RE: For David Brin and the rest of you
At $10/watt, this is about 4 million. How badly do you want to see this demo? I don't expect to see it, ever. But, that demo is an example of the very easy baby steps that would have to be taken very early in the project. The fact that we don't have a demo of baby steps is a very good indicator of where the project is. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: For David Brin and the rest of you
It looks like a combination of Skylon, a project being developed in the UK and big propulsion lasers will get the cost to under $100/kg to GEO. Do you have any vidios of lasers holding up, say, a 10kg object, for 20 minutes and keeping it under control. This would be one of the easy feasability tests one would do at the start of any serious undertaking. That would be one of many things that would have to be sucessfully tested before the project would be deemed even possible. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Multi-talented
I never knew the good doctor founded google until I read it in Yahoo news as part of a scandel. Alleged Affair of Google Co-Founder Brin Raises Ethical Issues Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Multi-talented
I never knew the good doctor founded google until I read it in Yahoo news as part of a scandel. Maybe, but he would have had to change his name from David to Sergei. Didn't you know, David translated into Russian is Sergei, I knew a Sergei from Russia. He used Sergei when founding Google to have a cosmopolitan flair. :-) Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE:
Hi Debbi, I don't think you've been deleted. But we've been real quiet. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Chinese ham handedness and monopolies
I sent this to a single person instead of the list due to Killer B being changed (probably automatically) from the sender to a cc. I think this happened a couple of other times. I've gotten replies, but will not post them, because they aren't my emails. But if the sender would, or would give me permission to, that would be great. In reply to Kevin, I wrote: The Chinese were extremely ham-handed about this. In particular, their stoppage of rare earth shipments in response to an incident involving their extrodinary claims to ocean territory (basically any territory claims of the Chinese over the last 1000 years are considered valid and enforceable by the the Chinese government) generated strong reaction. Given the fact that consumers rightfully believed that the Chinese were untrustworthy suppliers, as well as expensive ones, it was reasonable for them to sacrifice a little performance to switch to a more reliable and cheaper supply. The Chinese overplayed their hand, as they have overall the last year. They can probably drive Western companies out of the solar cell business. Their entire ecconomic model, with artifically low value on their currency, and the disdaining of IP right of other countries, fits this. They may very well increase prices after becoming a near monopoly, but the alternatives are oil and gas and coal and wind. And, for certain remote applications, solar power actually works best. So, I'm guessing that it will not be the big win they see. But, they are caught at a GDP level where Huntington has pointed out that totalitarian goverments begin to get pushed by the growing middle class. Their reaction is to clamp down harderespecially with the new leadership, where all the leaders are both well filtered and the result of nepotism. It is a dangerous mixture. Putting this together with their demographic window of opportunity (the 1-child policy has a big demographic bubble that will be old in 20 years), a surplus of males, and one has a classic situation where countries become aggressive. We will be living in interesting times. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Power and civilization
That's not how slow poison works. People don't die for smoking a cigarette, or for smoking 100 cigarettes a day for 30 years. But then they die in the 31st year. The difference, of course, is that there were a large number of symtoms, very statistically significant differences in longevity, etc. with cigarette smoking. Even with simple studies, it was easy to see. With DDT, much more sophisticated studies were done. It's impossible to prove that no-one is hurt by exposore to DDT, Roundup, etc. But, Roundup has been subjected to the tumor prone mice study. What hasn't, is natural supplements. It is likely that there are dangerous things sold in health food stores that we could check for, but by law they are not checked because they are natural. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
If you have a better way to get humanity off fossil fuels, don't keep it to yourself. I have actions that, given historical precident, have a much better chance of suceeeding. Make a good case that it's cheaper and I will support that instead of working on power satellites and laser propulsion. I'm not sure if you will like my case because it's not a quick fix. But, we've been trying quick fixes since the oil shock of 1973, almost 40 years now, and haven't made any significant progress. So, I'd argue we need a plan that will work in the long run as well as remediation in the short run. Short run: give nuclear power a level playing field...the same safety requirements as any other industry, and allow the testing of new safer, cheaper designs in the US and Europe. Practically speaking, it is unlikely that the Communist party/the government of China is a good source for innovation. Princelings tend to not want to vary from the tried and true much. So it is up to Europe and the US to do this. (I've had experience both with Chinese tech. goods and as a potential vendor for China and you can see the fingers of the Communist party holding back the wheels of progress in both cases). Short run: improve fuel efficiency standards. Add a tax to gasoline and electricity. Have rebates for low income people to balance the tax. If they spend it elsewhere, find. Short run: build a natural gas infrastructure for truck transportation in the US. The decline in US emissions to 1992 levels (even though the population increased 23%) is mostly due to the switch to natural gas from coal. But, the critical area is the developing world. China puts out more CO2 than the US and EU combined, and the new coal plants on order from China and India will add this amount again. So, we need to make nuclear power cheap. It may not be enough to be as cheap as coal, and in that case the west could switch but India and China would be far less likely to. In the west, the small difference in cost would not be a barrier. The difference is larger in India and China because coal is very cheap with no pollution control or mining regulations. Mid term, offer subsidies for synthetic biofuels that do not displace cropland. Right now, several companies are in pilot to initial commercial appplication. I'd give this field the highest chance of working: say 25% chance of being close to competitive with gasoline while using concentrated waste CO2, sunlight, bioengineered life forms, and brackish water. Then, the goverments should support research in areas that would allow for alternative energy in decades. This would be developing our knowledge in a lot of different fields so someoone could put the knowledge together to develop either a power source or effective power storage. They include Plasma physics Mesoscopic physics Synthetic biology Material sciences And more engineering oriented, but still experimental: Development of capacitance Development of compact accelerators This is not exhaustive, I'd welcome suggestions. It's putting governments back in the business of funding fundamental research at, say, 1% of GDP. There will be scores of possibilities that all have a 1%-2% chance of working. And when one does, venture capital and small companies can be the mechanism for picking winners and losers. The government's job is to prepare the field. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
Of course, it would make sense to integrate water and wind plants, probably even using the wind turbines to power the pumps directly. But that's a problem with politics, not technology. I beg to differ. The obvious problem is geography. Pump storage is highly used in Switzerland, and they have moutainous terrain and have hydroelectric dams which are perfect for combined generation/pump storage. But, most good windfarm locations are offshore or on the plains (e.g. Iowa or the Panhandle of TX) where high winds blow. The energy from a wind turbine is porportional to the cube of the velocity of the wind. Yes, there is high wind on ridge lines, but I've seen windmills there, and there is just one line, not row after row. So, pump storage needs to be located in very specific geographical locations (wherever there is a quick change in elevation from one large area to anothermountaintops aren't good because you can't put a big lake there), while the flat plains and the oceans, seas, and the Great Lakes are the best place to locate wind turbines. If it were easy, the German company that already has 10% of its nameplate capacity in wind would be doing water storage already. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Kevin O'Brien Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 8:13 AM To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses On 11/30/2012 8:49 AM, Dan Minette wrote: So, they were fired up when the windmills were down due to low wind. Now, with cheap natural gas, the building of windmills has slown down to a virtual halt. Well, cheap currently. It is just one carbon tax away from being expensive. And to my mind the only question is when that tax comes, not if. How is that going to happen. Are you arguing that the US will impose a carbon tax that is so high that we will be paying more in carbon taxes than fuel costs? Given the fact that we've been unable to raise the gas tax in decades, how will we impose a severe carbon tax. A modest carbon tax will benefit natural gas, because it will facilitate the switch from coal to natural gas. Nuclear power might benefit, but I'm guessing that real reform of nuclear regulations will not be popular. Taxes in the US are not populareven going back to the tax levels of the Clinton era is too much for Obama to propose. Given the fact that Kyoto was rejected by the US Senate 95-0, I can't see carbon taxes at 5x the European level. At the present level of Europe's tax, it would cost an extra 0.6 cents/kwH for natural gas and 1.2 cents per kWh for coal. That's peanuts compared to the extra cost for wind/endergy storage which is by far the cheapest form of energy. And for gasoline, it's an extra 11 cents/gallon, well within the weekly variation in price. And, this is just the US. China will just use coal. But, windmills will not be effective until the total cost, with energy storage, becomes within a 2-3 cents/kwH of other sources. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Power and civilization
Unfortunately, we already have surplus crop and other produce. In order to keep the price up, surplus is destroyed. I goggled for that in the US, and it referred to this happening during the Great Depression, when prices were so low during the deflationary era that it wasn't worth the cost of bringing them to market. Since then, farmers have been paid to leave land fallow. Lately, it's been much better. Farmers are paid to plant land with the greatest risk for erosion with grasses that are superior for soil retention. That's one reason why, on US farms, topsoil is increasing. My stepfather in law grew up on his family farm and farmed until he retiredand he's very familiar with how grains are grown. Monsanto has proven that genetically modified crop is dangerous. I've seen some extraordinary sketchy studies on this, but nothing substantial. With 95% or so of the US eating food that has been genetically modified, then we should see the effects with real science. I've checked the latest study of organic food vs. non-organic, and absolutely no health benefits were found with organic foods. Yes, residue pesticides exist on non-organic food, but the linear hypothesis is required to assume danger. And, I drink to the great fellow who gave a beautiful illustration of the problems with the linear hypothesis. And, a friend of mine points out, India is self sufficient in food with 2x the population it had when starvation was epidemic. He said that the person who created a the short stalk grain hybrid saved the lives of many of his friends. Yes, genetic modifications have a long history. Yup, trial error breeding. Genes don't care how they are modified. My problem with Monsanto is that they not only sell the crop, but also poison which kills every living thing (except their genetically modified crop). The poison you talk about is roundup. And, yes, if I drank a bottle of it, I'd probably be sick. But, I've used it on weeds. Spray it on grass, and the grass dies, but spray it on weeds 3 inches from grass, and the small amount that gets on the grass doesn't hurt it. If Roundup were that bad, wouldn't we see the effects on the laws of folks who use it, on the animal life in the area, etc? Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
Here in Brazil, Wind is used as part of the electric grid (there is a country-wide electric grid, only some parts of the Rain Forest are outside it). It helps save water and not consume natural gas when the wind blows. So, Wind is _not_ one black swam away, it can be used complementary to other sources of energy. I'm sorry if I was unclear. Texas actually had a fairly large number of windmills. And, they had been used in tandum with expensive natural gas. The natural gas plants are cheaper than coal, but the fuel was more expensive. So, they were fired up when the windmills were down due to low wind. Now, with cheap natural gas, the building of windmills has slown down to a virtual halt. The largest German company in this field has calculated that they can only count on about 10% of the nameplate capacity from windmills. As a result, when windmills get to over 6%-10% of total grid power, they become impractical. The black swan I was talking about was a cheap efficient storage mechanism for vast amounts of power. That would make windmills practical as a significant source. Otherwise, we can have them as a 4%-8% source, but always need to rely on other sources. At low levels, this might make ecconomic sense. But, having two sets of power plants, overall, does not make sense. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses (Keith Henson)
With all due respect, Keith, I've been hearing arguments like this for 50 years. That's impressive hearing considering that the big, high efficiency lasers that make this concept possible have been around for less than 5 years. This particular combination, I haven't heard for 50 years. But, the basic physics of photoelectric cells has been around for over a century; current produced by low intensity beams was one of the key early experiments that led to QM. So, the basic physics for solar panels has been around that longOK, not well understood for a couple of decades. Still, Germany is building more coal plants for electricity and solar panels for show. The physics behind fusion power has been around for 60 years. In the '50s, it was assumed that fusion plants would be common in the '80s. The physics hasn't changed. But, a lot of practical problems have come up, and the optimists are saying 30 years, like they did in the 50s. I've seen resources poured into things for which the physics would work, but any good applied physicist could see was vaporware. Just at my work, over million was spent on a shake table that tested at different frequencies than applied downhole. One of the critical points of their argument was not to involve any technical people in the decision because they were wedded to the old paradigm. Or acoustic telemetry while drillingthat only worked when the drill string didn't touch the borehole wall at quasi-random points (which happens all the time). Or downhole robots. In almost all of the cases I can think of, there are no answers to practical questions. Folks who have been responsible for building fleets of tools that work worldwide, that operate at 150C with 20G rms vibration tend to know what questions to ask about folks who propose new ideas that the company should put vast resources in. Unfortunately, the chief corporate technology officer, like the person in change of computing for the corporation often was in the '80s, did not have ordinary skill in the art. This is what I referred to. I only gave a fraction of the answers. we could add inertia fusion in the '80s, the multiple times solar power was going to be cost effective in 5-10 years, etc. None of these concepts violated laws of physics. But, anyone who has been around the block knew they were sketchy. One thing would help you establish credibility. Can you point to a design of yours that is used worldwide on a massive scale in a major industry? No hard feelings, but it sounds like its even less likely than earth bound solar cells. But I don't exactly see why you are appealing to authority. The physics behind this concept is either correct or it is not. So far the people who are qualified to express an opinion and have done so all say I got the physics right. I was basically asking if you've been around the block. That's not an appeal to authority, just the result of the observation that folks who've walked the walk are more likely to be accurate the next time they talk the talk than folks who never walked the walk. I did look at high energy lasers, and the person who wrote http://www.rp-photonics.com/high_power_lasers.html Looks like he has worked with high power lasers. One notes that high power is 5 kWatt, and the many caveats for use at that energy. It's not that bad. If you can remember or relearn a few pages of high school physics (the rocket equation and Newton's laws), you can be qualified to express an opinion too. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I keep telling myself that when I hear how modern science is a left wing plot. But, the question is not whether an opinion is constitutionally protected (I think flat earth folks have constitutionally protected opinions), but whether it is right. Your ideas don't violate the laws of physics any more than the idea that folks had in '30s of the world of tomorrow violated physics. But, reading the article, and thinking about laser based propulsion, I can see overwhelming practical problems that would have to be solved. Looking at articles on laser propulsion, it is definitely in the highly speculative phase right now. In fact, part way along the way to your plan, we should have enough control over beams (particle beams have real advantages over lasers here) to do inertia fusion practically. So, I won't say never to power satellites, but I'd saw it's probably three black swans awayand they have to be just the three black swans we need. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
Yup, oil production is not as harmless as nuclear bomb tests. It depends on how close you are to the nuclear bomb test. But, oil is generally lower in radioactivity than bananas. If you are far enough away from the test, then the radiation is so low, it's orders of magnitude below what you get from eating a banana. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Kevin O'Brien Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 9:06 AM To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses On 11/27/2012 5:18 PM, Dan Minette wrote: Really cheap power if we bootstrap by building one power satellite and use it for propulsion lasers to bring up parts for thousands. With all due respect, Keith, I've been hearing arguments like this for 50 years. One thing would help you establish credibility. Can you point to a design of yours that is used worldwide on a massive scale in a major industry? No hard feelings, but it sounds like its even less likely than earth bound solar cells. Speaking of solar cells, this article looks interesting: A trade war over cheap solar involving Europe and China. That opens up several interesting topics. First, this is arguably the most important technology of the 21st century since it not only provides energy security but also addresses global heating. Second, the U.S. does not appear in this story. But, the technology is extremely expensive, even the cheap version. That is why Germany is building coal plants to replace the nuclear plants, while solar represents only 0.3% of the total energy supply. China is subsidizing it's solar panels in an attempt to gain a monopoly in selling solar panals. It doesn't really use themI couldn't get a number just on Chinese solar panels, but there total renewable (excluding hydroelectric and wood) is 0.2% of their energy consumption, and wind is much cheaper, so maybe they have 0.01%-0.05% solar. They have a natural advantage in that they can just dump the toxic byproduct of making solar cells instead of processing them. That cuts material costs tremendously. They used the low price tactic to drive out virtually all other rare earth suppliers a bit over a decade ago, and are now in a position where the startup costs are high for other countries, and any country with pollution regulations would have a hard time competing. So, using this tactic, they could keep a monopoly, once they established it. But, since solar power is a feel good luxury, and shows no sign of being an important part of any ecconomy, they cannot use it as a political weapon. A country can do without solar power; it cannot do without rare earths. Nuclear power and biofuels from synthetic biology and bioengineering are far more likely to be used as green energy sources. One advange each has is that the development of efficient storage is not required for their use. In a real sense, solar needs two breakthroughs that we cannot see to be effective. Wind just needs one, effective storage. The lack of it is why wind power cannot be counted on as part of peak demand. It only made sense when natural gas was expensive. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Power and civilization
The measure of a civilization could be said to be it's consumption of energy and how it uses resources. Conspicuous v. sustainable... At what point was civilization sustainable without depending on unknowable innovations in the future? It would have to be before steel, because blacksmithing almost deforested England before coal was found and used (back around 1000 I think). Going to Africa, and seeing the sustainable organic farming they used to get 5 bushels/acre out of depleted soil reminded me of what my Zambian daughter Neli argued, to no avail, to the government of Uganda. That using natural methods would just have it's people starve, like they have for centuries. Unfortunately, the European Greens were more powerful in their persuasionand Uganda will remain poor until they stop listening to them. It's hard because the EU policy is dedicated to protecting inefficient EU (mostly French) farmers. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Power and civilization
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Jon Louis Mann Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 7:47 PM To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Power and civilization The measure of a civilization could be said to be its consumption of energy and how it uses resources. Conspicuous v. sustainable... Jon From: medieva...@aol.com Twas in Last And First Men, by Olaf Stapledon, I think, where all future civilizations had their power based upon alcohol. Nothing stored from the past was left. I never could get through Stapleton. What was destroyed; all other sources of power? How could that be? From: John Garcia john...@gmail.com I'm reading John Varley's Slow Apocalypse. The premise is that all un-processed petroleum is destroyed by an act of bio-terrorism. In the middle of it right now, but so far it's scaring the spit out of me. john Years ago George R.R. Martin wrote a pilot called Doors. If I remember correctly it was about an alternative Earth where a virus was created to absorb oil spills and it ended up eating up all traces of petrochemicals everywhere on Earth and civilization went back to the horse and buggy days. (not necessarily a bad thing!~) Jon Mann The measure of a civilization could be said to be Its consumption of energy and how it uses resources. Conspicuous v. sustainable... Jon Mann At what point was civilization sustainable without depending on unknowable innovations in the future? It would have to be before steel, because blacksmithing almost deforested England before coal was found and used (back around 1000 I think). Going to Africa, and seeing the sustainable organic farming they used to get 5 bushels/acre out of depleted soil reminded me of what my Zambian daughter Neli argued, to no avail, to the government of Uganda. That using natural methods would just have it's people starve, like they have for centuries. Unfortunately, the European Greens were more powerful in their persuasionand Uganda will remain poor until they stop listening to them. It's hard because the EU policy is dedicated to protecting inefficient EU (mostly French) farmers. Dan M. You have a Zambian daughter, Dan? Two. The eldest, Neli, came to the US about 10 years ago. She is an ecconomist who was a Brookings Institute fellow for a couple of years, concentrating on African development. She was always second author on the papers she wrote, with a big name as first author. She was quietly upset until she found out high government officials called Brookings to complain about the papers and talked with the big wig instead of yelling at her. We were in Zambia for two weeks in August, with 10 from the US (including Neli and her American husband) and 5 from Zambia and went all over Zambia as one big happy American-African family. We went to the home villages of both of Neli's parents. I got to dance in lion skins with the village wariors at her mom's village. I have no clue at what point civilization was sustainable after the leap from hunter gatherer to agriculture to industrial society. I suppose it won't happen unless humanity matures beyond greedy, pleasure seeking immediate gratification, self centered behavior, and that probably won't happen unless there is a singularity event. Actually, most commodities (e.g. iron and copper) are used less now. If we can solve one of many problems (e.g. find a cheap way of storing energy, have a venture like Joule Technology work in synthetic biofuels, have a way to poison breeder reactor fuel output so it can't be used for bombs, develop mesoscopic physics to the point where solar cells are practical) in the next 250 years, we won't need to worry. How were the European Greens responsible for keeping Uganda poor, by turning them away from nuclear? Two ways: 1) They have extremely strict and unreasonable standards for imported food. For example, its virtually impossible for US food products to be sold there. 2) They convinced Uganda that using fertilizer and insecticides was bad. That's why the crop yield is so low. Little grows and the insects get most of it. The US, on the other hand, uses insecticides in cycles so it's hard for the insects to develop immunity to several insecticides...what is superior for one is inferior for the other. And, farmland is now adding topsoil with fertilizer and advanced techniques, and genetically modified crops. If we could get corn to fix nitrogen better, we'd be home free. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
Really cheap power if we bootstrap by building one power satellite and use it for propulsion lasers to bring up parts for thousands. With all due respect, Keith, I've been hearing arguments like this for 50 years. One thing would help you establish credibility. Can you point to a design of yours that is used worldwide on a massive scale in a major industry? No hard feelings, but it sounds like its even less likely than earth bound solar cells. Dan M ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
Since we don't want this list dominated by carved Norwegian tourist shop items, I thought I'd throw out an argument. I have seen Germany and Japan shutting down nuclear energy, after the Greens have suceeded in making it non-PC. They had argued that the energy will be replaced by renewaable sources. But, reality has set in, and they are being replaced by fossil fuels. Indeed, the biggest rise in energy production will be coal plants. As http://www.climatecentral.org/news/more-than-1000-new-coal-plants-planned-wo rldwide-15279 shows, there are plans for 1.4 trillion watts of capacity being added now in process. This will add the equivalent of another China in greenhouse gas emissions, more than the US and EU combined. So, I'd argue that the Green's main effect on the environment has been to increase greenhouse gas emissions by making nuclear power politically unacceptable. Japan shutting down their reactor after the only nuclear damage having been radiation burns on the feet of workers who walked into radioactive water without checking and without boots (non-fatal) is amazing. It's like shutting down all automobile traffic after the 100 car pileup on Thanksgiving on I-10. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Politeness
I would like to clarify one thing that I said and to comment on something Johnathan Mann said. I said: While self respect is critical, and one shouldn't put up a false front to get respect, earning the respect of those who have achieved less than you can be very beneficial. While I didn't want to complicate my reply at the time, I do want to take this opportunity to say that in no way was I referring to how much Jon achieved or hasn't achieved. I was referring to John Williams attitude. The only reason I would want to judge Jon's success would be if it were germain to the discussion (e.g. I'd be more inclined to believe on of the Manning brothers when they talk football than a guy who plays touch football once a year. ...is the fact that I refuse to sell out. It would defeat the purpose of why I run for office. I don't just talk, I do the walk. This raises an interesting question. Lincoln did things like appoint incompetent generals knowingly, because they were supported by a political faction he needed to keep the Union going. Is doing things like arresting the Maryland legislature on the way to vote for secession to keep the Union together wrong? In other words, if one holds onto principals without compromise, one rarely changes how things are. Those folks who we look back at and see as being vital to the US did make those compromises. I don't think that was selling out, it was having a sense of balance and priorities. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Where to now?
How about Hayek? Half of the article that I'm giving a link to talks about him. It is written by another Nobel prize winner, and gives a very interesting account how his professional and popular works differ. I like the comparison of him to Marx, it makes a lot of sense to me...partially because Marx was both way off the mark on predicting the future as well as someone who made major contributions to econ and basically was the first sociologist. http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/magazine/110196/hayek-friedman-and -the-illusions-conservative-economics Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Where to now?
A few will engage with you for the same unfortunate reason (to try to correct you), but then it just becomes a matter of who can be a bigger bully. I'm not sure about that. Kevin, for example never struck me as a bully. And, I've never seen a counter-argument with facts and logic as bullying. I'll admit, I'm not particularly polite with John, but after someone has insulted me on a number of occasions, I tend to be a bit less careful. It's not that I try to insult people, I just don't reread things for politeness quite as carefully when dealing with a person who pontificates without reason. In other words, I'll take Feynman as condescending, but not John. And, living in Grove, I also admit I get very very frustrated with folks who are on Social Security and Medicare going on and on and on about the evil of government. When I point out they get much more than they paid in (if they are in their 70s, that is overwhelmingly true for the age group), I'm told that's absolutely false. I have to be polite, because my wife's a minister here, and I have to worry about my speech reflecting on her, but I've had to go to the emergency room a number of times to get teeth marks sewn up on my tongue. :-) Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Politeness
It is not like you are a successful politician. Why would anyone care about having your respect? I actually think this is a statement made in good faith. IMHO, you would grow if you were able to understand the answer to that question. While self respect is critical, and one shouldn't put up a false front to get respect, earning the respect of those who have achieved less than you can be very beneficial. The reason why will be left as an exercise for the student. :-) Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Where to now?
Perhaps the patent equivalen of GPL? Because the answer to why can't we apply the wiki idea to publishing information? was copyrights and licenses until GPL became a viable solution .. There is a difference. I have an unused trade secret in my back pocket. When I came up with it, it was a solution to an unsolved problem that was costing millions of dollars. I didn't patent it because it would have just been copied. And, unless you have millions in a war chest for legal, large companies will sue you for scores of patent infringements for things you've never heard of and you will lose your retirement trying to defend yourself against these lawsuits that are not technically frivilous. (I know someone who was the coinventer of the first bioengineering patent and when a large company copied the idea, they took the life savings of his coinventer who invented the patent when he aske for royalties). But, I still have hope that a company with a legal fund and good lawyers will be interesting in an agreement to own my IP, so I can make money on it. What you are asking is for millions of IP to be given awayand the people who will use the Wiki will be large corporations who will hire engineers and tell them copy it. So, why work hard to hand over your work to a big multinational for free? Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Where to now?
BTW, my doctoral dissertation at the University of Michigan involved banking and monetary issues. One of the best lessons I learned was that people who really understand what they are talking about can say it it plain English. Well, that just makes you as suspect as the non-financial faculty of HBS. :-) Don't you know that those who are educated in a subject are very suspect, just look at all the biologists who promegate that leftist propaganda: evolution. Actually, it's sad that folks like Mario Rubio have to bow to creationists by likened teaching anything that makes what's taught at home look foolish to Castro having kids spy on their parents. On a more serious note. I don't know anyone who can explain electroweak theory in plain English and be accurate. I've tried for years to explain parts of QM as clearly and simply as possible, and find myself going over the heads of folks. It's frustrating. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Where to now?
BTW, my doctoral dissertation at the University of Michigan involved banking and monetary issues. One of the best lessons I learned was that people who really understand what they are talking about can say it it plain English. Which makes it ironic that you are potentially misleading people with the absurd concept of money on the sidelines. John, differing from you does not mean one is automatically misleading people. I've seen that phrase from folks who write on the stock market all the time. It's a phrase with a meaning that's well understood. Proving pedantic points is, by a definition that goes back to the time before Tommy Aquinas, sophomoric. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Where to now?
I didn't see this, so I'm resending it. Apologies if others had: -Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of John Williams Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 3:42 PM To: zwil...@zwilnik.com; Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Where to now? On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Kevin O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com wrote: OK, I'm not at all clear on how you got top-down management out of what I said. I'm getting tired of correcting all this nonsense, but I thought I'd respond to this at least. You are the one claiming you know better how to allocate resources than the millions of people who are currently handling it themselves. If that is not an attempt at top-down management, then I don't know what is. Oh, I know the answer to this one, as do most ecconomists and business school faculty. You change the regulations of the parasites on Wall Street so they can't have leverage more than 40-1, can't hide toxic assents, can't pay off folks who assign ratings to give junk bonds AAA status, and can't be so big that they'll cause the whole system to crash if they fail. Don't you remember what happened when Melon followed your suggestions. The name of it is The Great Depression, as I've been reminded by my buddy at HBS. The Great Recession is not so bad, compared to this. And, it's been shown that filtered leaders are easily replaced and do not add much value. The analysis involved includes calculations that rigorously show a 4000 to 1 odds of the results being due to random fluctuations. And, they are very robust. You should read more. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Where to now?
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of John Williams Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 4:06 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Where to now? On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Dan Minette danmine...@att.net wrote: You change the regulations of the parasites on Wall Street... ...You should read more. If only it were that simple. Regulators have been trying to manage things for decades. And the suceeded for 60+ years. The repeal of Glass-Stengle (sp) had unintended consequences. One of which was giving banks a workaround of the reserve rule...by bluring the line between banks and investment houses. Between regulatory-capture and the law of unintended consequences, creating regulations to accomplish a certain goal is exceedingly difficult. And, when something has worked for 6 decades, be careful when you remove it. There is a reason we didn't have financial panics like 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 between the Great Depression and the Great Recession. The regulations worked. Would you like me to compute the odds of this being random chance for you. :-) You should think more. Certainly, I often miss things. But, I'm lucky to have brillient friends and family who I debate these issues with. It helps me find my stupid mistakes fairly quickly. Now,I know this is radical for you, you should contemplate the idea that you are not 4 sigma smarter than everyone else in the world. You would benefit by occasionally listening to other people. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Where to now?
OK, you found someone with a Nobel prize to follow. Why not the score of Nobel prize winners who don't believe in the gold standardsand wasn't he a cowinner of the prize with someone with strongly differing views. :-) Are you really that big a fan of deflation? An, how can you explain that the 30 year T-bill and gold are both at all time high prices. :-) Believe it or not, actual debate with living people is a good idea too. :-) Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Where to now?
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Jon Louis Mann Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 4:34 PM To: Jonathan Louis Mann Subject: Where to now? Now that the election is past and Obama doesn't have to worry about his re-election, will he finally stand up to Wall Street, put the brakes on corrupt, corporate capitalism, and stick to his guns on taxing the rich? If that were the problem, we'd be lucky. There is a natual self regulating mechanism in capitalism, which Clay Christensen has found, that has not worked in the last 20 years or so. The problem is that we've played out the last big innovation, and are have Apple winning market share on style instead of companies providing innovation that turns the world upside down (e.g. electricity, radio, automobiles and tractors, computers). He has a nice article on this at: http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/09/clayton-christensen-disruptive-innovations- create-jobs-efficiency-innovations-destroy-them/ I've been, responsible for a few efficiency creating innovations that saved hundreds of millions of dollars in costs, but destroyed jobs. Friends of mine have been responsible for over a trillion in wealth creation, and the destruction of thousands if not tens of thousands of jobs. Another bad by-product is that Wall Street and overpaid CEOs of companies that win by playing the game better, instead of providing jobs and services win in this enviornment. We need a black swan. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Where to now?
This is largely the result of a shift to capital gains income, rather than productivity-based income among the top few percent, who have gobbled up the growing gap between productivity and income. There are two problems that face workers. First, productivity has outpaced demand. Second, the world has gotten flat. So, while steel and auto workers could demand high wages in the 60s, and the first half of the 70s because they were in demand, the demand for workers is down now, except in marginal service jobs. Gautam's book may prove unpopular with CEOs because it shows that a filtered leader is not that unique, there are many other candidates who would make the same decision. This would indicate that there is no business basis to pay, for example, Apple's new CEO a 600 million bonus, other contenders for his job would have done just as well. Steve Jobs is different, he's an unfiltered leader. But, he started Apple, and if he failed, then a small company would have failed...as probably many small computer companies failed in the '70s, and many Internet companies failed in the late '90s and early '00s. The good news is that we can, if we have the political will, change the money going to the parisites in the financial sector (and there are a lot of folks in business and business schools who are not in finance who see them as parasites). And, we could cut leadership team income with minimal effect on companies. But, we cannot create many jobs where there is a reason to pay someone a good income. That is a challanging problem. It might best be faced by spreading ownership of corporations, but doing that without the law of unitended consequences bighting us is going to be difficult. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Where to now?
Dave wrote: It's sounding more and more like I need to get a copy of Gautam's book. Well, I admit I'm very biased in this, so I think my comments need to be taken with a grain of salt. But, to have a book that considers Lincoln as a near singular example of excellence in a unfiltered leader and then get the following as a book blurb: Doris Kearns Goodwin, Pulitzer Prize-winning author and presidential historian- Indispensable provides a masterly, absorbing, and exceptionally original approach to the age-old study of leadership. is a fairly objective indication that the book is worth reading. That's not a bad blurb from the author of A Team of Rivals. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Where to now?
Why can't we apply the wiki idea to _engineering_? Because wikipedia is a collection of knowledge. Breakthroughs are typically done by a few people. It's seeing what no-one has seen before, not compiling all the stuff people have seen. It would be akin to having a masterpiece painted by 10,000 people. Nothing is impossible, what you are talking about is highly filtered. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Where to now?
There is one and only one factor that creates jobs, and it is not wealthy people. That one factor is customers. I differ here. Not that middle class consumers are not more important than the top 0.1% getting more money, I agree with that. But, Clay's article is deeper than that. Look at all the jobs that existed in 2000 that didn't exist in 1900. They employ most of the people now working. The reason for this is whole industries were developed from disruptive innovations. But, since we have't had an earth shattering disruptive innovation in more than 50 years (for 50 years our ecconomy boomed off the invention of the transistor), we are now at the point where we are just more efficent build cars, drilling for oil, etc. Thus, fewer people are needed for the same job. One potential disruptive innovation would be a process that coverts CO2, sea water and sunlight into petrol, at a cheaper price than we pay at the pump. That would create tens of thousands of good new jobs. But, the next ipad will not create many US jobs, no matter how many consumers buy it. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Where to now?
Dave Land, you must buy this book! - Doris Kearns Goodwin Sounds like your interest in Lincoln has gotten connected to one of the experts on Lincoln. I'm happy for you. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Where to now?
Sounds like this, about which I first heard the inventor speak at TEDxSanJoseCA in 2011: The group I was thinking of has a slightly different biological approach. It is Joule Unlimited I really don't have a dog in the fight over which company wins, I just hope someone does. It should take long enough for me to be able to retire before oil is obsolete, no matter how fast it works. :-) Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Where to now?
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Klaus Stock Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 1:56 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Where to now? Hi, last big innovation, and are have Apple winning market share on style instead of companies providing innovation that turns the world upside down I vaguely remember that I the past it took about 50 years from an innovation to appear until it became mainstream. Huh? It took geosteering 3 years to drop the price of oil by a factor of 3. It didn't stay down because Chinese demand started up thenbut its one of the major reasons oil isn't going through the roof and why natural gas reserves doubled. Or, the transistor. The transistor radio came within 10 years of the invention of the transistor. Computers were used by institutions soon after that. It took about 60 years to wring most of the potential for additional innovation from the transistor, but now we are left with little innovation, so style sells. 50 years is closer to the back end of reaping the harvest of an innovation. Your idea worked only after cheap screens that printed characters that looked like writing, not glowing images, were developed, and when you could buy a book in a minute wherever you lived. Sometimes the initial idea isn't enough. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Obama II
However, the best bugs are introduced during programming, but much earlier. Catching bugs at the earliest possible time is expensive, but the ROI is immense and outweighs the cost by several orders of magnitude. Of course, any manager who was reading this dropped out at the word expensive, so defective software will remain the standard. You know that, in over 30 years of programming, I never really had those types of bugs that become features in software. But, I'm very unusual, I program as a means of thinking out the physics of the problem I'm trying to solve. In other words, I write software, where the previous generation, or even physicists 5 years ahead of me, would work things on on paper. I recall, back in '81, patientily listening to a post doc explaining how to do the error anaysis of my data. I patiently listened to him, he knew more than I did on most things and had earned my respect, until there was a pause. I then asked him, but isn't this just an approximation, wouldn't running a Monte Carlo to get the error be more accurate. He said yes, but do you have any idea how much it would cost to do a Monte Carlo error analysis? I said yes, $0.27. I did it this morning. He looked at me, and said grad. students have it too easy these days, and I left his office The moral of the story is that if you think carfully about what questions you ask early, and your job title allows you to do that (as someone who is expected to come up with inventions that solve problems, you get some leeway...especially if you have a PhD in physicsit may not be fair that we get more leeway, but it's my experience), then you can have software that actually basically works the first time it is tried with a real tool. I've twice had the experience of well we'll try this, but we'll have to get back to you when it fails and me saying but, I've tested it pretty extensively on data in post processing mode, if the same data is in the tool, I'll have failure modes with unusual data, but it should generally work and having it work first time in the tool. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Obama II
Nick wrote Sounded like a classic scalability problem. I would guess otherwise. This would be an interesting geekish debate to have. My guess is that its akin to the problem with Star Wars software, which was assumed to work first time untested. From what I read, their software did not lend itself to real live testing before election day. So, it glitched badly, as one would expect the first time in the field. My software work has often been with firmare that runs 20,000 feet below the surface, with no chance to fix anything once it goes downhole. Field testing in real wells is essential, even for software that has run perfectly without intervention in the lab. It's easy to field test and fix software that helps field operatives identify and talk with prospective voters before the election. If there's a major problem found in Cleveland in July, it can be fixed and the fix sent out nationwide in a few days. But, with the Republicans, if I understand correctly, their software was for election day onlycounting voters off a list and then providing lists of pro-Romney voters who haven't voted yet. If it glitches on election day, the best programmers in the world couldn't get the patch out in time. That's my guess, anyways. Does anyone else want to play detective. :-) Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Obama II
On Star Wars, it worked as a bluff, but I don't think Reagan was bluffing. I think he believed. I know as a fact that the Defense Department said they would require that all programming for applications they used would have to be done in Ada (I think within 5 years) because Ada was a compiler that automatically eliminated bugs. Anyone who wrote any software at Dresser Industries had to write a program in Ada, even scientists like me. But, that was back in the day when the head of computer departments for major corporations had no idea how computers worked. Back to the facts. The Romney team said the software was running 20-30 minutes behind. Well, I also read that parts of it simply failedreporting 0 votes from a long list on election day. The part that targeted voting lists to cull those who haven't voted for attention can be made modular. But in that situation, you have to really over- design for scalability. Or modular. Let the software run on 10,000 computers in every regional office, with just the sums sent to the main headquarters. Obama's software workedand I think its because it was field tested for monthsit was intended to track voters for months, not just on election day. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Obama II
I didn't realize how unclear it is whether Reagan and other top officials regarded it as a bluff or not, until I poked around a bit just now. Easy to see how they might have started off serious, then decided to re-write history and say it was all a bluff. I have some up-close and personal experience with the Reagan White House rewriting history - their version persists in most peoples' minds still; when I tell my version, most people are still surprised. Shows the power of the bully pulpit, sure was interesting to see it first-hand. If it was a bluff, it was a brilliant bluff. Getting the USSR to focus on Star Wars instead of invading Europe and hastening their collapse to minimize the time of risk was just what Truman thought of when we came up with containment instead of war. As it was, we were luckly. If the coup wasn't overturned, the USSR would have reformed and a last gasp attack on Europe might have happened. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Obama II
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of ALBERTO VIEIRA FERREIRA MONTEIRO Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 3:17 AM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Obama II So... What about Obama's reelection? Here in Brazil, we had the impression that the Republicans chose the worst possible candidate, someone they put there to lose. Or maybe the Democrats voted in the Republican primaries to make him win. We have a primary system in the US. Right now, the extreme right wing of the Repubican party can force candidates far to the right. Good Republican candidates stayed on the sideline this year, leaving Romney and the 7 right wing dwarfs. Did anyone over there ever think that Mitt Romney had _any_ chance? I did, especially after the first debate. No American president has been re-elected with more than 7.2% unemployment since FDR, and he brought employment way down. This has been probably the most painful ecconomic period (in terms of changes) since WWII. That's a strong headwind. When Obama sleptwalked through the first debate, and Romney was ahead in the national polls, I thought it was a toss up. Especially after the UN speech which totally misidentified the cause of the deaths in Lybia after the administration had intelligence that pointed to terrorism, not a crowd gone wild. But, Romney blew the 2nd and 3rd debate, Obama...for the first time in the campaign, acted as though he wanted to be reelected, and Sandy cemented in the American mind the positive roll the Federal government can play. By election Eve, Gautam and I were arguing about the margin. He was spot on, I though Romney would take VA, CO, and FL. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Obama II
In terms of the popular vote, as of now Obama has 61,174,297 votes, while Romney has 58,172,063 votes A difference of 3,002,234, so a fair margin and decisively winning the popular vote for Obama. The difference is going to be slighly above 2.5% and slightly above the Bush margin over Kerry, but nowhere near the margin he had in '08. I've got a somewhat different take on it from Dan, I think. The extreme 'right' in the Republican party is a shrinking minority, however little they want to admit the fact, and however voluble their protests to the contrary might be. Rick Perry is an example of the kind of candidate they would have preferred. He is a weak example, though. He couldn't remember his talking points. And, if you recall, Romney went to the right of him on immigration. The GOP is interesting. I live in a very red state, and Perry better reflects the average GOP voter than Romney. But, he had baggage that would have doomed him in the general election, like appproving people who wanted Texas to seceed from the USA while governor. So, the GOP establishment, which still controls a lot of money, undercut him. And his not being able to remember his own name (OK I'm exaggerating) in a debate didn't help him. I think the GOP establishment is fading, and Ryan is the likely '16 candidate. Remember, this is the party that took down Lugar so they could run a yahoo. They may control the Senate if they let moderate Republicans run. Nate Silver did a great piece on how the moderate GOP senators have mostly left. And the House is dominated by the tea party. One of the problems the Speaker of the House has is that he many not be able to deliver even a third of the party for a compromise on spending cuts/tax increases to decrease the deficit. Remember, the presidential candidates had to agree that even $1 in tax increase for every $10 in spending cuts was unacceptable. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: VentureBeat article
I forwarded this to Gautam. Tom Friedman reviewed Gautam's book in his Wednesday after the election column, when he had to meet his first deadline. But Gautam was personally unfortunate that he, I was right about how quickly Obama's victory was sealed, and by how much (I had him winning only Ohio, Nevada, and Iowa among the true swing states), so Tom was asked to write a column about the victory for later editons. The origional column is at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/07/opinion/friedman-filtered-or-unfiltered.ht ml?_r=0 While it would have been better to have been in all the editons, it's still pretty good to have your book reviewed by a major columnist who won the Pulitzer Prize. His book got some nice reviews from others too: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1422186709/ref=cm_cr_dpvoterdr Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: VentureBeat article
Thanks, Dan. I saw Friedman's column when it came out - very impressive. We'll be hearing a lot from Gautam's work, I expect. I hope so. Your column was also impressive. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Job opportunity?
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Jon Louis Mann Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 5:46 PM To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Job opportunity? Huh??? Spam spam spam spam lovely spam, wonderful spam.a spambot got into brin-l. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Time Well Spent
you might want to pause to declaws those paws, and get a giant sand box. Well, it shouldn't turn out to be as big a problem as y'all think. The cat comes trained to go on the water and the claws make great substitutes for daggerboards. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Video games v. other activities
Dave wrote: Very true, and if I fail as a parent, it is in showing too much interest in the world my son inhabits, rather than following the model of generations past and bending him to my will! My wife and I, and our grown children, have talked about how we (and in general our generation) have fallen short as parents. One thing has stood out: the emphasis on following one's dreams without the counterpoint of having a very good plan B when one's dreams do not pan out. It's fine to want to be an actor, a musician, a writer, but one should not count on earning one's income that way. Back in our day, a liberal arts major could find a good job in business just by being one of a relatively small number that were well educated. And, with college costs far lower than now, they were not as burdened with student loans. When I grew up, I heard Great Depression stories thousands of times. My wife and I are professional, we had no horror stories of bad economic times when we were kids, and we didn't impress on our kids to think seriously on what happens when things don't turn out well. Now, even if we improve income inequality, the reality is that productivity improvements mean that fewer workers are needed. For example, American manufacturing is producing more goods than ever, with a smaller workforce. And, we have not had a black swan innovation that creates millions of jobs (e.g. the automobile, the radio, the computer) in decades. The last big job burst was the proliferation of PC applications around 1998-1999. I've plotted job growth from 1939 until now, and you can get a good fit from 1939 to 2000, with recessions and recoveries clearly showing as deviations from this pattern. Since 2000, there has been a clear falloff, so we now have over 30% fewer jobs than we would if that trend has continued. I really regret not preparing my kids for a world in which they have to face hard realities. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Time Well Spent
David Land wrote: Yes, I know that superior people are supposed by other superior people to be above enjoying video games, but I guess I'm just not that superior. I really don't do video games much anymore because it's not something my wife enjoys; it's just the two of us, and we are on a lake. So, there are a few shows that I watch on TV as a means of sharing company in the evening, with a book in my lap, while she works on her take home work from church (I'm doing most of the housework because I only work 40-50 hours a week at my paid job). But, she agreed to go sailing with me if I got a sailboat she can get on, she has artificial knees and can't go down far from the dock, crawl on her knees, etc. So, I just ordered a 16 foot cat that can be sailed with 1-6 people. I think what is superior is that when we are crazy busy, and have little free time is to not spend it aloneparticularly if we work alone (as I do most of the time). So, my feeling is that the sharing with your son is integral to the value of the fun. As I see 60 just over the horizon, I don't want 20 more years to slip away without spending as much time as I can with those I love. So, video games would not be a good option for me, but sounds like a great one for you. A classic YMMV, IMHO. :-) Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Tuesday afternoon . . .
This morning here, Thor seems awfully annoyed about something, and the gutters are overflowing. Started just before the start of the eclipse (Moon had already gone behind the tree line as well). Supposed to do this off and on all day today and tonight and into tomorrow sometime. Hoping it clears up before the afternoon: forecasts from different sources seem to differ on the likelihood of that. If it does, I plan to drag my 10 out on the driveway or somewhere nearby where I'll have the best view, slap on the solar filter, and at least watch the ingress phases before it gets too low Rubbish here. Horrid wet horrid. And here, after a night of severe thunderstorms, we got less than 1 cm of rain. But, just 20 km to the S they got 30. The radar map of rainfall shows us as a hole in a heavy rain pattern. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Land Wars, Revenge of the Director
George Lucas, after being fought tooth and nail by his neighbors on his plan to bring a movie studio to his property has given up the attempt and is now planning on having affordable housing built on the property instead. He fought big high priced sub-divisions being built there, to no avail If the neighbors are honest about wanting it to stay residential, then they should welcome affordable housing: that's residential. But, I'm betting a beer that they won't welcome lower income neighbors. I'll put a beer on the proposition that his neighbors who were happy with expensive homes being built in a nice area will be fighting the affordable housing. I'm hope I'm wrong, and I'm guessing that most of Brin-L will agree that he did something right here. Dan M. http://m.movies.com/movie-news/george-lucas-grady-ranch/7883 ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Land Wars, Revenge of the Director
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Dave Land Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 2:31 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Land Wars, Revenge of the Director On May 15, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Dan Minette wrote: http://m.movies.com/movie-news/george-lucas-grady-ranch/7883 When I saw that story yesterday, I was impressed with Lucas and told some other folks about it. Then I thought about it a little more and wondered why I was cheering revenge-seeking. It left me conflicted. I still am. If he's just using the future residents of the planned housing project as pawns to attack his snotty neighbors, then he is no better than they are. If his intent is to make Lucas Valley a better, more equitable place and to provide for the needs of under- served residents, then more power to him. I sorta put it in between that. Let's say he thought his studio was a reasonable addition to the land and that his neighbors were probably really being snooty, and just wanted other rich people there. So, he would test that attitude with affordable, lower income housing. If the opposition was honestly a matter of keeping the neighborhood residential, then most folks would go along, and he'd have an easy outwell I thought it should be able to have the studio, but I'm glad we agreed on affordable housing. He saves face, the neighbors look good, and there is more affordable housing...a win-win-win. If they fight that tooth and nail, then he will have exposed an example of one of the prime causes for the cost of housing in California. Those with money and influence are using laws to keep out affordable housing, while approving expensive housing. He will be doing a public service by showing the hypocrisy. This isn't the best outcome, but it is a plus outcome. So, either way, he would be doing a public service. Perhaps he has selfish ends in doing so; perhaps altruistic, most likely somewhere in between. But, I think if the neighbors go along, the public good is served by affordable housing. If they fight it tooth and nail, then a misuse of laws to prevent affordable housing has been exposed to the national media. Either way, it's a plus for improving the affordability of housing in California. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Brin: On Gasoline
I think that something is missing in the charts that argue for a great drop in gasoline. If you look at the official gasoline consumption chart, it gives a very different story: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PETs=MGFUPUS1f=M There's been a 10% drop since the peak in 2007, but we're at the 2001 levels. If you look at the 78-81 drop it was 50^ bigger, and consumption doesn't hit the 78 numbers until '93 even though prices went through the floor in '86. And, ethanol has been a highly subsidized substitute, which should lower gasoline consumption about 3%, even with fuel consumption constant. In other words, someone is manipulating numbers. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Brin: On Gasoline
BTW, isn't it funny that, in 2011, Brazil was a huge importer of USA's ethanol? So, the american taxpayers are financing brazilian sugar exports. Yes, it shows that that the most critical factor in determining America's interest is who wins the Iowa caucus. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: ADMIN: Re: Delivery Status Notification (Failure), was Re: NightOwls Demand Equal Rights!
Nick wrote: That's just weird. Could you check the archive page now and then and let me know if there seems to be any pattern to what's not arriving? I've noticed that, just in the last few days, I don't see my own posts. Most of the time I get my posts just like everyone elses. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Still here (Re: Br¡n: On Fracking and Earthquakes)
Nick wrote: One of the data points NetBase has developed is that despite Twitter, Facebook, etc., the real conversation still happens, and is increasing, in forums, list servers, etc. Discussion tends to start in the new social media, but if it has any depth, it goes into venues where some depth is supported. People who I have contact with on other mailing lists have reported that the vast majority of broad forums, like Brin-L or Culture, have lost a lot of traffic. On the whole, most folks I've discussed this with have found few outlets where long conversations occur. I think we've differed on this for more than a decade, Nick. :-) I still see the trend of the internet is to go more and more to closed circles of folks who all agree and short sound byte discussions. Ticia wrote: It'll be interesting to see how all the social networking develops in the next few years My prediction is that the replacement for Twitter will be a networking site where there is only room for emotocons. :-) Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
Behalf Of Ticia And why do I keep getting this? We all do when we post. There's still a few bugs in the system. :-) Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Solar Bankrupcy
Is someone now foreclosing on the Sun?! Yes, with newspaper readership down, ad rates are down, and the Sun is being foreclosed on. Even the Grey Lady is at risk. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Solar Bankrupcy
The bankruptcy of Solyndra has now brought in the FBI. I'm sure most folks are well aware that they got about half a billion in loans from the US Department of Energy before going bankrupt. That's a fair amount of money for a company. I wonder if anyone knows if 1) It was a boilerplate operation designed to fool the US government. 2) Horribly managedand blowing half a billion with little output is real bad measurement. 3) An honest problem: it is impossible to compete with China on solar panels because they can produce them without regard to the energy needed to make them or the pollution caused by the process, and pay their workers far less than workers in the US. 4)Some combination of 1, 2, 3? 5) Something else Best Regards, Dan ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Galileo was wrong!
A few Catholics still insist Galileo was wrong - latimes.com It was a ROTFLMAO piece for me. It was really fun to see how both Notre Dame and the Vatican Observatory were in the are these guy real? mode. I gave my first paper at a high energy physics symposium at Notre Dame, and saw the head of the Vatican Observatory and Steven Weinberg give a presentation on Science and Faith together. It's funny, when you think about it. A Protestant can rail against every other church and found his own church. But if you're an ultraconservative Catholic, how in the world do you argue that the Pope is dead wrong on the important issues? Liberal Catholics can be anti-traditional, but how can you be an ubertraditonalist that says tradition is horribly wrong. :-) Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Transparent tracking with iphone.
License, registration, proof of insurance, and cell phone, please.: Isn't that a separate issue: unreasonable search and seizure? That said, the existence of that data in consolidated.db on iPhones (most likely as the result of an error or oversight, as it turns out, rather than nefarious misbehavior on the part of Apple) may constitute an attractive nuisance, which the command-and-control apparatus may be unable to resist. I'm not sure what a cop can do with it. Let's say he scans your devise and finds you've been at a murder site within 5 minutes of the murder. They investigate the area, knowing you are a suspect, and find something to bring you in on, and then get a warrant...etc. But, all your attorney has to say is that this evidence is tainted by an illegal search of the iphone on this date. Tainted fruit gets thrown out, virtually every time. Now, it's more likely that ATT can retrieve the file without you knowing it and sell the information. Its probably somewhere in the fine print of your agreement that it's OK to do that, hidden under their checking the device for quality control or something. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Skylon/lasers/power satellites
I don't seem to be at my brightest today. I just reread what you said in the previous digest and could not find anything related to energy much less shaving a trillion dollars. Could you explain? Sure, I've just talked about it so much here, I didn't repeat because I thought I'd bore everyone more than usual. Friends of mine invented geosteering, which allows a drill string and the borehole it produces to stay in a producing zone for miles, even as the zone moves up and down in depth. Conventionally, wells were drilled vertically, staying in the producing zone for only the thickness of the zone (typically 3-100 feet). This allows a single expensive offshore rig to drill only a few wells from one spot to produce from a field, instead of moving the rig over and over and over again. Instead of many multi-billion dollar platforms drilling hundreds of wells, there was one that would drill a score of wells...with the same production. This greatly decreases the cost of developing a field. Back when it was invented, the estimates were that this technique cut the cost of production by about $2.50/barrel, on average. Now, going back to the old way would cost even more. I used the conservative number, multiplied it by the barrels of oil produced in the last 15 years, and got 1 trillion dollars. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Skylon/lasers/power satellites
Well, you sure have *my* attention if you have a way to solve the world's energy problem with $12 million. I'm just pointing out how technology has been developed. The example I gave didn't solve the world's energy problems, it just shaved slightly trillion dollars off the price of energy over the last 15 years. I know it's not that big a deal, but a trillion here and a trillion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money. :-) Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Skylon/lasers/power satellites
it just shaved slightly trillion should be it just shaved slightly 1 trillion Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Skylon/lasers/power satellites
Any thoughts? Yes, their website looks like vaporware. I tried to find how many hundreds of millions of income their inventions are generatingor at least hardware that incorporates their inventions as one of two or three components generates. It's not that high of a hurdle, after all...for someone who is looking for 12 billion in funding. I know lotsa folks who have tools that generate this type of yearly revenue with development budgets far 12 million. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Technology, science, and ideas who's time has come
I was thinking, after my response, how many of the biggest revolutionary new companies started small. HP and Apple both started in the proverbial garage. Gates founded DOS on software he bought for $3000. Walton started with a single store and expanded to overcome the giants of K-Mart, Penney's and Sears by being much better at inventory control (from folks I know who work at such companies, they weren't heaven to work for...so it wasn't that Walton did better because he exploited the workersthey _all_ treated the workers like commodities.) Recently Facebook started from very modest beginnings. I would argue the reason for this is that they all had the tools they needed, available to them at reasonable prices. Their innovation was putting them together. I've had the good fortune to have my inventions widely used, and to know people who've transformed how large industries operate. None of this was done on massive investments. The massive investments came beforehand...putting together the basic building blocks. Given that, America's economy has historically proven better in allowing a Jobs, a Hewitt, etc. to start a company than other countries' economies. That's one of the reasons Japan lost a decade or two instead of overtaking the US as forecast in the early to mid '80s. It is true that engineering can overcome overwhelming obstacles by throwing money at the problem. Examples include the A-bomb and the moon race. But, almost 60 years after the Manhattan project, one cannot separate the uranium that is all around us and make an A-bomb (thankfully). Rocket flights stay expensive.and while there are commercial ventures that work...they rely on the great value of low weight objects in orbit (e.g. communications or GPS). So, the logical conclusion is that you don't make things cheap by throwing money at the problem; you make things cheap by spending money on basic research, which provides building blocks, which allow people to make cheap parts, which can be put togetherresulting in a new Apple or HP. That's a bit simplified, and there are nuances to the problembut a good, inexpensive engineering solution rarely is found by the government providing tens of billions to engineers. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Long Time Old Brin-Ler finally gets a real job.
I thought a few old timers might be interested in the news that Gautam has just gotten an offer of a professorship at Harvard Business School. It does sound like a mis-match, his PhD was in international affairs and security studies. But, his dissertation was on leadership, and it applies very well to organizational studies, so they offered him the position. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Brin: Why we still use rockets . . .
The truth seems to be between these two arguments. I think that's valid. Rockets were a technology who's time had come. I think the fact that delivering 1000 bombs could destroy a nation had something to do with how quickly they were developed at first, but in a world that had a jet starting to be tested by Germany in WWII, and the X-15, the technology was there for rockets, especially if they could be designed and built on a cost plus basis. But, they are based on fast, but not too fast, power output from available chemical energy. Everything indicates that building rockets up to the Saturn V was simply applying known physics and chemistry. But, I haven't heard of a propellant with, say, 10x the energy density of the propellants used in the '60s. I know I'm beating a dead horse, but since that time, we've been able to increase the density of semiconductor chips by more than a factor of a million in less than 40 years. In a real sense, the economy has been dependant on this, and knock offs of this during that time. That might seem strange, since Microsoft isn't in the top 10 companies and PC manufacturers come and go. But, a lot of it has to do with how the rest of us can do our jobs. Wall-Mart's big gamble in the late 80s and early 90s was to spend its money, not on stores, but on computer based inventory management. My buddies who created geosteering could not have done it if the cost of computing was as high as it was only 10 years earlier. 4-D seismic wouldn't have existedand these are just a few things off the top of my head. The real driver for new technology is the physics/chemistry/biology which form the landscape that inventors explore. It's true that an ill prepared explorer will probably find nothing. But, I think rockets worked because the technology and science of the 30s and 40s were enough to form a basis. We haven't progressed much since the '60s because the basic question of propulsion doesn't have a clear way to increase bang for the buck. Without that, we have to work hard for modest improvements. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Autism and MMR Vaccine Study an 'Elaborate Fraud'
Oh, I see, Wikipedia. I am now totally convinced of your standing as a eminent public health epidemiologist. Just to get the population. The critical documentation was that they _did_ exclude the Fallujah area and that their techniques came up with 200k deaths in that region which, if true, would results in observables that, well, weren't observed. Experimental technique isas a professor in a graduate course in another field that I took for fun agreed with me on. The fact is their methods came up with 200k deaths there and they dropped the data. John Hopkins pointed that out. It's clear that you and I have very different understandings of what constitutes experimental science. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Autism and MMR Vaccine Study an 'Elaborate Fraud'
I think there have been discussions here previously about vaccines, and while there might well be some people, especially children, who can have difficulty with multiple vaccines, the issue of vaccination causing autism is particularly fear-inducing. But the 1998 'study' has been judged fraudulent: This wasn't discussed here, to my knowledge, but it was discussed fairly extensively at the Culture list. There was a partial retraction 8 years ago, and a strong retraction, which included a letter signed by either every other author but the first author or every other one but him and one or two others within the last month. The partial retraction was over the general conclusion, the big retraction was after the fraud was fairly well established. The Lancet, in my book, has published other studies that were questionable from the beginning. For example, they published a study on US induced deaths in Iraq that found that a quarter of the population of Faluja had died due to the early fighting (early was first 1.5 years or so). When this was found to clearly be wrong, instead of checking their methodology, they just dropped the obviously wrong data, called it something to look at later, and published the rest. That is bad science. The cell phone causes cancer publications are similar. One group constantly finds a correlation that's unrepeatable when others do extensive tests. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and not attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Autism and MMR Vaccine Study an 'Elaborate Fraud'
Martin wrote To start with, this is not a study on US induced deaths in Iraq. More importantly, this story about the Fallujah cluster is something you have simply made up. Are you saying that Fallujah wasn't excluded because of problems with the results there? Seriously? Or are you saying I'm a liar because I don't agree with your interpretation. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Autism and MMR Vaccine Study an 'Elaborate Fraud'
I'm really suppose to be working, but this took me 5 minutes to find: From http://www.iraqanalysis.org/local/041101lancetpmos.html Which argued for the Lancet article and against the British government response and I quote: quote Had the Fallujah sample been included, the survey's estimate would have been of an excess of about 298,000 deaths, with 200,000 concentrated in the 3% of Iraq around Fallujah end quote OK, 200k deaths in and right around Fallujah Well, what's the population? At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah Fallujah was estimated at about 430k just before the war. If you want to play Dr. Pedantic, my offhand estimate should have said the Fallujah metro area. But, with 200k deaths measured in that region, and the fighting being concentrated in the city, either the pro-Lancet website got their numbers all wrong, or my estimate is close. Now, I don't see their explanation for why they excluded Fallujah, so I can't prove motivation. But, 200k deaths in that small region would have shown up in something other than a statistical estimation. It would have been impossible to miss that large a fraction of the population dying. So, are you arguing that there were 200k deaths in the Fallujah area and they were excluded from the Lancet study for other reasons? If so, what reasons? I do remember posting references to the inconsistency being the reason back when, but online references don't stay forever. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Facebook is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Wikileaks?]
Only a sociopath and pervert can think that breastfeeding is pornography. It's disrespectful to breastfeeding (and to pornography too, but wfc?) All the billions that g*vernments invest all the time to make mothers breastfeed, and those sociopaths and perverts create a Social Network that criminalizes it. They should be exiled to Antarctica. Actually, it doesn't, Alberto. Facebook is free, last time I looked. I can choose to use it or not use it. If a network won't let me refer to physics, and takes all examples of QM off it, it's not criminalizing QM. Perhaps Facebook is making a business decision. Will disallowing pictures of breastfeeding on Facebook gain it more prudish members than allowing it would gain members interested in details of breastfeeding that can best be shown by pictures? Not allowing women to breastfeed in, say, Mall of the Americas is one thing. That severely curtails breastfeeding mom's ability to go there. But, there are other ways to communicate such info on the web, so not allowing someone to post it on one's Facebook account can be seen as a purely business decision. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: RE: Facebook is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Wikileaks?]
A business decision that injures public health. Were facebook the internet, you might have something. But, I just typed breastfeeding videos into google, and got a zillion hits, checked the first one, and found a site with over a score of videos. Some had nothing to do with public health; others could be helpful. It took me 10 seconds to get there. How in the world does changing 10,001 sites with breastfeeding available to 10,000 do much of anything? It's like criticizing the food channel for not carrying cancer self-check instructions. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Wikileaks
What if this happened 70 years ago and Manhattan Project was leaked to the nazis (or even the soviets)? It was leaked to the Soviets. While Joe McCarthy was able to find 100% of the communist activists working for the Soviet Union in the United States (names kept in his locked briefcase), there were indeed sympathizers to the Soviet Union who got them some information. People were convicted of this. The latest I got was that the information given allowed them to skip the dangerous step of tickling the dragon's tail to determine experimentally what critical mass was. http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/espionage.htm Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Wikileaks
I'm generally for transparency and haven't heard of anything yet that is beyond mildly embarrassing to the U. S. government. I do think where the safety of our troops is concerned confidentially is important, but that government secrets should have a relatively short shelf life in all cases. Most of the critiques I read that see the leaks as harmful emphasize the fact that statements made to the US by various people in confidence are now out in the open. An example of this is the King of Saudi Arabia's repeated worry about an Iranian nuclear weapon. This included his suggestion that the US bomb their facilities and his promise to provide China with oil in case Iran cuts off their oil supply after they failed to veto sanctions. Or the embarrassment for the leader of Yeman who protested the US bombing of AQ positions, while quietly telling the US he had to be shocked shocked to find gambling at Rick's Café Americana but that was just a necessary political fig leaf. So, the real damage is that it is now reasonable to conclude that it is impossible for the US to keep anything told it in confidence. One very interesting fact is that they didn't come up with smoking guns about secret illegal activities that Cheney authorized. I actually expected to see something like that...if it's there, I haven't seen where it was reported. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Posturing...
I wonder if the reason the USSR was engaging in brinkmanship was less for imperialism and exporting communism, than from fear of the U.S. threat. Wouldn't a reasonable person analyze the stated US policy towards the Soviet Union since about '48, and look at the history between '48 and '62since that time to see if the policy was actually being followed, or if the policy was a cover for more aggressive actions? Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: the Cold War
The biggest fallacy regarding it was the Soviet threat which was always exaggerated. Neither militarily nor politically did the soviet Union (or China and other 'communist allied') ever pose an existential threat to the U.S. So, if the US didn't fight the cold war, let it's military expenditures fall to the present level of Europe, didn't develop the B52 or ICBMs, stand aside where it fought in Korea, let missiles remain in Cuba and be expanded, didn't fight to stop the multiple Marxist COIN operations throughout the world that failed (e.g Greece), nothing much different would have happened...the US's position in 1995 would be no worse than it was as history actually unfolded. All the folks in IR studies are just full of it. Folks like Hoffman and Huntington are just right wing shrills? Containment was a waste of effort, we just had to wait because communists wouldn't bother to take advantage of a power vacuum. Am I getting you right, or did I misunderstand your statement? Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: the Cold War
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Euan Ritchie Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 7:10 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: the Cold War So, if the US didn't fight the cold war, let it's military expenditures fall to the present level of Europe, didn't develop the B52 or ICBMs, stand aside where it fought in Korea, let missiles remain in Cuba and be expanded, didn't fight to stop the multiple Marxist COIN operations throughout the world that failed (e.g Greece), nothing much different would have happened...the US's position in 1995 would be no worse than it was as history actually unfolded. You're taking some peoples comments about the past and extrapolating an awful lot from the. Extrapolation is a logical crime and ought never be used for anything more serious than the occassional decision that might head off an ice cream truck that's getting away on a hot day. OK, I didn't quote a second post of yours in my reply but I thought it gave insight into your earlier post. You wrote in response to Charlie mentioning an existential threat to Western Europe by the USSR: quote Well, yeah, but that was pretty much decided during the Berlin airlift when Uncle Joe made the decision that the USSR didn't want to fight. All that followed after that showdown was just postering. end quote If all that followed that showdown was just posturing, then nothing that followed that showdown had any real meaning. Just posturing by another person, by another country is not in the least bit threatening. It's an empty gesturepretty well by definition. It's only if the posturing is part of a pattern that may lead to aggression do we find a threat. In all fairness, I probably should have weaved a post that combined both posts to precisely point out the idea I was responding to. But, I had a five minute window open, and I took it. When I read a post, all I have is the words on the page, emotocons, and perhaps a history with another poster to indicate I'm being a bit ironic here. If that's the case with your posts, then I didn't interpret them correctly. But, I clearly got the impression that you wrote that the Berlin Airlift was _the_ showdown of the Cold War, and anything following had little or no meaning. I would very much appreciate it if you would be kind enough to explain to me why this quote doesn't mean that what happened after the Berlin airlift was not a serious confrontation which had the potential to end badly. Finally, I always thought that totalitarian governments that had killed tens of millions of its own people and weapons that could reduce the population of the US by more than 80% as an existential threat. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: the Cold War
Euan wrote: I understand the problem. Context doesn't travel or easily survive in these written forums. By posturing I was refering to the military deployments in Europe as an existential threat (meaning the liklihood of them being used in an invasion of Western, or Eastern, Europe). Ah, quite different from what I read. I'm glad we can agree upon the source of the misunderstanding. I think we may still have some reasonable differences on the Cold War which would be worth exploring, but it will probably be spread out as I have limited time at the moment for a well thought out discussion. I really do appreciate the courtesy of your assignment of our miscommunication to a neutral factor. I definitely used the wrong context. :-) Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Underwater mortgages and the economy
But the second; I'd suggest the US is in this war for the benefit of several corporations, and that they still can and will benefit. There was never any possibility these wars would benefit the country, anyway; it always has been about providing opportunity for Halliburton, et al. Such wars also will continue as long as government thinks they need to help corporations instead of citizens (as long as they think the two are synonymous). OK, what about the first Gulf War, what about the war in the Balkins? With all due respect, there were folks who were strongly against the war who wrote about the decision making process. The mistakes made were obvious, and we don't have to come up with unfalsifiable conspiracy theories to explain them. The two biggest mistakes made were the idea that shock and awe would change the ground rules so much that we wouldn't have to worry about what happened after the war was won. It took about 1 year of incompetence so bad that Bin Laden couldn't have done better ruining the US's chances of rebuilding Iraq than Cheney and company. For example, having the former manager of a day care center running the Iraq economy? Second, they took the 3 sigma value of the likely risk Hussein presented and took it as the likely value. Any intelligence data that contradicted them was tossed. Still, the intelligence data had big error bars. Few, even in the command structure in Iraq, knew what was there. Interviews with Hussein stated that he lied to hide the fact that he didn't have WMD, because he thought the idea that he had WMD was the only thing stopping an Iranian invasion. No-one from any country's intelligence service thought that. I read extensively before the war, and that wasn't offered as an option. But still, anyone with experience in IR knew of the inherent problems in Afghanistan, and that COIN takes over a decade to succeed. After trying every other possibility, Bush fired Rumsfeld, put in Gates and let the man who wrote the book on COIN (literally) run the war. And, given what _the US military though was possible, Petreus (sp) performed near miracles to get Iraq to where it is today. They probably won't take advantage of the opportunity, but if he had control in '03, we'd have been spared a lot of grief. So, to mix adages, never postulate secret conspiracies to explain something when mere incompetence will do...and the arrogance of incompetence at that. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Underwater mortgages and the economy
Charlie wrote: ...and judging by GDP figures, the USA is still fighting the Cold War. Hmmm, I looked it up, and military outlays under GWB as a % of GDP were less than they were under Carter, around 4% or a bit less. vs. Carter's 5%+. And he said that the US was going to have to increase defense spending. Under Kennedy, they were about 10% of GDP, Reagan close to 6%. They've risen under Obama, but that's due to the slowdown in the GDP more than anything. So, only if you take the bottom of the Cold War spending, when anti-war Democrats were in the forefront, and this year under Obama, which is a special circumstance (defense spending rates are projected to fall to 3.6% in the budget), is that close to true. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Underwater mortgages and the economy
It is quite possible that we falter over the next two years, sliding back into depression. One of the most depressing figures is that the average GDP growth rate for the last 30 years will result in unemployment increasing, since we need 3%/year growth to tread water. Not what I meant, sorry, but I was sticking with your definition of black swan as a solution to economic malaise. War, global conflict, would be the most drastic solution. Well, the US did prosper from wars it has been in, but that's fairly unique. Germany didn't, France didn't. The USSR didn't; the Cold War broke them. The UK lost its fortune in WWI and WWII. And, 'Nam hurt the US economy after a while. We couldn't afford guns and butter as the saying went at the time. Even those who argued it was a mangled but essential part of containment, it cost. Finally, as more countries get nuclear weapons, the odds on any real conflict going nuclear increases. For example, what would happen if Chinese territorial zones kept expanding and were enforced by China's navy? Would the US honor treaties, and what would happen then?' Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Underwater mortgages and the economy
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 9:49 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Underwater mortgages and the economy Dan wrote: Well, the US did prosper from wars it has been in, but that's fairly unique. Germany didn't, France didn't. The USSR didn't; the Cold War broke them. Eventually, but they were our supposed equals for the better part of forty years and one can easily imagine scenarios in which they continued to prosper in at least some sense of the word. Sure, if they invaded Europe in '79 and Carter wasn't willing to start Armageddon. But, the military was a drain on their GDP, rising to 45% of it at the end. Look at the war surrogate, the race to the moon. They weren't close. I think they grew faster than the US for about 5 years. Planned economies are OK for a while, but tend to get caught up in artificial goals. China has been the exception, but that's because we are in an era of no real disruptive innovationsand China doesn't have to adapt. Why Japan is in a funk now is interestingsocially they couldn't make the obvious decisions. Finally, as more countries get nuclear weapons, the odds on any real conflict going nuclear increases. For example, what would happen if Chinese territorial zones kept expanding and were enforced by China's navy? Would the US honor treaties, and what would happen then?' What would happen to our debt to China in the event of such a conflict? We'd probably repudiate it. But, there's a much easier way to handle it. Get the deficit (not national debt) down, and put inflation up at 15%/year. After a decade, we'd owe them zilch. That's one very unique thing about the US debt. We owe dollars. We can, by one statement of the Fed, get rid of the debt. It wouldn't matter if interest rates went up, fixed debt in inflationary times is good for the borrower, not the lender. But, if it got to the point of not paying the debt due to conflict, it would probably get to WWIII. China's nukes aren't that good, so we'd probably only lose LA, NY, Chicago, Houston, Washington, areas. I'd guess we'd get by with less than 50 million killed. But, I'd also guess that would set back the economy a good bit. In general war is profitable to the victor if: 1) The homeland isn't hit. 2) They can make money off the conquered. Traditionally, that's been empire and/or pillaging. The US was different in that it gave money to Europe and then used it as a market for US goods. That's why business taxes were 40% of the Federal budget in the '50s and only a few percent now. In essence, we had foreign consumers pay for our government. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Underwater mortgages and the economy (Dan Minette)
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:25 AM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Underwater mortgages and the economy (Dan Minette) Keith wrote: Unfortunately I have no ideas about how to get this going, at least not in the US. I think a rule change favoring longer term investments in physical plant will be needed before anyone will consider any such ideas. It needs to be recognized as a matter of national security. I hate to say it, but I would put this type of spending in with the vast amount of money put into 5th generation computers by the Japanese, which helped trigger their lost two decades. This is not a black swan type of new technology that comes out of nowhere, where costs come down a factor of two every year or two, etc. Its old technology, long promised as just around the corner. It will be very good at providing electricity in small amounts at high prices. IMHO, the long history of these two ventures put this as a cross between the cost effectiveness of solar power and the space shuttle. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Underwater mortgages and the economy
Doug wrote: Or a negative black swan, pardon me for pointing out what might happen. The blackest of black swans. It is quite possible that we falter over the next two years, sliding back into depression. One of the most depressing figures is that the average GDP growth rate for the last 30 years will result in unemployment increasing, since we need 3%/year growth to tread water. China will continue to rise, because planned economies work well with no surprises. We will have exhausted the wonders of invention and new possibilities that have fueled this nation since its start, and we will fall behind a ruthless dictatorship, who will bring a new world order. For example, our green cars are economical because China has an environment be damned technique for processing rare earthsand sells very cheaply because of that. We'll spend all of our money on things like bypass surgery for 90 years old Alzheimer patients. Palin will be President with a cowed Democratic minority rolling over and playing dead. The Hispanics and blacks will say a plague on both your houses, and not vote, and the poor whites (who I live amongst) will focus on the elitist tendencies of the Democrats and would rather have an economic than an intellectual elite rule. It's possible, but not probable, thankfully. This was predicted in the '80s remember. China has lotsa problems that it hides because it controls all media. I predict it will be the new Japan. And, the US still has abundant natural resources. What leftists can do to help is pick two piles: regulations and lawsuits that help and regulations and lawsuits that simply make practical plans politically impossible. The sad thing is that I think the author of Wingnuts is correct, more people will believe wild falsifiable ideas after they are falsified than deal with real possibilities. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Energy projects was Underwater mortgages and the economy
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Keith Henson Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 2:28 PM To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Energy projects was Underwater mortgages and the economy On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Dan Minette danmine...@att.net wrote: snip This is not a black swan type of new technology that comes out of nowhere, where costs come down a factor of two every year or two, etc. Its old technology, long promised as just around the corner. It will be very good at providing electricity in small amounts at high prices. IMHO, the long history of these two ventures put this as a cross between the cost effectiveness of solar power and the space shuttle. Dan, I don't mind criticisms based on understanding the engineering and/or economics, but this kind of blanket dismissal I don't think is justified. The power satellite variation I have been talking about is based on a 200 to one reduction in the cost of lifting parts to GEO and *that* is based on high power solid state lasers which have only been on the market for a few years. I looked at the articles you provided, and I noted, without surprise, that they omitted a very key detail: laser efficiency. In typical everyday usage, lasers are not very efficient. Even in high tech uses, such as inertia fusion, particle beams are much more efficient: about 12% vs. about 1%, back when inertia fusion was big back in the '80s. These are the kind of omissions that are tell-tale to me. It's an absolutely critical piece of information, which isn't mentioned. I've seen it probably literally thousands of times in the writings of true believers. I use it as a measure of a serious engineering or science project. Real practical engineers are very excited when they talk about key technical challenges. True believers don't talk about them. So, tell me, how are the lasers going to get the power to energize the fuel, and what is the efficiency and weight of the lasers involved? Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Energy projects was Underwater mortgages and the economy
High pulse energy, high repetition rate diode-pumped solid state lasers now have an efficiency of around 10%. OK, that's a lot better than when I was kicking around inertia fusion. Factors of 5-10 (it might have been as much as 2% efficient back in 1980) every 30 years is nothing to sneeze at, but is still not near Moore's law...while synthetic biology is presently beating Moore's law (how long they can keep this up, I don't know, but we haven't gotten to the steep part of the cost curve that happens before the wall yet). But, what I've read on laser powered rockets, its burning stuff off rockets by hitting them with a laser just right. The article that argues for it: http://htyp.org/Hundred_dollars_a_kg sure seems like Piccard engineering to me. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Underwater mortgages and the economy
Interesting perspective in the LA Times. But a bigger problem may turn out to be the millions of Americans who are still faithfully paying their mortgages, but on houses worth far less than before the bubble burst. It's not that these homeowners will stop making their payments. It's just the opposite that they will keep doing it. I thought about this, and I think the article misses the real problemthat the rise in home values fueled the '00-'08 economy. There is ample reason to argue that folks didn't save, because they saw their net worth going up every year, as their home appreciated. Folks who sold their homes for bubble prices spent the money; it's gone. Some people took out second mortgages on their houses and spent the money...with their house value rising, they spent the value. I understand it might be better for the national economy if we took the big hit now, and lots of folks would start over with no credit rating, and banks took big hits on their books now, and the government spent what it had to now instead of later so we didn't have the slow drip drip drip of expected foreclosures putting deflationary pressures on the economy. In an unrelated note on the economy, we're now in an age where the economy has to grow 5%/year to put a dent in unemployment. If we forget the last decade, when GDP grew sub-par and jobs barely grew, and focused on the '80s and '90s, we'd find that the average GDP growth in that period would be enough to lower the jobless rate to 7.5% in about 20 years or so. The numbers are rough because real 3%/year GDP growth is what's required to keep employment growth matching worker growth, and I'm calculating a 0.1% variation above this, so your numbers might be a bit different. But, that's a scary thought. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Underwater mortgages and the economy
No question, either extreme is bad. But how to manage the volatility is the billion - or is that trillion? - dollar question. There are several things to consider here. First is the obvious. We require real truth in selling, and for the sellers to know what they are selling. Along with this we have hard reserve requirements, like we had for decades (with a kinda exception in Houston in the mid-80s that fueled the SL crisis. All financial institutions can be leveraged no more than 10-13 to 1. Then, we need to recall that this is the first gigantic, nation wide housing bubble we've seen in 150 years. There are several causes for it. First, the balance of trade deficit, kept by foreign governments and other investors as cash meant there was cash looking for a place to roost. The inherent trust in the US dollar helped fuel this. So did the lack of the US actually producing much of anything. The US is, by far, the most flexible economy, so it handles disruptive innovations better than any other economy in the world. The last significant one was the mass use of the PC, which Japan missed out on when they spent tens, maybe hundreds of billions on worthless fifth generation computers in the '80s. This lead to their lost decades. But, the internet bubble of the late '90s showed that the 'net didn't have earth shattering profitable changes inherent in it. It allowed consultants like me to get drawings and email results, had some nice multi-billion dollar companies, but didn't change the economy the way fast cheap computers did. For example, the trillion dollars of wealth created by geosteering would have existed without the internet, but not without cheap computing. So, we had a US economy that was really doing nothing, but lots of money looking for a US home...thus real estate, which the Risk Assessment Model said couldn't go down more than a couple %. Third, to get out of this, the US needs a positive black swan to change all the rules again. This will soak up investment capitol, with a real return on investment, because wealth will be created. Until it comes, we're treading water. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Lots of people are having problems with loan modifications
Charlie wrote: Define current??? FFS I feel your pain. Any lease that's live that is legal and still has +6 months to run should be enough, no matter how old it is. I was wondering about that too. For example, we're renting now with a legal lease. But, the lease technically says month to month from now on. Both parties are happy with a verbal agreement that it will be another year, and no-one wishes to bother with getting absentee landlords to sign new lease papers when the present lease is perfectly legal, and we are both assured by practicalities as well as verbal agreements that we are renting for another year. But, a third party wouldn't have proof of that. For all they know, the house could be standing vacant. Personally, I wouldn't mind resigning if asked because the owners need proof that I'm leasing now, which they don't have. This may or may not be where Nick is standing, but it is an example of everything being legal, while there is no written proof of it for a third party. As an aside, the housing market here is crazy. The house we're in has foundational problems that will eventually have to be fixed. But, as a tear down house, the lot is worth $750,000, with 500 feet of lakeshore and 2.5 acres in a near ideal location. We're renting for $1500/month because houses aren't sellingbut few people have to sell so prices stay up. Since Teri is a minister, who's housing allowance is not subject to income tax, we have no tax incentive to buy. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Can Honerable People Have Mortgages?
Or, look at it this way: you are being honorable if you pay all the debt, as long as you can do so physically (not financially, which is all the law seems to require). OK, so two parties sign a contract. Shouldn't both parties know what is in the contract? In particular, shouldn't a big bank know what is in the contract? If I sign a contract with someone else, I am honorably obligated to fulfill the contract if I can. If I sign as a creditor, I feel I darn well be willing to take as payment what is in the contract. If I'm not, I shouldn't have drawn up that contract (every mortgage I've signed has been drawn up by the bank's lawyers). So, you and John are arguing that there is a moral obligation of an individual to do more to repay the debt than is in the contract. If it says this contract is written under the laws of the State of Texas, then if I were to loan money to someone, I would feel that I had to be sure I know what limits there are on what I can collect. I can't imagine loaning money without knowing the law. For example, if a company owes me money for something I sold to the company, I have the right to put a lien on the assets of that company. However, if the company goes bankrupt, the personal assets of the stockholders of the company are typically not available to me if the company is a LLC, or some other form of corporation. That's why some corporations bonds are junk bonds, because, even though the stockholders could pay off the bonds from their personal assets, those assets are protected by law. If someone qualifies for a loan from a bank, housing prices fall 40% and they lose their job, most states allow for allowing the bank to simply take the house as payment for their debt in their mortgage laws. By definition, then, that's the agreement between the parties. It appears that you and John are suggesting that the only honorable act is one akin to the central family in Upton Sinclair's The Jungle. Finally, if someone cannot afford a house, how did they qualify for it? I see two possibilities. First, they fudged the numbers they gave the bank. That is clearly dishonest, and they should be liable for submitting false information. In fact, I'm 99.99% sure that's against the law. The second is that the bank who gave them the loan knew that they didn't qualify for the loan, and had a high probability of eventually defaulting, but the officers of the bank thought it was in their own best interest to make the loan anyway. In that case, don't they have responsibility when the borrowers follow the law when they no longer are able to make payments? Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Loan modifications (was Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries)
I answered this in another post, but I'll explain a little bit differently here. I see the mortgage insurance as insurance against the borrower being UNABLE to pay back the money, not just choosing to default. Well you can see things however you wish, that is your prerogative. However, if you were in charge of deciding who gets what loan rates, that would be a very bad assumption to make. In a market economy, different borrowers can obtain different loan rates from lending institutions for one reason: they have different risks of defaulting on the loan, being late, or otherwise costing the bank money in getting payments on the loan. If a bank loses $200,000 on the loan, the moral state of the person who borrowed the loan has no effect on the bank's bottom line. Thus, loan rates reflect every reason for default. It is true that banks can misjudge these probabilities, markets, are uncertain, etc. People sometimes pay or less interest than they would if perfect knowledge was available. But, that is why different people and different companies are charged different rates. It's not just Brad and me that are saying that. It is also derivable from these two assumptions: banks compete for profitable loans and borrowers look for the best rate. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Loan modifications (was Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries)
Nick, Your clarification makes things sound quite different to me. I'll agree that being off by 2% on a payment due to a misunderstanding is not reasonable grounds for breaking a deal especially if they fouled up substantially. If all you are asking is for an interest rate that matches the present low interest rate, they are not acting in the best interest of the bank not to take you up on it. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Can Honerable People Have Mortgages?
John Williams wrote: Only if you consider honesty and keeping your word to be ridiculous. An honorable person would not agree to borrow money from anyone, even a loan shark, if they thought that there was any possibility that they would not be able to honor their agreement and pay back the money that they borrowed. John, I think I differ with that perspective. I've taken out mortgages, and I always thought there was a high probability that I would be able to honor them when I took them out. But, there was always a possibility that I'd be hit by a devastating illness after the mortgage went under water, so that it would be impossible to sell the house for enough to pay the mortgage and it would be impossible to keep up payments. The first two houses I owned I had 20% down (10%), so I had PMI. The last house I bought with 20% down. I figured the interest rate I was charged was figured to include covering people in that situation. Given that, do you consider it dishonorable for me to have taken out a mortgage? If so, then what fraction of loans are ethical? It seems to me that it is nearly impossible, even if you had the money in the bank to cover the loan if, to take out a loan where there wasn't an improbable set of circumstances that would cause you to default on the loan. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Can Honerable People Have Mortgages?
This is reposted, since the original response went to just Brad, since he was first on the reply list, which included Brin-L I really wouldn't feed the troll any more, if I were you... I think I have a narrower definition of troll than you do. I accept that folks can have understandings of the world that I see has having internal inconsistencies. I think that John is not putting forth a false front; I think he posts in good faith. So, I'll debate points until I find that I stop seeing the debate going anywhere. Since you are in the discussion now, I'm curious about a couple things. How could people not see that housing went into a bubble. I knew they were overvalued in many places before the bubble burst. I only saw the conclusive evidence, the inflation adjusted house prices shot up 40% after not varying by more than 10% over a century. I'm not an economist, but I crunch numbers for a living, and that certainly looks like an anomaly. How did Greenspan, who saw the stock market bubble, miss that one? And how did folks miss the fact that the Risk Assessment Model was inherently flawed, by ignoring events with low historical probability (2%) instead of using Monte Carlo techniques to include them properly. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Can Honerable People Have Mortgages?
I really wouldn't feed the troll any more, if I were you... I think I have a narrower definition of troll than you do. I accept that folks can have understandings of the world that I see has having internal inconsistencies. I think that John is not putting forth a false front; I think he posts in good faith. So, I'll debate points until I find that I stop seeing the debate going anywhere. Since you are in the discussion now, I'm curious about a couple things. How could people not see that housing went into a bubble. I knew they were overvalued in many places before the bubble burst. I only saw the conclusive evidence, the inflation adjusted house prices shot up 40% after not varying by more than 10% over a century. I'm not an economist, but I crunch numbers for a living, and that certainly looks like an anomaly. How did Greenspan, who saw the stock market bubble, miss that one? And how did folks miss the fact that the Risk Assessment Model was inherently flawed, by ignoring events with low historical probability (2%) instead of using Monte Carlo techniques to include them properly. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Can Honorable People Have Mortgages?
John and Brad wrote: If by loan modification, you mean getting someone else to pay back some of the money that you borrowed, you might want to consider that it is likely that it will ultimately be average taxpayers footing the bill, and whether it is fair that taxpayers who did not agree to your mortgage should have to pay some of it off. cannot be seen as written in good faith. Williams does not know Nick's story. He simply assumes Nick is a scumbag, and posts accordingly. Well, I have to admit, that the words loan modification threw me off too. Usually, I've seen those words associated with folks who wanted a good fraction of the principal written off, vs. refinance the loan being associated with getting a new interest rate for the same amount of money. We refinanced our house 10 years ago when interest rates dropped. Our bank offered it, before another bank could take the contract. And, in John's defense, he did use an if-then clause. Given Nicks circumstances, where he didn't mean that, the rest of the statement didn't apply. But, this whole thing brings up a question I have for Johnthat actually dates back two years. Let's assume Tom and Bill both want a lone from a bank. Let's also assume neither Tom or Bill have some personal pull with the bank; it's purely a business decision. If Tom is offered a loan at 10% and Bill is offered a loan at 5%, the difference is a result of the bank's assessment of the probability of Tom and Bill paying the loan off as agreed. This is fundamental to several statements about indicators of the start of a credit panic I made years ago. I'm curious John, if you agree with this general understanding that Brad stated, and that virtually every businessman and economist I know agree with, or if you think that there is no way of telling why, say, the interest rate for Greek sovereign bonds is higher than the interest rate for German sovereign bonds, because economics is so complex, one cannot make that inference. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Can Honorable People Have Mortgages?
John wrote: Heh, very funny. Sure, you can assume I do not disagree with everyone in the world. And you can likely draw some typically erroneous conclusions from your assumptions. It would help it if you didn't dodge facts and direct questions that poke holes in your arguments. We all have holes in our arguments. I've learned a lot arguing with Gautam, for example, because when he found holes, I acknowledged and fixed them. You hav So, is it possible for you to answer the direct question? If Tom pays 5% interest and Dick has to pay 10%, and they both find about the same difference in interest rates from different banks, is the difference a measure of something (specifically the risk of default) or just a coincidence? Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Loan modifications (was Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries)
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of John Williams Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 3:34 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Loan modifications (was Re: Starting Engineer's Salaries) On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Chris Frandsen lear...@mac.com wrote: On Oct 21, 2010, at 2:02 PM, John Williams wrote: But since you want to modify an agreement in your favor, you more or less need to jump through their hoops, even if they are ridiculous. John, do you believe in negotiation/ old fashion bargaining? Yes. I wrote if you want to modfiy the agreement. I do not consider stopping payments and leaving the house as modifying the agreement. Part of the initial contract, I am sure, was a very clear discussion of the grounds for foreclosure which go into effect when you decide not to jump through their hoops. As it is part of the contract, I do not think it is dishonorable for one party or the other to cause the clause to be implemented. Note that in many states, it is the law that mortgages are nonrecourse, meaning that the lender cannot pursue the borrow to recover the debt. If I understand you, then you are saying that since the mortgage specified what happens when the borrower defaults on repayment (foreclosure), and since it is a nonrecourse loan, then it is okay for the borrower to make a strategic default. Legally, of course, that is true. But morally, choosing to not repay the money is not okay. If I borrow money, then I am giving my word that I will do everything within my power to pay it back. It is that simple. If I am paying for insurance for the lender in case I don't pay it back, why is it immoral to accept the penalty for not paying it back, knowing that I prepaid insurance for the lender. I may know that the penalty for stealing a car is X years in jail, then if I steal a car and serve my time, I have still done something dishonorable. Com on Johnyou say I stretch things? How many car owners get the thief to pay for theft insurance? That's what a premium over T-bills is; default insurance. I agree that walking away just because it's profitable is dishonorable. One should make every reasonable attempt to pay one's bills. But, if both parties sign a legal agreement, then the bank did it with it's eyes open, and if the house is under water and the payments will bankrupt someone, mailing in the keys is a reasonable option. _Both parties_ agreed to it, so it's a free agreement the bank entered into to accept the house if the owner feels that it's in there best interest to mail in the keys. Again, I understand how strategic retreats in a debate can be difficult. But, none of us have perfect understanding. You really do have an interesting take on things. I appreciate the fact that your viewpoint doesn't fit into one of the stereotype dittohead viewpoints that I hear too often. You have much to offer in a discussion between reasonable people. But, in this case, you have not made a strong argumentjust a black and white one. I agree with you that one has a moral obligation to make every reasonable effort to pay a mortgagethat's the spirit of the law. The objectivist I mentioned who made money at the taxpayer's expense by allowing a foreclosure when he could easily pay the loan and when the house would probably bounce back to more than his buying price (it actually did...but at the time one could only give a high probability to it happening) acted dishonorably IMHO, even though he followed the letter of the law. He broke the spirit of the agreement. But, someone who is floundering under water and mails in the keys because they see no other way outor uses the leverage of that to get the bank to keep an agreement it madeis not honor bound to do everything conceivable to pay the mortgage. They already paid an agreed upon fee to insure the banks risk. If it wasn't sufficient, it's the banks mistake. They signed the agreement and are bound by it...both legally and morally. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
