without the group we would sill have claws or hooves. Doug___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: WeChooseTheMoon
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 12:24 AM, Doug Pensinger brig...@zo.com wrote: No, there is no communication problem. In its most basic definition, a free market is a market that is free from government intervention. What has become painfully obvious in recent years is that as the market frees itself from governemental constraints, those in a position to manipulate it for their own benefit do so without regard for the greater good. Aw, Doug. Don't you know that government interference in markets is bad, but corporate interference in markets is good? This is apparently because government is accountable to no one, but corporations are accountable to their owners. At least that's how I understand it. Too bad governments can't be privately owned. No, wait... oh, my head hurts. Or not. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Whatcha reading? (was Re: In despair for the state of SF)
Kevin wrote: I wrote: Consider Phlebas first, right Charlie? 8^) That was the first (and so far only) Banks book I have tried. I got about half-way before I gave up. Hey, to each his own. CP is one of my favorite books, period, but if we all liked the same stuff the world would be a pretty boaring place. What specifically didn't you like? Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Kindle irony . . .
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10289983-56.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://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
