Re: Domain names
On 13 Nov 2010 at 15:45, Jon Louis Mann wrote: Jeroen, How is it you came to own Brin-L.com and Brin-L.net? Jon M. Nobody else had bought them. *shrugs* Same way I got upliftwar.com (and yes, it IS a Brin reference) and later polarorbit.net (and I was...VERY surprised that was avaliable). AndrewC ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Uplift books on Kindle?
On 1 Feb 2010 at 1:16, William T Goodall wrote: On 31 Jan 2010, at 22:06, Chris Frandsen wrote: And it seems Apple's blockade can be run... http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/01/google-voice-web-app-circumvents-apples-blockade/ Learner On Jan 29, 2010, at 11:08 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 28 Jan 2010 at 22:16, Chris Frandsen wrote: I mistakenly said ibook I meant native iPad app. The iPhone apps will run as written for the iPhone on the iPad or so it was claimed. Obviously a rewrite is required to take full advantage of the iPad's chips. Yes, we will find out soon. Want to bet? *MOST* iPhone apps will run, they said. The ones that need the phone hardware won't. iPod Touch apps should run OK. That's an assumption. We simply don't know at this point if they'll exclude apps for other reasons. (and you have one app which has to handle both the iPhone and the iPod Touch, disabling certain features if necessary at present...). AndrewC ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Uplift books on Kindle?
On 28 Jan 2010 at 22:16, Chris Frandsen wrote: I mistakenly said ibook I meant native iPad app. The iPhone apps will run as written for the iPhone on the iPad or so it was claimed. Obviously a rewrite is required to take full advantage of the iPad's chips. Yes, we will find out soon. Want to bet? *MOST* iPhone apps will run, they said. And no, I'm not putting cash on something Apple do, their descisions are too often based on issues other than logic from my perspective (like big media's paranoia) AndrewC learner On Jan 28, 2010, at 5:05 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 28 Jan 2010 at 14:43, Chris Frandsen wrote: I have used the Kindle app on the iphone. Jobs promised iphone apps will run on iPad. He usually makes good on his promises. Sure the app will not be as good as the native ibook app. No, what he said was most apps will work on the iPad. It's something of an overstatement, given any app using the GS's PowerVR chip is going to need a substantial re-write to perform acceptably, and even above that and above the apps irrelevant because of hardware, there is still room in what he said to reject apps on ideological grounds. I'm not saying they will, I'm saying it would need a substantial change in how Apple deliver apps for them to allow directly competing book apps on the iPad. We should know relatively soon. AndrewC learner On Jan 28, 2010, at 5:52 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 27 Jan 2010 at 15:10, Chris Frandsen wrote: But how about the iPad???:-) Kindle app does run on the iPad so in just 60+ days. Unwaranted assumption. Apple don't allow apps which directly compete with core functionality on the iPhone, after all... Also, the iPad is just 132dpi and it'll need a new iPad-specific release to deal with resoloution issues. AndrewC learner On Jan 27, 2010, at 12:50 PM, John Williams wrote: The Jijo trilogy is now available on Kindle (as separate books). Also, Uplift War is available. The publisher says that Startide Rising and Sundiver are coming to Kindle in late February. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com Dawn Falcon ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Uplift books on Kindle?
On 27 Jan 2010 at 15:10, Chris Frandsen wrote: But how about the iPad???:-) Kindle app does run on the iPad so in just 60+ days. Unwaranted assumption. Apple don't allow apps which directly compete with core functionality on the iPhone, after all... Also, the iPad is just 132dpi and it'll need a new iPad-specific release to deal with resoloution issues. AndrewC learner On Jan 27, 2010, at 12:50 PM, John Williams wrote: The Jijo trilogy is now available on Kindle (as separate books). Also, Uplift War is available. The publisher says that Startide Rising and Sundiver are coming to Kindle in late February. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: IPad
On 28 Jan 2010 at 11:28, Jon Louis Mann wrote: But how about the iPad???:-) Kindle app does run on the iPad so in just 60+ days. learner i have been hearing that apple is coming out with a netbook... It's not a netbook. It's a web appliance, basically an enlarged iPod Touch. Different type of device, and not I believe what you're looking for. AndrewC ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Uplift books on Kindle?
On 28 Jan 2010 at 14:43, Chris Frandsen wrote: I have used the Kindle app on the iphone. Jobs promised iphone apps will run on iPad. He usually makes good on his promises. Sure the app will not be as good as the native ibook app. No, what he said was most apps will work on the iPad. It's something of an overstatement, given any app using the GS's PowerVR chip is going to need a substantial re-write to perform acceptably, and even above that and above the apps irrelevant because of hardware, there is still room in what he said to reject apps on ideological grounds. I'm not saying they will, I'm saying it would need a substantial change in how Apple deliver apps for them to allow directly competing book apps on the iPad. We should know relatively soon. AndrewC learner On Jan 28, 2010, at 5:52 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 27 Jan 2010 at 15:10, Chris Frandsen wrote: But how about the iPad???:-) Kindle app does run on the iPad so in just 60+ days. Unwaranted assumption. Apple don't allow apps which directly compete with core functionality on the iPhone, after all... Also, the iPad is just 132dpi and it'll need a new iPad-specific release to deal with resoloution issues. AndrewC learner On Jan 27, 2010, at 12:50 PM, John Williams wrote: The Jijo trilogy is now available on Kindle (as separate books). Also, Uplift War is available. The publisher says that Startide Rising and Sundiver are coming to Kindle in late February. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com Dawn Falcon ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Shopping for a wiki
On 30 Dec 2009 at 20:05, Trent Shipley wrote: What is a web in this context. It sounds like there is an effective limit of 20,000 pages per named wiki instance (a web), but that the Foswiki engine can support multiple wikis. A web is the top level hierarchial organisation. Each major project would be part of a web - at a minimum, Scifi and Fantasy would be their own webs. The default setup is for the sidebar to link to each web, but i can also be done as a topbar or other configurations. AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Foswiki up and running
On 31 Dec 2009 at 13:07, Nick Arnett wrote: On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Trent Shipley tship...@deru.com wrote: And... a blast from the past, pasted below. I'll let whoever emerge as the folks who lead the wiki project decide how to respond. As usual, I'm inclined to let the community choose and will only intervene directly as a last resort. Nick It's been a sufficiently long banishment. I'm inclined to agree, but I'd like to hear if anybody strongly objects. I've been on Another List with him for some years and there hasn't been any interaction which was even so much as impolite between us on there. No objections from me. AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Shopping for a wiki
On 29 Dec 2009 at 22:22, Trent Shipley wrote: The potential participant says he hates MediaWiki because it was designed with a flat user model. It has no built in hierarchy and we No, I hate it because it's basically the lowest common denomiator of wiki-dom. It does a lot of things, but it's a pain in the ass in some ways for them all. Also, it handles authentication very very badly indeed (and in an extremely blunt manner), and that is going to be necessary. I have a database background, the news that Foswiki does NOT use a RDBMS as a back end set off all kinds of alarms. Fos(T)wiki is used in some pretty big corperate installs. The only real kicker is that if you're using a really (50,000 page+) wiki you're going to want to use a search engine and not the inbuilt search. There's an inbuilt cache engine, several additional cache engines avaliable and you can even load-balance if you need to. The cache engine is currently being re-written for the next major release, too. 1. Is Foswiki a good candidate for our encyclopedia project? I'd argue so. 2. How do you store your data? Flat file. 3. Why is your storage as reliable as MySQL? Foswiki is considered *extremely* reliable. It's primary goal is for enterprise usage. 4. How do I back up your wiki? You can do a straight file copy, or generate single backup files using a plugin, of either the entire wiki or of individual webs within it. 6. Can I run 24/7/365? Major (Fortune 500) companies do with Foswiki. 7. Our project leader is not only talented technically, he is a good marketer. We plan to be _very_ successful. How does Foswiki scale? What is the biggest Foswiki wiki today? See above answers. There's an effective page limit per-web (20,000), but you are not limited in the number of webs and users you can create. The biggest? Probably Google or Nokia's installs. (Foswiki is the direct successor of Twiki, having taken along basically all the core devs except two) AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: SciFi and Fantasy(?) Wiki
On 29 Dec 2009 at 19:19, Nick Arnett wrote: As long as it runs on Linux (that's the hosted environment) and we can reach consensus AND it isn't a CPU hog (important for costs), I'm fine with whatever. Memory and disk space seem to be non-issues for practical purposes. It should be fine, as long as you don't start playing around with some really advanced stuff (nested includes with auto re-formating, for example). The next major Foswiki release is getting a vastly improved cache handler for that anyway. AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: SciFi and Fantasy(?) Wiki
On 29 Dec 2009 at 22:44, Trent Shipley wrote: The Foswiki community is actually positioning the product as what I call an un-wiki. If you turn everything off it works like wikis were originally intended to work with no workflow model and two levels of heirarchy, administrators and participants (and administrators were supposed to mostly lurk). But they are really meant to be used with multiple roles, hierarchies of users, and workflow events like form approvals and change management -- an un-wiki designed for business. Un-Wiki? In it's origions as Twiki it considerably predates the Wikimedia Foundation, let alone Media Wiki. Hierarchy and Structure have allways been features of some wiki's, that hardly makes them un- wiki. It's unfortunate that the perception of Wikis these days seems to flow just from what Mediawiki has done, because it really doesn't reflect how wiki's have historically been developed and used. I've used Foswiki for game documentation both professionally and personally... AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: SciFi and Fantasy(?) Wiki
On 28 Dec 2009 at 17:16, Nick Arnett wrote: I'm happy to keep the discussion here for now, to get it going. Any other experience wiki-ers here? Hi. I absolutely detest MediaWiki, though, so I won't be much use for this. (Fos/T Wiki, now...) AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: SciFi and Fantasy(?) Wiki
On 29 Dec 2009 at 10:08, Nick Arnett wrote: Google's advertising is targeted by subject. Their bots look at the page and try to show ads that are relevant. Heh. Seriously, once it's up and running and has visitors? Use Project Wonderful. It's google adsense. AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: SciFi and Fantasy(?) Wiki
On 29 Dec 2009 at 16:11, Trent Shipley wrote: Any other experience wiki-ers here? Hi. I absolutely detest MediaWiki, though, so I won't be much use for this. (Fos/T Wiki, now...) Why? We can change no problem. There's no content on it yet. Nick has said that whatever we choose has to use MySQL on the back end. Well, Foswiki is flat-file, heh. It scales better than you think from that though. Honestly, if we're going to be doing anything involving access permissions (and a scifi lit wiki sounds like we are), then I'm recommend not using Mediawiki, you tend to end up doing some nasty hacks. Foswiki is a hierarchial wiki with proper access permissions and so on. It also uses a different markup language to Mediawiki, and one which I greatly prefer, although I admit if you've only learned mediawiki there is a small learning curve. You can also do some fairly good tricks with the markup in creating apps and specially formatted pages. I've used it professionally and I also use it for my own documentation needs. AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: List of The 50 Best Inventions of 2009
On 18 Nov 2009 at 20:40, Bruce Bostwick wrote: Considering the fact that the only two loss of vehicle and crew events NASA has ever had to deal with that actually involved going into or coming back from space (not counting Apollo 1 in that, as it Both were directly caused by problems on-launch... the RCC leading edge of the wing -- and since the spaceplane design in question does *not* include any abort options from liftoff to the !??? What spaceplane design do you think I'm talking about? I am not refering to any single design, and never have been. I'd have to question why putting crew on top of a rocket is insane. Because both failures on launch are related to strapping huge rockets to the crew section, and then taking off vertically, maybe? a lot of ways. About the only thing Ares I/Ares V can't do is... ...Is retrieve the decades lost while NASA messed arround with the shuttle and ISS? Oh, and let's not forget launch affordably, be reuseable, have a sensible turnarround time, use safer hybrid fuel systems... AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: List of The 50 Best Inventions of 2009
On 19 Nov 2009 at 8:19, Bruce Bostwick wrote: Oh, and while we're talking about STS .. why is it, exactly, that NASA has been dropping all of those ET's back into the atmosphere to burn up, after spending the $10k/pound to get them up there, and not saving them on-orbit as construction material? One of my my *major* bugbears with the way the entire program's been run, actually. They've hauled up the ISS *inside* the shuttle. I have yet to hear any convincing explination either. For reference, the volume of the ET's LOX tank alone is very roughly 3500m^3. The current ISS habitable volume is 358m^3. The stack geometry of the STS is one of the most insane things I've ever seen, and I'm quite frankly impressed that they've only had two LOV/C's and not many more, especially in the pre-51L days. I'm not convinced that for carrying Humans, Ares is going to be much safer. Yes, I've heard the arguments. Still not entirely convinced, and it's still an extremely expensive launch vehicle - for the price, they'd be better just using proven Russian lifters. And you know what? If you come up with a propulsion system that's more efficient than binary-fuel combustion from onboard fuel and oxidizer, Well - I'm sure you're aware that SpaceShipOne sucessfully used a N2O/HTPB Hybrid rocket engine. And I'm with Pournelle's contention that if you gave Rutan a billion, he'd have a working reuseable Spaceplane which could reach a reasonable orbit inside three years. (And honestly, he could of done so for at least a decade). ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: List of The 50 Best Inventions of 2009
On 19 Nov 2009 at 12:23, Bruce Bostwick wrote: That being said, what I really wish someone would propose is sending a robot propulsion/navigation system out to a conveniently sized nickel/ iron asteroid, bring it home, and park it in an orbit high enough to Question: Would you need to go the asteroid belt for this, or are there inner-system asteroids, or even NEA's in easy-to-capture orbits, which would be useable? lift them up from earth. And, if there's a surplus, make periodic drops to the surface. Yep. Getting things /down/ is easy, things just need to fall correctly. Heck, even if there's a requirement for a Human to be up there and check the trajectory, it's cheap compared to the metals we're talking about. Which is why the USSR never landed on the moon.) The Protons are a much more mature system, especially now, granted, but a lot of the legacy systems were USSR-built and .. well, let's just say they cut a few corners here and there.] True, but they're an existing system, and while a proper replacement system is designed the Russians could do the man-lifting for NASA without the massive cost of Ares I launches. Pournelle is probably just about right, there. :) It was in a now several-year old rant of his I agree with... Heck, you could give a billion to five companies to hedge your bets, include a couple of the major aerospace companies if you wanted. I'd still put my money on the small comnoanies coming up with the working designs at this point... AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: List of The 50 Best Inventions of 2009
On 17 Nov 2009 at 12:48, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: starts here . . . The Best Invention of the Year: NASA's Ares Rockets The 50 Best Inventions of 2009 - TIME http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1934027_1934003_1933945,00.html http://tinyurl.com/yl4evjq (Includes the 5 Worst Inventions of the Year and a poll for voting on the ranking: Ares is not #1 in that poll.) The Ares I darn well should be. I mean, the Ares V is a good enough concept for bulk launch, never mind that the Saturn V was carrying arround 75% of the same payload in the late 60's, but sticking Astronaughts on top of a rocket at this stage? Insane. Spaceplanes, allready. AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Regulation and the financial crisis
On 14 Sep 2009 at 18:53, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: by the financial industry. Arguing that Congress's mistake proves government is bad at regulation is like asking a court for mercy because you're an orphan after you murdered your parents. Not that that hasn't been tried, too. :( Isn't that a stock example of Chutzpah? AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On 7 Sep 2009 at 21:40, Nick Arnett wrote: If you really believe that a lawfully elected democratic government making a decision about how to spend tax revenue is an infringement on your freedom, then you are a lunatic fringe nut case and not worthy of serious attention. I should have figured that out a while ago. He's awfully predictable. For all his dramabombing over being this man of mystery, he's a reprisentative of a type who are socially essentially destructive because they don't participate in any form of social contract. I also don't believe he'd know good faith if it bit him, he's fully aware of the implications of his arguments. AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On 6 Sep 2009 at 15:17, John Williams wrote: I would really like to understand your point of view, I doubt it. I suspect you would like to fit me into one of your simplistic models. Good luck with that. I'm sorry, for that statement I'm taking out a warrant for your arrest for dramabombing on a mailing list without a licence. AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On 6 Sep 2009 at 18:46, Bruce Bostwick wrote: On Sep 6, 2009, at 5:12 PM, John Williams wrote: Really? Would you literally come to my house with a gun and force me to give you money, telling me that you know better who it should be spent on than I do? If your idea of how to spend it involves leaving people to the nonexistent mercy of a nonexistent public health care system so people in the top income brackets can afford an extra yacht this Christmas, maybe so. The human eye is a wonderful device. With a little effort, it can fail to see even the most glaring injustice (Deliberately missing the quote-ee, but I'm sure some people will recognise it) AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On 7 Sep 2009 at 2:57, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: I think the fear is that employers who now offer insurance as part of the compensation package will realize that it would be cheaper for them to stop doing so and let their employers be covered by the public option so after a little while most of the people who now have other insurance will find themselves on the public option, so the private insurance companies go out of business, making the public option no longer an option for anyone unable to pay for all of ... The UK has the NHS. And private health insurance. So, er, lol. AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On 30 Aug 2009 at 12:22, John Williams wrote: One of a doctor's fundamental guidelines is do no harm. A responsible doctor would never operate on a patient to remove the appendix simply because the patient complains of a stomach ache. More information about the state of the patient is needed before an operation is justified. An excellent example. Doctors are expected to remove a certain percentage of healthy appendixes. I can't remember the exact percentage, but it's significant. Why? Because the effects of an acute burst appendix are so nasty. If a doctor isn't removing enough healthy ones, then he is actually not serving his patents properly. You may wish to reflect on this as regards your stance. (And no, I don't see any need to repeat the clear mistakes Japan made and have a lost decade here, thanks) AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
On 16 Aug 2009 at 23:18, John Williams wrote: If the government is going to interfere in the insurance market, it seems to me that it would be simpler just to directly subsidize those who cannot afford to pay health insurance premiums, and leave the insurance market to function rationally. That is extremely expensive, for all it's simpler. Again, paying from a pool on risk assessment encourages insurance companies to invest heavily in preventative care rather than the more expensive critical care for many conditions, which the government simply paying out vast sums in insurance for sick people doesn't provide. (More, the government has to set limits somewhere if it is directly subsidising insurance...) AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
On 16 Aug 2009 at 23:03, John Williams wrote: On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Andrew Crystalldawnfal...@upliftwar.com wrote: Either it will have a higher premium to cover pre-existing conditions, or it only covers things not caused by the pre-existing condition. That is not how health status insurance works. It is insurance against an increase in health insurance premiums. Of course that's how it works. It's in the interest of insurance companies not to pay out. Your shilling for corperations is amusing, but not based in reality: insurance allways takes into account risks. AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
On 17 Aug 2009 at 12:51, John Williams wrote: On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew Crystalldawnfal...@upliftwar.com wrote: Of course that's how it works. It's in the interest of insurance companies not to pay out. Your shilling for corperations is amusing, but not based in reality: insurance allways takes into account risks. No, considering pre-existing conditions is not how health status insurance works. It takes into account the risks of health insurance premiums rising drastically in the future. Which are based on your pre-existing conditions, right. Either insurance companies are idiots, or they're out there to make money. Hmm. AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
On 17 Aug 2009 at 12:57, John Williams wrote: On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew Crystalldawnfal...@upliftwar.com wrote: On 16 Aug 2009 at 23:18, John Williams wrote: If the government is going to interfere in the insurance market, it seems to me that it would be simpler just to directly subsidize those who cannot afford to pay health insurance premiums, and leave the insurance market to function rationally. That is extremely expensive, for all it's simpler. Actually, studies have shown that consumer driven health care reduces costs, and does not decrease preventative care. Except you're not proposing consumer driven health care, you propising that the government pick up an lot of expensive healthcare costs. More, it doesn't create incentives to increase prevenative care either. | For savings after the first year, at least two of the studies indicate | trend rates lower than traditional PPO plans by approximately 3 percent | to 5 percent. If these lower trends can be further validated, it will | represent a substantial cost-reduction strategy for employers and | employees. 3-5%, when the total health cost overrun compared to other countries systems is an order of magnitude higher. Hmm. AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
On 17 Aug 2009 at 17:06, John Williams wrote: On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Andrew Crystalldawnfal...@upliftwar.com wrote: On 17 Aug 2009 at 12:51, John Williams wrote: On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Andrew Crystalldawnfal...@upliftwar.com wrote: No, considering pre-existing conditions is not how health status insurance works. It takes into account the risks of health insurance premiums rising drastically in the future. Which are based on your pre-existing conditions, right. Yes, health insurance premiums are based on pre-existing conditions. But health STATUS insurance premiums are not (they are based on likelihood of future chronic costly conditions). And in most cases, the likelyhood of you developing those conditions is dependent on pre-existing conditions! | For savings after the first year, at least two of the studies indicate | trend rates lower than traditional PPO plans by approximately 3 percent | to 5 percent. If these lower trends can be further validated, it will | represent a substantial cost-reduction strategy for employers and | employees. 3-5%, when the total health cost overrun compared to other countries systems is an order of magnitude higher. Hmm. 3 to 5% PER YEAR. It adds up. So it magically constantly decreases costs? No, read it again - the trend is that it will be 3-5% cheaper than a PPO plan. Actually, a health insurance market without government interference would be a lot more consumer-driven than the current system, which is why I mentioned it. In nearly all cases, if there is to be a Howso? You've just empowered the insurance companies to do a lot more cherrypicking of good customers and to jack rates up for everyone else. AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
On 15 Aug 2009 at 20:00, John Williams wrote: On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 7:51 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.netdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: That's a true statementbut the problem with failure with radically new government is that the failures are horrid: (e.g. the French Revolution, the Cultural Revolution, Pot Pol). Which suggests that we need lots of very small scale experiments, so failures are small. Islands. Huxley's idea :) AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
On 16 Aug 2009 at 14:08, John Williams wrote: New ideas can be difficult to get used to. Perhaps they could be bundled together for those who prefer it. But it would be a bundle -- the two types of insurance are fundamentally different, since one pays a lump sum or equivalent (like life insurance) for a single event, and the other pays out many payments for multiple events. And immediately you're creating the concept that as aoon as anything happens, your insurance will go up, because the risk to the insurer that you'll not be paying them anymore has been pushed to another party. Hence, you're simply creating a situation where health insurance costs will generally be higher, with less people able to insure themselves, and only the people able to afford both the insurance and the insurance for the insurance able to ensure there's some sort of cap on their healthcare costs. More, you're discouraging routine healthcare, because it's immediately less in the interest of insurers to pay for it because of people's insurance on the insurance paying out, etc. AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
On 16 Aug 2009 at 14:44, John Williams wrote: On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Andrew Crystalldawnfal...@upliftwar.com wrote: Many people won't go for checkups if they have to pay out of pocket, and they will ignore dangerous conditions for too long. Did you read the article, or just the excerpts I posted? This was discussed in the article. Yes, you're simply refusing to accnowledge the actual results of the policys proposed... none of this is things which have not been seen when you push routine costs onto people and make new ways for them to be charged (as their status insurance can be cancelled, as well as their normal insurance). Sure, evidence is that because you'd be punishing people financially when they wanted proper preventative care, they'll be paying out more in the longer run. No, there was nothing suggested that would punish people for preventative care. Pushing routine prevenative costs onto people does exactly that, wereas basic cover being assured (companies cannot refuse to offer it) and a pool assigned to companies based on patient risk does the exact opposite (because it's in the company's interests to monitor acute conditions and to catch problems early, saving themselves money). And you still have the exact same condition of many people being one illness from poverty, a refusal to cover pre-existing conditions and no way for poorer people to get the care they need for those conditions, leading to a need for chronic care rather than far cheaper accute care. Dealing with the poor was discussed in the article, as was mandatory catastrophic insurance for all. As for the other things, please see the article I referenced in another post about health-status insurance. This isn't something you can say just concerns the poor, it affects the vast majority of Americans. And I've seen the article, it's simply wishful thinking that there has to be a way to Be Better. No, it'll just raise premiums and reduce cover again. AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
On 16 Aug 2009 at 15:52, John Williams wrote: On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Andrew Crystalldawnfal...@upliftwar.com wrote: Yes, you're simply refusing to accnowledge the actual results of the policys proposed... What exactly am I refusing to acknowledge? That you'd simply once again reduce the number of people with proper insurance, drive older workers onto the grey market and reduce the scope of insurance-covered healthcare. to be charged (as their status insurance can be cancelled, Health status insurance cancelled? Not if there is a contract. It is like life insurance. Do you worry about life insurance being cancelled? As yes, good and equivalent example. Firstly, in many cases life insurance is unavaliable. Secondly, the premiums depend on precisely the same issues which drive up health insurance, so if you're a bad health risk or have prexisting conditions you're very unlikely to be able to get status coverage at a deacent price or at all in the first place, or if you can the amount of increae you could would be limited. Then there are exclusions which cover a lot of activites, and in many cases, for example, flatly exclude claims happening outside America. And yes, there's no reason to believe that they wouldn't be cancelled if the company providing health insurance claimed that there was a fraudlant application, because of course fraud on the policy means the insurance on the policy is invalid. And they can allways have their own standards to investigate as well, with their own cancelation procedures. Pushing routine prevenative costs onto people does exactly that, Having people pay for a service is a punishment? So am I being punished when I pay my auto mechanic to change the oil? I'd suggest you read up on the basics of preventative medicine, and look at the prices of simple doctor's visits in America. A better analogy is pay roads, where every major road is one. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
On 16 Aug 2009 at 11:45, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: FWIW the _Atlantic_ article is well worth reading carefully. I've already forwarded the link with my recommendation to a couple of other lists, and got a couple of comments back. The problems the article lists are real; I won't argue that the present system is really messed up. However, the solution of having high deductables has been tried; and the results are counterprodutive. People under those conditions eschew paying for services until they reach crisis porportions, then they go in. They gamble that things will get better on their own, and if they lose, they only risk their deductable. Exactly! Except very often, if they lose, they have problems which will allways plague them or at the least will take longer and be more difficult to cure. before she went on to an even better hospital, and others who develop new products and are frustrated with how hard it is to get them past regulations and into use. To be fair, that problem is in no way limited to America. AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
On 16 Aug 2009 at 16:30, John Williams wrote: On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Andrew Crystalldawnfal...@upliftwar.com wrote: , so if you're a bad health risk or have prexisting conditions you're very unlikely to be able to get status coverage at a deacent price or at all in the first place, That is not the way health status insurance works. A pre-existing condition has little bearing on health status insurance. Health status insurance is insurance against an unexpected future chronic and costly condition developing. Either it will have a higher premium to cover pre-existing conditions, or it only covers things not caused by the pre-existing condition. Given the Human body is a system, the second makes it trivial to deny claims because they're linked to the pre-existing condition. AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
On 12 Aug 2009 at 10:56, John Williams wrote: On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 7:01 AM, Dan Mdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: John, would you agree that some sort of community system, like the courts, are necessary to resolve disputes over true ownership of property, contracts, and the like? Necessary, no, I can imagine alternatives that might be practical, at least on a small scale. But desirable, yes, I think it is a good idea to have some sort of government justice system to settle contractual and legal disagreements. I've never met anyone who thinks that a free market means total anarchy. A free market simply means that people are free to enter into agreements with others. If these agreements are formalized into a contract, then it is a good idea to have some way -- that all parties agree is fair -- to enforce the contract. I think a The missing element is an easy to to assure that contracts are equitable. That is, there is no system of templates and checks (think legal AI on tap) to check the contacts you'd enter into, when you say buy some software. If the contracts are visible (maybe even a RFID tag on the software box, to continue that example) and examinable before purchase, that you be asked if you agree with the terms before purchase and so on.. well, then you might have a point. (And indeed on this particular point I'd agree, including agreements between people to do things which would otherwise be on shaky legal grounds) However, that system /must/ be fully in place (and it involves, among other things, proper identity authentication services (which to me /is/ a proper government function, on-tap legal AI's and more) /and/ I do not in any way see it excluding the role of government and taxation in other areas. AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Population growth rate differentials and consequences
On 11 Jul 2009 at 13:59, Dan M wrote: The US is almost perfectly on the ZPG point. It accepts far more immigrants than anyone else, so it will continue to grow. China has a big demographic Um, quite apart from the issues with that being cracked down on for the sort of people you'd think they'd actually want in recent years (but let's not go into the H1-B fiasco), the UK is looking at 80 million (15 million more) people by 2050. Also, the European trends are based mostly on the analysis of the old EU countries, and not the countries the EU has more recently expanded to cover, which have younger and more fertile populations. AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Google Operating System
On 8 Jul 2009 at 23:43, Doug Pensinger wrote: Charlie Wrote ...and Google already have one. It's called Android, plus there's gOS which Google had hefty input into. And there are miriad other Linuces and BSDs to try, up to and including Darwin/OSX. So I'm with Will (you can pick yourselves up at your leisure). Don't see the point of Chrome, except to leverage Google's brand and no doubt increase the amount of data they have to analyse on the way we use PCs... To (eventually) give PC users a _real_ alternative to Windows? If Google can't do it no one can. And who doesn't want an alternative to PoS windows? Do we think that Microsoft and Apple aren't scrutinizing their data? Personally, I think Google has made the net a better place. The Spam filter on Gmail is a thing of beauty; very close to infallible in this particular data point. I love Picassa, and Google News is my favorite way to find news from a wide variety of sources. The spam filter on Pegaus Mail works fine for me, and it's mine rather then being in the control of a company which is going to scan my emails. I've yet to find (and this includes gmail) another filter which is more than 90% accurate for me. And yes, I know Microsoft aren't looking at my data. Regardless of the OS, I'll require a program from a third party sitting across the net connection monitoring, logging and asking for permission as appropriate for me, and a router logging network connections as well. AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Predictions Registry!
Well, it's new to me anyway: http://wrongtomorrow.com/ Shades of Brin's _Earth_, anyone? AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
What was that story?
Hey, after a story again- It's a post-apocalyptic story, where the protagonist wakes up having been cured of a cancer to discover he's the last man alive. He is periodically woken from suspension sleep by robots which become increasingly sofisticated, and eventually they terraform another world and evolve a near-human race on it for him to be with. AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Looking for a story...
I'm looking for a story I read - I think it was a short story. It features a grunt's eye view of an attack on an alien position, with the attackers being aliens of the same species, but bred by Humans as part of their society. AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Experts
On 6 Jan 2009 at 1:19, William T Goodall wrote: What kind of 'expert' can make predictions no better than a coin toss? When there's 2 paths, not very expert. When there's 1000... AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wal-Mart is evil, why it must be eradicated
On 29 Nov 2008 at 10:32, Nick Arnett wrote: I suspect that what we've seen in oil, housing and other bubbles is that we have created a system that amplifies fear and greed. In an essentially unreal market, why are we surprised we have largely psychological resonance and positive feedback loops? AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars question: Second Life?
On 15 Nov 2008 at 12:56, Claes Wallin wrote: Is there another virtual-world community with similar features that you would recommend as an alternative? I'm genuinely interested to know. It's still in beta, currently more limited and with a somewhat different focus, but Metaplace, Raph Koster's company. https://www.metaplace.com/ AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars question: Second Life?
I've sent you something I hope you'll be interested in offlist, but from a personal standpoint I'm highly uncomfortable with their general policys - the Linden's application of what can only be taken as censorship has lead me to stear directly clear of playing SL and many of their economic descisions (on gambling, on banks and so on) strike me as nothing short of lunatic and they are never properly discussed or explained to the community. AndrewC On 12 Nov 2008 at 19:08, Nick Arnett wrote: Anybody here a Second Life participant? I'm talking to them about perhaps joining the company... but I'm barely familiar with it as a user. Any suggestions about things to try, etc. I'm most interested in metrics and such, things that are or could be measured, which has to do mostly with the economy, of course. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrupt and inefficient government (was FDB)
On 10 Nov 2008 at 3:07, William T Goodall wrote: On 9 Nov 2008, at 23:04, Jon Louis Mann wrote: part of the reason government sometimes makes bad decisions is because it attracts corrupt people, easily influenced by greedy, unscrupulous lobbyists. The American system was designed to have congress, senate, president and supreme court neutralise each other so that it's quite hard to corrupt. With the political consensus in the USA now so narrow (republicans and democrats are much closer than opposition parties in other western democracies) that's not working so well. The parties are Wait, what's that? Oh, it's me making a rude sound. They're further apart in fundermental positions that Labour and Conservative. The countries which tend to have actually different parties are those with coalition government systems. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is John W?
On 9 Nov 2008 at 18:29, William T Goodall wrote: On 9 Nov 2008, at 18:19, Bruce Bostwick wrote: I have to ask .. is anyone really learning anything or gaining anything from continuing this conversation at this point, other than focusing attention on someone who clearly is thriving on it? I don't see the point of it. No more or less pointless than your posts. Just a different topic. *Shrugs* AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: When Atheists Attack (another in our endless series of cut-n-paste screeds)
On 4 Nov 2008 at 8:39, Julia Thompson wrote: There's a huge difference between atheists, even militant ones, and psychos who go around attacking other people on the basis of what religion the other people subscribe to. Sorry Julia, but bullshit. It's precisely the same - attacking someone because they don't agree with your views. If religion, lack of religion, politics, creed, colour or whatever is used by the criminal as their excuse is quite, afaik, irrelevant. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Obama and the 'Drug Killer'
On 4 Nov 2008 at 7:42, John Williams wrote: It seems to me that the free market does a poor job in this regard; It seems to me the government does a poor job in this regard. I don't want a bunch of politicians deciding which drugs to spend my money on. I'm perfectly capable of deciding for myself. Well, that narrows down your profession nicely, Dr. Williams. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Obama and the 'Drug Killer'
On 5 Nov 2008 at 10:58, Curtis Burisch wrote: Andrew Crystall wrote: It seems to me that the free market does a poor job in this regard; It seems to me the government does a poor job in this regard. I don't want a bunch of politicians deciding which drugs to spend my money on. I'm perfectly capable of deciding for myself. Well, that narrows down your profession nicely, Dr. Williams. Also wrote: Sorry Julia, but bullshit. It's precisely the same - attacking someone because they don't agree with your views. If religion, lack of religion, politics, creed, colour or whatever is used by the criminal as their excuse is quite, afaik, irrelevant. Talk about confrontational behaviour, Andrew -- did you forget your coffee this morning? Um, confrontational? I'm pretty happy right now actually. Something about a nation seeing sense in who they elected. Anyway... I'm not shy about speaking my mind, and I've been very clear on the issue of people allowing their predudice to dictate how they feel about events simply because the word religion is involved (There's a lot of people out there who just shut down their higher brain functions when its mentioned). Do I really need to give my standard spiel on tolerance on Brin-L? Poking Dr. Williams is just sport. I freely admit to troll baiting, with the whatcha gonna do about it? subscript. As I've said before, this community is waaay too tolerant of that sort of thing. I do it with people I find narrow minded and intollerant. If I was wrong to label them that I end up appologising pretty quickly. Ain't happened in a long time. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Obama and the 'Drug Killer'
On 3 Nov 2008 at 21:48, Doug Pensinger wrote: John Williams wrote: Drug development is an industry with high fixed costs. Once those fixed, or sunk, costs have been committed, the drugs are sold for the price that the market will bear. According to the expert who wrote the article, the more socialized markets settle on a lower price than the less socialized markets. If all markets were socialized, then all the prices would be lower. Then companies would not be able to justify committing the fixed costs on future development of some drugs, and some drugs would not be developed. What if there were government incentives/grants to develop the pharms? It seems to me that the free market does a poor job in this regard; emphasizing stuff like boner pills because they're wildly profitable and in recycling previously developed drugs with slight adjustments in formulation or in combination with other drugs. There is a huge disincentive to develop something like a cure for the cold because over the counter remedies are a hugely profitable industry. Frankly, sounds like a reasonable use of cash. Offer money for drug development with the caveat that any compounds developed would be jointly owned by the drug company and the government, or if the drug company backed out from that drug, they'd have to transfer the rights entirely to the government. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Obama and the 'Drug Killer'
On 31 Oct 2008 at 12:48, John Williams wrote: http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/10/30/obama-drug-medicine-oped-cx_ch_1031hooper.html Obama And The 'Drug Killer' Charles Hooper 10.31.08, 12:00 AM ET No, that's just a good argument for compulsory publishing of all drug studies (a very good idea being pushed on lots of other grounds as well), and a strict develop it or lose it policy on the IP of drugs. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Senator Ted Stevens found guilty
On 29 Oct 2008 at 12:51, William T Goodall wrote: Why don't the angels have a union Maru? They do, that's where the Adversary comes in. AndrewC Mmm, Sarcasm Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Single payer health care
On 29 Oct 2008 at 16:56, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 03:26 PM Wednesday 10/29/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: How do we prevent such a system from degenerating to the lowest quality of service it possibly can get away with? . . . ronn! :) we should not assume that will happen because some nations with national health can't afford the kind of RD available in the richest country in the world. No, we have examples here of things where there is no competition or they have to take everyone regardless of ability to pay the bill, like the ones I listed. (Nothing to do with RD but with simply getting seen and getting adequate care.) If we get one-size-fits-all health care, how do we insure that it does not degrade like many other things already have? . . . ronn! :) true enough, that's another reason why health care delivery systems MUST be reformed, and eliminating the middleman frees up a lot of cash for the end user. all we can do it find something better than what we have, now. But like random mutations in biology, change for change's sake is more often detrimental rather than beneficial. And the government And with something like a single payer system, the track record isn't good. Again.. *points to Holland's system* AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On 28 Oct 2008 at 5:54, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 27 Oct 2008 at 20:23, John Williams wrote: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] So, your view of democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch? Nicely put. Not really. This election is a flock of sheep guided by jackals squabbling over electing a carrion bird and a mule or a jackass and a pig. And at that it's better than most democratic elections. To make this clearer: Take the UK. I can vote for Labour. I can vote for the Conservatives. I'm going to get basically the same thing. This is not unusual for democracies. At least in America this time there's an actual difference in the candidates platforms. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On 28 Oct 2008 at 10:59, Nick Arnett wrote: On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:53 AM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Must you keep putting up the same straw man? As long as you keep pretending that you have the right to tell other people that their wants and opinions are subordinate to yours, you will keep tilting at straw men. Ooo, a straw man to defend the use of a straw man! A meta-straw man! If you wish to talk about this stuff in the context of real-world democracy, please begin. Otherwise, I'm getting off the merry-go-round. The phrasing being used strongly suggests he's using a bot to reply, incidentally. It's the repetitive, slightly-nonsensical repitition of the same point of view regardless of the content being replied to. AndrewC (Not that I've written IRC bots to do that before or anything). ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Health Care costs (was: the same topic all damn week)
On 28 Oct 2008 at 16:05, Jim Sharkey wrote: Dave Land wrote: On Oct 28, 2008, at 11:11 AM, John Williams wrote: Do you think other people should pay for your daughter's health care while you should only contribute a small amount, even though you could contribute much more? This is *precisely* how private insurance works: everyone pays a little bit so that anyone who has enormous expenses can be taken care of. Exactly. The larger the pool of participants in a health plan, the smaller the cost to each participant in that pool. Assuming your actuaries are competent, anyway. :-) Except that's not how it works, you simply end up excluding anyone very likely to need treatment or with pre-existing conditions. That's called Adverse Selection. The approach in the Netherlands using a pool to offset Adverse Selection (combined with the fact the basic package has to be offered) works a lot better. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Health Care costs (was: the same topic all damn week)
On 28 Oct 2008 at 13:18, John Williams wrote: Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] The larger the pool of participants in a health plan, the smaller the cost to each participant in that pool. If the participants are chosen randomly. Not so if the additional participant is a high risk of an expensive health problem. Health insurance is an extraordinarily complicated problem. Yes, and it's worth studying countries which have far lower costs for it than the US, but without the slow moving behemoth of the UKs NHS. Neither healthcare system can be defended on any basis other than it evolved that way. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On 28 Oct 2008 at 9:48, John Williams wrote: Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Are you seriously suggesting that we should deregulate the entire financial system to that extent? There shouldn't be any arbitrary regulations imposed by the government, which obviously has little clue of what regulations make for an efficient system. So what's your take on the system being used in the Netherlands, with particular reference to its elimination of Adverse Selection? AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On 28 Oct 2008 at 14:57, John Williams wrote: Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] So what's your take on the system being used in the Netherlands, with particular reference to its elimination of Adverse Selection? So you don't in fact understand many of the alternatives to the American system, right. Not sure what you are talking about. But the Dutch seem to be doing the bailout thing, too. Straw man. Health insurance is not banking. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On 28 Oct 2008 at 18:09, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 01:03 AM Tuesday 10/28/2008, Andrew Crystall wrote: At least in America this time there's an actual difference in the candidates platforms. The question is not whether there is a difference between the platforms of the two candidates and their parties but whether there will be any significant difference in what they can actually do when they get into office, or if indeed many of the things which affect people most are out of the control of whoever happens to be in office. Well yes, but at least they're not struggling to find differences in their platforms as Labour and the Tories often do here... AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On 28 Oct 2008 at 17:57, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: So what's your take on the system being used in the Netherlands, with particular reference to its elimination of Adverse Selection? Can you point us to a for dummies explanation? Also, is there anything about that system which might prevent it from scaling up to a diverse population of 300 million+? For dummies, okay. It's a new system, introduced in 2006 and there are still minor tweaks going on, but it's attracted a lot of attention. The core of it is this: It's a system of obligatory private health insurance. The insurance companies (and over a dozen compete) can't refuse to offer you the basic package, for a flat price. Additional cover is offered at the insurance company's digression, at any price they chose to set. You can chose to have an excess to reduce the premium, but are not forced to have one. A few percentage points of income go into a risk pool, which pays out to the insurance companies based on how risky their clients are: more risky clients, more cash. This is how it avoids Adverse Selection. There are more details (such as kids being covered free) in the Netherlands, but they're not essential to its function. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On 28 Oct 2008 at 23:30, David Hobby wrote: Andrew Crystall wrote: ... For dummies, okay. It's a new system, introduced in 2006 and there are still minor tweaks going on, but it's attracted a lot of attention. The core of it is this: It's a system of obligatory private health insurance. The insurance companies (and over a dozen compete) can't refuse to offer you the basic package, for a flat price. Additional cover is offered at the insurance company's digression, at any price they chose to set. You can chose to have an excess to reduce the premium, but are not forced to have one. Andrew-- Thanks for the explanation, but I can't quite figure out the last sentence. Do you mean to say ...choose to have an exam to reduce the premium,? No, excess, as in you pay the first x of the costs before the insurance kicks in. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On 27 Oct 2008 at 18:52, Lance A. Brown wrote: William T Goodall said the following on 10/27/2008 7:23 AM: Their could be highly efficient and competitive private militias instead of the inefficient government monopoly paid for by taking the money of people who don't want to pay for it. You mean like Blackwater? Try the local Mafia. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Redistribute the wealth
On 27 Oct 2008 at 20:23, John Williams wrote: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] So, your view of democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch? Nicely put. Not really. This election is a flock of sheep guided by jackals squabbling over electing a carrion bird and a mule or a jackass and a pig. And at that it's better than most democratic elections. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Off-topic., monotonous posting (was Child-killing religion)
On 15 Oct 2008 at 11:37, William T Goodall wrote: It's been very quiet here since the thought police manifesto. Obvious Maru You posted a Manifesto? AndrewC Yes, I went there Maru Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No more feeding the troll (was Re: Debunking B.S. from the so-called debunker )
On 19 Oct 2008 at 19:07, Nick Arnett wrote: I'll stop feeding him now and perhaps ponder just how much disruption the list managers should tolerate. A lot, of course, but sheesh... Said it before, say it again: You're far too forgiving. On forum / list / wiki moderation, I fall into the Stalin/Gulag camp of moderation. I once was one of the admins a forum where we made people take and post photos of a hand-written apology to be able to post again after certain offences... Andrew ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: No more feeding the troll (was Re: Debunking B.S. from the so-called debunker )
On 21 Oct 2008 at 7:48, Dave Land wrote: On Oct 21, 2008, at 5:20 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 19 Oct 2008 at 19:07, Nick Arnett wrote: I'll stop feeding him now and perhaps ponder just how much disruption the list managers should tolerate. A lot, of course, but sheesh... Said it before, say it again: You're far too forgiving. On forum / list / wiki moderation, I fall into the Stalin/Gulag camp of moderation. I once was one of the admins a forum where we made people take and post photos of a hand-written apology to be able to post again after certain offences... And you settled for that only because you couldn't physically put them in the stocks and have people pelt them with eggs? Oh it didn't get posted publically. Unless they offended again, in which case they got banned and a nice picture of their appology stamped with a big red Banned got posted in a special sub-forum for it. Heh. There were six bans in two years in a very...often disagreeable...community of several hundred. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science
On 12 Oct 2008 at 23:27, xponentrob wrote: - Original Message - From: Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs DDavid Brin et al Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2008 2:40 PM Subject: Re: The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science On 12 Oct 2008 at 12:00, Rceeberger wrote: http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i21/21b02001.htm * The article's from 1993. Also, there's a major problem with calling the EM Engine, as it stands, entirely bogus. Because there's a demonstration version the scientists behind it have built which generates thrust. I haven't seen any good explinations for that between It can't happen and It's an EM Engine. Got any evidence it actually works? I can't find any. Beyond the fact it actually generates thrust, you mean? AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science
On 12 Oct 2008 at 12:00, Rceeberger wrote: http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i21/21b02001.htm * The article's from 1993. Also, there's a major problem with calling the EM Engine, as it stands, entirely bogus. Because there's a demonstration version the scientists behind it have built which generates thrust. I haven't seen any good explinations for that between It can't happen and It's an EM Engine. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: ZPG
On 17 Sep 2008 at 13:46, Dave Land wrote: Perhaps the reproduction tax incentive can be on a curve, with zero or less population growth being rewarded, over-reproduction being penalized: 0 children -- 3 deductions 1 child-- 2 deduction 2 children -- 1 deductions 3 children -- 1 penalty 4 children -- 2 penalties Congratulations, you just lowered the birth rate again among the very people who are not even currently producing a replacement population, and the groups who want lots of children anyway are now bitterly opposed to the government and are very unlike to listen to anything else they say on the matter. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war on the environment
On 11 Sep 2008 at 17:33, Bruce Bostwick wrote: But that choice places almost all of the power in the hands of the employer as far as deciding the terms of the agreement. The choice There are plenty of ways to ensure that while someone has the free choice to leave a company, they're screwed if they take it. Company Scrip (lots and LOTS of things you can do with this) Retirement income tied to company bought options, surrendered on leaving the company Health Insurance (an American-style health insurance system leads to high prices, making it very difficult for the uninsured to gain any care) Company Towns (especially tied to informational control; make the outside world seem scary, restrict certain information and run your own news services) Complex usage fees (to the degree you need an agent program, company provided, to handle them for you. You do trust the company, right?) You're heading for effective debt peonage via company law and company scrip. For example, what happens when a company scrip is purely electronic? Every transaction is traceable, etc. Technology in a free market has the potential for unprecidented levels of overwatch and control of supposedly free workers. Unlike in the past, where slave labour meant unhappy, unskilled unproductive labour it's perfectly possible to envisage a cradle to the grave company system of indoctination and loyalty where although theoretically free to quit, you effectively have skilled, happy and productive slaves. Some people won't see that as so bad, of course. And incidentally, why do you think they'll start this in the West? I'd rather think they wouldn't, they'll start somewhere where the government's greedy enough to look away. And yes, it's a relatively long-term investment. But in thirty years, the corperate HQ could move and *then*... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Hyperinflation!
On 10 Sep 2008 at 10:03, John Williams wrote: Ronn! Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is it digital-ready? As I've mentioned before, one way of looking at that is as a way that the manufacturers of the equipment and the providers of programming have come up with to get some more money out of those who have been living too long with a perfectly adequate (for them) over-eight-year-old TV with rabbit ears or a rooftop antenna which were long ago paid for. Are you aware that HD broadcasts (digital) are available and can be received by an old rooftop antenna? If you do not have a digital TV, you can get a digital/analog converter box. In fact, the FCC was offering a $40 rebate to anyone purchasing such a box (I think the deal may be over now, but you can check with a web search). I remember at one point there was a converter box that sold for $40, so with the rebate people could get the box for no out-of-pocket cost. Yes, and you get what you pay for - in reviews, that box scored considerably lower than analogue TV. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Hyperinflation!
On 10 Sep 2008 at 18:47, John Williams wrote: Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes, and you get what you pay for - in reviews, that box scored considerably lower than analogue TV. Yeah, don't you hate it when free things are of poor quality? I always demand my money back. So to summarise, I have to get a box because the government is switching over to digital TV, and the cheapest box actually reduces my image quality? It's certainly something I'd want to know about (and returns on the voucher? No, not allowed so sorry) given that there are $50-60 boxes which give a perfectly good image output. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On 4 Sep 2008 at 1:19, William T Goodall wrote: On 3 Sep 2008, at 23:08, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 2 Sep 2008 at 19:07, William T Goodall wrote: I think that our capacity for ethics comes from our social animal nature but that telling good from bad comes from thinking about ethics using our intelligence. Per Dawkins, animal group behavior works out essentially selfish in the genetic sense. This isn't of course a bar to forming ethics, but it does create issues extending them outside your tribal grouping - most animals don't form the larger sort of associations Humans do. As I said the capacity is innate but we can and do elaborate it using our intelligence. The primitive ethics of tribes and religions is extended by moral and political philosophy to include more abstract concepts of justice and fairness. Yes, but where does the ability to do so come from? I'd argue that only Humans and a few other animals have the ability to comprehend altruistic ideals - and here we touch on self-awareness: Understanding of the self as an individual is key to accepting others as individuals and enables true altruistic actions. (And yes, I am saying that very young children will only behave in a selfish way). And if it's like mathematics it raises the question would aliens develop the same ethics as us? At least part of our ethics comes from our perceptive organs and our social and biological interaction mechanics. I think it's fair to assume that aliens would differ in these at least slightly and the ethical systems may vary. I was thinking that despite the differences in the underlying mechanisms our hypothetical aliens might begin to reach similar conclusions once they applied more advanced thinking to the subject. Why? What is inherent in higher level ethics which doesn't depend on our perceptions of the world arround us? AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On 2 Sep 2008 at 19:07, William T Goodall wrote: I think that our capacity for ethics comes from our social animal nature but that telling good from bad comes from thinking about ethics using our intelligence. Per Dawkins, animal group behavior works out essentially selfish in the genetic sense. This isn't of course a bar to forming ethics, but it does create issues extending them outside your tribal grouping - most animals don't form the larger sort of associations Humans do. And if it's like mathematics it raises the question would aliens develop the same ethics as us? At least part of our ethics comes from our perceptive organs and our social and biological interaction mechanics. I think it's fair to assume that aliens would differ in these at least slightly and the ethical systems may vary. Fortunately people don't spend much time arguing about which language is 'best' ;-) They don't? Heh. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Alastair Reynolds
On 4 Aug 2008 at 16:45, Olin Elliott wrote: Has anyone here read Alastair Reynolds -- Revelation Space, Chasm City, Redemption Ark. I've been reading his books for the past few months and really loving them, but he doesn't seem to be that well known among science fiction readers I've chatted with since I started. I'm also reading A Fire Upon the Deep by Vernor Vinge. Just thought I'd bring up some books, since that is sort of what drew me here in the first place. I picked them up cheap recently second hand. Um While I think it started well, the series... descends, I guess, in my estimation. By the time you get to Aura, I'm wincing (Redeption Ark...well...frankly you could see a lot of it coming). I really like the short story Diamond Dogs and some of the Galactic North collection more than the longer books in the universe - this is something which is consistant with me, though, I like the short _A Second Chance at Eden_ more than the _Nights Dawn_ trilogy, for example. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Chicken and Egg
On 16 Jul 2008 at 20:19, Lance A. Brown wrote: You need to lobby the vendors who sell computers, Apple, Dell, HP, etc. to configure the machines they sell so they have all the security features needed turned on at time of sale. Um, ime they do. Along with 101 bits of crapware which have no real function except to make the PC's run slower so they can sell you a quicker one in the future. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Intimidation via libel
On 9 Jun 2008 at 16:38, Charlie Bell wrote: On 09/06/2008, at 12:48 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: It's his blog and he can set whatever rules he wants on it. I'm sure your boycott will really bother him a lot :-) William; Your not bothering to stand up and say you'll be counted in this matter when it comes to the church of scientology rather a religion is amusing to me. Eh? All William has said is that Charles Stross can do what he likes on his own blog. I'm sure that if you asked what William's opinion is of Scientology itself, he'll say it's just like any other religion... Except he didn't. This is amusing, given his usual spiel. And I know he's said before tell the difference between a religion and the CoS. (The difference as I see it between the CoS and the Mafia is that the CoS are smart enough to call themselves a religion in some countries). AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A videogame that will make William happy
On 9 Jun 2008 at 16:46, Charlie Bell wrote: Played Planescape:Torment? No. Should I? Um, yes? Afaik it's the finest example of a game story ever. Without spoiling anything, the story has pathos. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Intimidation via libel
On 9 Jun 2008 at 11:58, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 9 Jun 2008 at 16:38, Charlie Bell wrote: On 09/06/2008, at 12:48 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: It's his blog and he can set whatever rules he wants on it. I'm sure your boycott will really bother him a lot :-) William; Your not bothering to stand up and say you'll be counted in this matter when it comes to the church of scientology rather a religion is amusing to me. Eh? All William has said is that Charles Stross can do what he likes on his own blog. I'm sure that if you asked what William's opinion is of Scientology itself, he'll say it's just like any other religion... Except he didn't. This is amusing, given his usual spiel. And I know he's said before tell the difference between a religion and the CoS. (The difference as I see it between the CoS and the Mafia is that the CoS are smart enough to call themselves a religion in some countries). Gah, he can't tell the difference between ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Intimidation via libel
On 9 Jun 2008 at 13:41, William T Goodall wrote: On 9 Jun 2008, at 10:24, Rceeberger wrote: On 6/9/2008 1:38:44 AM, Charlie Bell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I'm sure that if you asked what William's opinion is of Scientology itself, he'll say it's just like any other religion... Certainly, he actually believes it is a religion. Evil? Check. Mind-melting nonsense? Check. Sounds like religion to me. Definitions Maru The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. - Albert Einstein While it is true that scientific results are entirely independent from religious or moral considerations, those individuals to whom we owe the great creative achievements of science were all of them imbued with the truly religious conviction that this universe of ours is something perfect and susceptible to the rational striving for knowledge. If this conviction had not been a strongly emotional one and if those searching for knowledge had not been inspired by Spinoza's Amor Dei Intellectualis, they wouid hardly have been capable of that untiring devotion which alone enables man to attain his greatest achievements. - Albert Einstein AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Intimidation via libel
UK libel law is a tricky thing. Unlike in many countries, if you host a comment and have editing power over it, you can be held liable alongside the author of a statement. Even linking to potentially libellous comments can be hold to be distributing them, and is a fresh offence of libel. There is a defence of truth, but it is tricky and something the defendant has to prove, rather than complainant. Usually other defences are used, such as fair comment or public interest, but these can be qualified by various factors and context can change remarks from libelous to not. You need to, thus, under UK law be willing to edit online certain negative statements about litigious businesses such as the Church of Scientology, who are major users of the current law. Of course, some people take it too far. Charles Stross, on his blog, has recently been editing out any negative reference whatsoever to Scientology, going far and away beyond what the law requires. That's censorship, and it serves simply to encourage the abuse of the libel law in the UK. We need to fix UK libel law, but we should also note the people who allready go above and beyond, and boycott them until they mend their ways. Andrew Crystall GSV Support Anon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Intimidation via libel
On 8 Jun 2008 at 13:40, David Hobby wrote: Andrew Crystall wrote: ... Of course, some people take it too far. Charles Stross, on his blog, has recently been editing out any negative reference whatsoever to Scientology, going far and away beyond what the law requires. That's censorship, and it serves simply to encourage the abuse of the libel law in the UK. ... Andrew-- Hi. You mean here? http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2008/05/when_is_a_cult_not_a_cult.html#comments My impression is that he's being more than fair, and carefully telling posters how to skirt the libel laws. No, he's not. He's several times repeated the falsehood that truth is not a defence under UK libel law (and it is, as justification, and there's also an associated fair comment defence), and by the standard for protecting against libellous posts I've seen applied on a hundred other blogs and boards - including ones where I applied the standard - he's ran straight past them to censorship. Who the censorship is in favour of makes this, in my eyes and because of my personal experiences, seem especially egregious but I feel the point stands regardless. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Intimidation via libel
On 9 Jun 2008 at 3:13, William T Goodall wrote: On 8 Jun 2008, at 17:35, Andrew Crystall wrote: Of course, some people take it too far. Charles Stross, on his blog, has recently been editing out any negative reference whatsoever to Scientology, going far and away beyond what the law requires. That's censorship, and it serves simply to encourage the abuse of the libel law in the UK. We need to fix UK libel law, but we should also note the people who allready go above and beyond, and boycott them until they mend their ways. It's his blog and he can set whatever rules he wants on it. I'm sure your boycott will really bother him a lot :-) William; Your not bothering to stand up and say you'll be counted in this matter when it comes to the church of scientology rather a religion is amusing to me. Shows how you care just for the soundbites not the cause you supposedly espouse. But seriously, why do you assume it's just me. He's entitled to wall away dissenting opinions if he wants. Authors who do this tend to get positive feedback cycles (heck, if you look at the history of Scientology there's a clear example of that), and I'm hardly the only person he's offended over this. Incidentally... I have very little in common in terms of actual beliefs with the right, compared to the left. But I usually get on far better with the people on the right simply because they're not wrapped up in their little worlds in the same way. They might think you're talking crap, and they'll tell you so rather than walling you away and trying to pretend you're not there. This bites the left on the ass when it comes to foreign policy. Repeatedly. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Intimidation via libel
On 9 Jun 2008 at 3:13, William T Goodall wrote: On 8 Jun 2008, at 17:35, Andrew Crystall wrote: Of course, some people take it too far. Charles Stross, on his blog, has recently been editing out any negative reference whatsoever to Scientology, going far and away beyond what the law requires. That's censorship, and it serves simply to encourage the abuse of the libel law in the UK. We need to fix UK libel law, but we should also note the people who allready go above and beyond, and boycott them until they mend their ways. It's his blog and he can set whatever rules he wants on it. I'm sure your boycott will really bother him a lot :-) William; Your not bothering to stand up and say you'll be counted in this matter when it comes to the church of scientology rather a religion is amusing to me, and your seeming pursuit of snappy remarks over substance or action, yea. Heh. But seriously, why do you assume it's just me. He's entitled to wall away dissenting opinions if he wants. Authors who do this tend to get positive feedback cycles (heck, if you look at the history of Scientology there's clear examples of that), and I'm hardly the only person he's offended over this. I'm not going to do anything. I don't have to. (Except rate, personally, Stross alongside Kratman as authors who let their political beliefs dictate their writing...although to be fair the good Dr. Brin seems to be doing that these days as well.) Incidentally... I have very little in common in terms of actual beliefs with the right, compared to the left. But I usually get on far better with the people on the right simply because they're not wrapped up in their little worlds in the same way. They might think you're talking crap, and they'll tell you so rather than walling you away and trying to pretend you're not there. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A videogame that will make William happy
On 6 Jun 2008 at 16:52, William T Goodall wrote: The best television is an art form. I don't need to justify art do I? TV is a passive medium, some of us also like an interactive one. I prefer books for my passive media because I can progress through them in my own time (usually very rapidly, given how fast I read)... most TV gets boring for me very quickly. Computer games can be art in the same way other media can be. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A videogame that will make William happy
On 7 Jun 2008 at 2:19, Charlie Bell wrote: Not really. Good games are good games. I loved Lemmings and the Lucasarts adventures (Monkey Island, Grim Fandango, Loom, The Dig...) as much as San Andreas and GTA4 (and Half Life, Far Cry, Deus Ex...). I think GTA4 as a game is fairly meh - I'm not seeing where it's taking people that GTA3 didn't. Same for Halo 3 - give me something like Gears of War instead (until you hit the silly dark sections...) Played Planescape:Torment? Andrew ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin-l Digest, Vol 377, Issue 3
The worst-case estimates I've seen put the carbon produced at arround 4% of coal, Charlie. And true, the deposits are not in the best areas..but neither are the oil reserves, for different reasons. I'd rather depend on Canada and Australia than the OPEC countries. AndrewC On 2 May 2008 at 22:27, Charlie Bell wrote: On 02/05/2008, at 4:21 AM, Dan M wrote: Why do you think mainstream science is wrong on global warming? Why do you think people will willingly die before using nuclear power? Just out of interest - what about the environmental costs of getting and refining uranium ore? It's not like the deposits are in accessible areas. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Brin-l Digest, Vol 377, Issue 3
On 1 May 2008 at 13:21, Dan M wrote: Why do you think mainstream science is wrong on global warming? Why do you think people will willingly die before using nuclear power? Because certain politicans of the cold war played up the links between nuclear warheads and nuclear power. There's a vast resevoir of fear there in the older generation. Or how Chenoybl was so atypical... (and caused in itself by an inefficient, dangerous cold war design of reactor). AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What were they thinking? (MS Office 2007)
On 24 Apr 2008 at 20:55, Max Battcher wrote: Don't get me wrong, I appreciate Open Source and use a number of applications that I like better in spite of their commercial equivalents (Firefox, Lightningbird (Thunderbird + Lightning plugin), Vim, Inkscape, ...), but OO.org, to me, seems the lesser choice to Office. Given the choice I'd much rather work in Office than OO.org. At a workplace where I had to use Office 07, it cut my productivity in it by over a third, and created no end of issues. Managing formating was such a problem I ended up copy/pasting between two documents a lot to force the precise text formating I wanted. Also, ironically, I can't stand thunderbird and use pegasus mail. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What were they thinking? (MS Office 2007)
On 24 Apr 2008 at 8:05, Nick Arnett wrote: So... I upgraded to Microsoft Office 2007 recently. Can't do half of what I'd suggest upgrading further to Open Office, it's less of a change in UI from Office 2003 and costs less. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What were they thinking? (MS Office 2007)
On 24 Apr 2008 at 11:37, Max Battcher wrote: * The PDF Exporter (Save As PDF) for Office 2007 is a free download: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=4D951911-3E7E-4AE6-B059-A2E79ED87041displaylang=en (Adobe blocked it from the out of box install, which to me is a pretty petty maneuver...) As a warning, the output from this is absolutely horrible and I've had no end of issues with it. Using either the proper Acrobat or something like the Bullzip PDF printer gives you much cleaner results. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is religion a threat to rationality and science?
On 22 Apr 2008 at 8:38, Nick Arnett wrote: As David Brin observed in The Transparent Society, research has shown that self-righteous people are high on endorphins. And romantic love is biochemically indistinguishable from severe obsessive-compulsive disorder. Andrew Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What were they thinking? (MS Office 2007)
On 24 Apr 2008 at 20:18, Max Battcher wrote: Andrew Crystall wrote: On 24 Apr 2008 at 8:05, Nick Arnett wrote: So... I upgraded to Microsoft Office 2007 recently. Can't do half of what I'd suggest upgrading further to Open Office, it's less of a change in UI from Office 2003 and costs less. ...and does half as much. OpenOffice.org one of very few applications that leaves me pining for my Windows system when I'm working in Ubuntu. It's pretty stupid and sometimes just painful to use. (The next biggest program that I switch to my Windows system for is Visual Studio.) There's no way that I could use OpenOffice.org daily. I'd rather use Vim. In fact, with Vim's inline spell check (new in 7.0) I have been using it a lot more for basic document writing than either OO.org or Office. The only things which are missing from Open Office are a few of the more obscure and advanced functions of Excel (and you can fix sheets up perfectly well with a little research) and functionality which is better situated in products other than your office suite. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mail help needed . . .
I use and would recommend Pegasus Mail - http://www.pmail.com/ Robust mail client with several possible view-types, and an inbuilt baesian filter. On 30 Mar 2008 at 6:04, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: Since after 10+ years of my using them both Netscape and Eudora are going away, I am at the point where I have to change both browser and mail programs. I spent past several hours yesterday installing Mozilla Firefox and Thunderbird and trying to import stuff from the old programs. Firefox may be a satisfactory browser but I am quite disappointed in the lack of functionality of Thunderbird as a mail client compared with Eudora, so I thought I'd ask if anyone has any (obviously, non-M$) recommendations? TIA, . . . ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1348 - Release Date: 28/03/2008 10:58 Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Mail help needed . . .
On 30 Mar 2008 at 16:16, Gary Nunn wrote: I use and would recommend Pegasus Mail - http://www.pmail.com/ Robust mail client with several possible view-types, and an inbuilt baesian filter. I was also going to recommend Pegasus Mail (Pmail), and saw that someone else beat me to it. I used Pegasus for years until I switched to Outlook to learn it for work. One feature I LOVED with Pegasus was that I could group unread items, by conversation. Do you not like Outlook? Bleck :P (PMail has an outlook-alike view if you do) Everywhere I've worked has used outlook and I thoroughly despise it, lol AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Blog Against Theocracy
On 20 Mar 2008 at 23:36, Dave Land wrote: Folks, This weekend, some folks on the Interwebs will be conducting a Blog Against Theocracy event. It doesn't appear to have an official sponsor, but First Freedom First, a group that stands for church-state separation (good for both sides of that divide, I think we may all agree) seems to be strongly behind it. No. All an explicit Church-State divide does is mean that politicians cannot explicitly be called on their overtly religious policies, because there is this divide in place so they couldn't *possibly* be religious. When people are elected by a religious electorate, on religious policies, a divide is make-believe and only serves to prevent rational and mature discussion of policy. In a reprisentative democracy, you will have people elected who are religious by religious people - if you don't like this, you should be looking for another political system. Oh, and it gets in the way of this is what some people believe religious education in schools. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Blog Against Theocracy
On 21 Mar 2008 at 18:23, William T Goodall wrote: The only effective way of separating church and state is to forbid those infected with religion from voting or holding political office. So basically you're for severely restricting the franchise. Funny, when it was expanded it was done in the name of liberty and equality among people, if you contact it... AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Blog Against Theocracy
On 21 Mar 2008 at 8:53, Nick Arnett wrote: On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 5:22 AM, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All an explicit Church-State divide does is mean that politicians cannot explicitly be called on their overtly religious policies, because there is this divide in place so they couldn't *possibly* be religious. I don't see how that can be. It means that churches can't interfere in elections. Religious communities tend to vote for certain candidates, in any country, though. It means that government cannot do anything that would make a particular religion official or in any way coerce people to choose a particular religion. Those to me are entirely separate issues from an explicit church- state divide. It's nonsense when someone who is religious, elected by an overwhelmingly religious community, has his actions (in line with his religion) taken to be entirely secular in their basis. Strong laws for tolerance and equality do more than any dividing line between the state and any given non-violent belief structure. Those are big deals to me, especially when there are some very wealthy churches around and some very aggressively religious elected officials. Get back to me when the CoS has been tossed out of messing with politics, huh? They abuse the principle, nastily. I live in the UK. As far as I can see, it's easier to discuss religious influences in politics and to point out where certain opinions are coming from, making them less paletable on tolerance grounds, than it would be in America precisely because we don't have this line blocking debate on the topic. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
