Re: On quiet
On 3/14/2013 2:05 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: Hi, Nick I'd like to get back on the?list, please. I think I've been deleted?? (been inactive for a long time!). Thanks, Debbi Hi Debbi, I don't think you've been deleted. But we've been real quiet. Dan M. Brin's website and Facebook page (watchout for trolls) are vey active, though. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com He also posts regularly to Google+ Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com A damsel with a dulcimer in a vision once I saw. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Chinese ham handedness and monopolies
On 12/4/2012 9:02 AM, Dan Minette wrote: 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. And if the Chinese try to raise further, it only creates more incentives to look into alternatives. I think this may be one of the reasons why the Club of Rome predictions failed (there are clearly numerous reasons). As an economist named Hotelling pointed out early in the 20th century, there are good reasons in economics to expect the prices of non-renewable resources to rise over time at approximately the same rate as the interest rate. (I'm just giving a simplified explanation here, see the Journal article if you really like this sort of thing.) But any time a resource has rising prices it creates incentives to look for substitutes, and the higher the price, the higher the incentive. So a lot of products are no longer made with steel, but with plastics or composites, for instance. The other price obviously is to stimulate the search for new sources of supply. Put those together and you can see why those predictions of disaster have not materialized. By similar reasoning, any attempt to monopolize a resource or product can only succeed if there is some way of preventing and competitor from entering the market. Most commonly this requires government action to create and sustain the monopoly. Since that will not happen in the case of rare earth elements, I doubt there can be a lasting monopoly problem here. In a similar way, recall how the oil prices hikes of the 70s turned into the price collapse of the 1980s as both fuel efficiency and increased exploration responded ot the market price signals. 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. Well, they can drive them out, perhaps, but can they keep them out? One of two things seems likely: 1. China creates a temporary monopoly, then tries to raise prices to profit from it. See above for how market forces respond. 2. China creates a monopoly, then subsidizes solar panel producers permanently to maintain that monopoly. And permanently low prices for solar panels cause terrible devastation to the U.S. economy...Wait, that doesn't quite make sense. I think I rather like low prices for solar panels. And this could create a boom in low-cost, non-polluting energy which only benefits us. 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. OK, this is where my economist hat no longer gives me any particular aid. I will say that indeed it will get interesting, but the factor that is most likely to cause aggression on a large scale is water. That is in short supply, unless we can access abundant cheap energy to desalinate ocean water to make potable water. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com A damsel with a dulcimer in a vision once I saw. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
On 12/1/2012 6:36 PM, Dan Minette wrote: 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. I am assuming that at some point we have enough Sandy's to tip the balance. That will come much later than it should have come, but I think it will come at some point. IF you don't think that will ever happen, just adjust your forecasts accordingly. BTW, carbon taxes are an economically efficient way of reducing emissions, which means that if you need to reduce emissions this does it with the least negative effect on the economy. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL zwil...@zwilnik.com Linux User #333216 ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
On 11/29/2012 6:38 PM, Dan Minette wrote: 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. Well, I just noted that a new technology has come along that replaces much of the use of rare earth elements (it had to do with electric motors). This is one of the reasons you have to be slightly skeptical about attempts to use predatory pricing to create monopolies. The very act of raising prices creates a strong incentive for substitutes, among other things. I just did a Google search on rare earth substitutes that brought back a number of recent articles about how rare earth prices were falling as a result of manufacturers finding substitutes, and other articles about how manufacturers are finding those substitutes. Now, I cannot say exactly how this will play out since predictions are hard, especially when they are about the future. ;) But there is a concept in economics called hysteresis that says that changes once made are sometimes hard to reverse. A great example of this was the automobile market in the 1970s. When oil prices rose, consumers went looking for fuel-efficient autos. When U.S. manufacturers could not meet this demand, they turned to the hitherto ignored Japanese cars. This led them to discover a previously unknown fact, that those cars were of higher quality than American cars. As a result, even when oil prices fell, the market share of Japanese autos did not fall back to its previous level. A permanent change had occurred in consumers' preferences. It is at least conceivable to me that the research into alternatives to rare earths will result in a permanent fall in demand for them. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com A damsel with a dulcimer in a vision once I saw. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
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. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com A damsel with a dulcimer in a vision once I saw. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Power and civilization
On 11/29/2012 9:16 PM, Dan Minette wrote: 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. In fact, the other major sin of the Greens (in addition to being against nuclear power) is the opposition to genetically modified crops. I get the fact that Monsanto is the poster child for evil greed, but there really isn't any other way to feed the number of people we now have, let alone will soon have, without those high-yield crops. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com A damsel with a dulcimer in a vision once I saw. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses (Keith Henson)
On 11/28/2012 7:05 PM, Keith Henson wrote: In regard to Kevin B. O'Brien's comments, the Chinese are far more likely to build propulsion lasers and power sats than the US. It's possible they have already made the decision, see the recent announcement about building power sats with the Indians. They could build power sats with their PV production and sell power or power sats instead of panels. If they do so that is great. I also recall reading that they have been looking at pebble-bed reactors as an energy source. That is all to the good. What is abundantly clear is that they have no intention at all of cutting down on their energy use and economic growth, so any environmental progress will depend on rolling out cleaner alternatives. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com A damsel with a dulcimer in a vision once I saw. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
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: http://www.news-republic.com/Web/ArticleWeb.aspx?regionid=1articleid=5336750 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. Third, there is an interesting economic argument. The Chinese government is subsidizing their manufacturers which results in Chinese solar panels being about 30% cheaper (per the story. I have not verified this independently.) From one perspective, you could argue that this is great for consumers. China is making everything 30% cheaper! Woo hoo! The objection is that this would undermine local producers, but that is not as clear a problem as the European manufacturers would like to say. For the advantage to be permanent you would need either perpetual subsidies by the Chinese government or some kind of barrier to entry in the solar panel market that would keep out competitors. Economic theory says that potentially the Chinese manufacturers could use these subsidies to drive out competitors, and when that was accomplished they would just raise prices and enjoy monopoly rents. But without the barriers to entry, that cannot happen. The other solution, if you think that subsidies by one side is a problem, is to create counter-subsidies. That might be preferable to a trade war, and arguably would help promote a technology we desperately need. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com A damsel with a dulcimer in a vision once I saw. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Greens add to Greenhouse gasses
On 11/26/2012 9:21 PM, Dan Minette wrote: 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. I think you are correct in that. The only thing I would add is that the design of the Fukushima plant was very old, and that modern designs are even safer. This issue is not being resolved rationally, but then very few people approach problems that way. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com A damsel with a dulcimer in a vision once I saw. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Bruce Bartlett on how he saw the light
A conservative economist tells how he learned about epistemic closure and got banned from Fox. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revenge-of-the-reality-based-community/ Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com A damsel with a dulcimer in a vision once I saw. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Where to now?
On 11/24/2012 11:08 AM, Dan Minette wrote: 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 Thanks for the link, Dan. A most interesting article. It reminded me of a journal article I read in graduate school wherein a distinguished professor presented his model of consumer behavior, then noted that consumers don't actually behave that way, which led to his call for measures to make consumers conform to his model. I find that a lot of neoclassical economics reads like an analysis of how people should behave if only they were as wise as economists.g I also note in passing that a study done a few years ago about charitable giving found that economists were the stingiest group in the study, which I found not at all surprising. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL zwil...@zwilnik.com Linux User #333216 ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Politicians
On 11/22/2012 4:32 PM, Charlie Bell wrote: It's hard to compete if one has a shred of ethics. This last US Presidential election astounded me as the Republican bubble was almost impenetrable, and the constant repeating of lies by the Romney/Ryan campaign far exceeded even my most cynical expectations. Fox as the results came in was just astonishing, they really believed the pundits that predicted a large win by Romney. It actually makes sense. I first noticed this when a Bush admin official talked about how they just make their own reality. And I think it has continued with Fox an the Republicans rejecting anything science- or data-derived in favor of whatever they want to believe. But at some point reality has a way of intruding itself into your fantasies. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL zwil...@zwilnik.com Linux User #333216 ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Where to now?
On 11/20/2012 4:35 PM, Dan Minette wrote: 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. It doesn't make my ideas any better than anyone else's, I am quite aware. I got annoyed by Mr. Williams condescending attitude. Some of the biggest idiots I ever met had PhDs. When I was Faculty Development Officer I actually had a Physics prof seriously argue that since the software would calculate GPAs to 4 decimal places that we should submit grades accurate to 4 decimal places. The problem I have with a lot of what passes for economic commentary these days is that it is evidence-free. It is one thing to speculate before you have done the experiment, indeed it is almost mandatory to do so if you want to know where to experiment. But when the experiment has been done, repeatedly, and always gives the same result, acting as if none of that ever happened is just plain wrong. And I note that the Republicans are at it again with the nonsense that somehow cutting tax rates will increase revenue. That has been tried, repeatedly, and it just doesn't work that way. So at this point I can only conclude that the Republicans are congenital liars. 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. Yeah, that can be tough. As Feynman pointed out, the problem is that the universe is absurd, and we are not wired to work with absurdity. But economics is not that hard. Most of the difficulty comes from people who are trying to twist things to fit their interests. Offhand, I cannot imagine too many people who have a personal stake in how QM works. But tax policy affects everyone's wallet. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com A damsel with a dulcimer in a vision once I saw. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Where to now?
On 11/19/2012 4:56 PM, D.C. Frandsen wrote: But I also have a problem with the idea that creating new customers by which I guess, Kevin, you mean demand, is the only solution. I believe our problem has been that we have been fixated on creating demand only, not on the type of demand we are creating. I only wish we had been fixated on creating demand. Instead, everyone is fixated on something they call the fiscal cliff, which is largely a non-issue. We had budget surpluses as recently as 2000, and there were people back then who worried about what happens the the bond market when the federal government is paying down debt. Would it reduce the supply of bonds to the point that it might destabilize the bond market? Then Bush came along, put a huge amount of money in the hands of the wealthy, then started a couple of wars without any provision for paying for them. Changing the situation is mostly a matter of returning to the sensible policies we had before Bush came along, when adults were running the show. The problem is that doing it all at once is going to cause serious economic problems. Right now, there is a ton of cash that is mostly on the sidelines because the people who have it do not see opportunities for productive investment. The Republican answer is to give those people even more cash on the grounds that they are the job creators. That is complete hogwash. There is already tons of investible cash out there now. It will get invested only when there is demand for the products that could be produced. I would prefer that these products be the right kind, which for me would include renewable energy, efficient transportation, etc. because that global heating problem is still out there. But as Keynes pointed out, whether the right products are produced is irrelevant to the problem of getting the economy going again. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com A damsel with a dulcimer in a vision once I saw. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Where to now?
On 11/20/2012 2:12 PM, John Williams wrote: On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:45 AM, Kevin O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com wrote: Right now, there is a ton of cash that is mostly on the sidelines because the people who have it do not see opportunities for productive investment. Cash on the sidelines is a useless concept, and perhaps worse than useless, actually misleading. It works quite well for what I am describing. I did not see the point in going into a long analysis of where the money is, since the main point is that it is most definitely *not* going into anything that remotely creates jobs. Neither will giving those people even more money in the form of a tax cut. Top-down management of a $15 trillion economy is virtually impossible, and despite constant claims to the contrary by politicians, the best that can be hoped for is to provide incentives that might possibly, in some indefinite amount of time, nudge some parts of the economy slightly in the direction some people might like. OK, I'm not at all clear on how you got top-down management out of what I said. I'm pretty sure I never used the phrase. My only point is that people who have a lot of money now and do not invest it productively are not likely to suddenly discover productive uses for the money if you give them more of it. Another dollar in the hands of an average person is likely to result in another dollar worth of spending, which goes to products that a company must produce. In addition, if producing that product requires additional labor, there is a multiplier effect. Take that same dollar and give it to someone whose main interest is in feeding Cayman Island bank accounts, and you get bupkis. And if you find that dollar to give them by taking it away from someone who would have spent it, the result is actually negative. This result is not purely theoretical, either, since Europe is proving it on a daily basis. Anyone who keeps up on the news can see that Europe is having a much worse time of it than the U.S. right now. I don't really want to see us emulate that policy. 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. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com A damsel with a dulcimer in a vision once I saw. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Where to now?
On 11/19/2012 11:11 AM, Dan Minette wrote: 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. There is one and only one factor that creates jobs, and it is not wealthy people. That one factor is customers. Which is why the number one priority should be to get the economy going again. Instead, we have two sides negotiating on how bad the damage to the economy will be from their austerity policies. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com A damsel with a dulcimer in a vision once I saw. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: On this date in . . .
On 9/3/2011 11:17 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: 1958, President Eisenhower signed the National Defense Education Act, which provided aid to public and private education to promote learning in such fields as math and science On this date in 2011, it is official: President Eisenhower's own political party no longer believes in the validity of Math and Science. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com He moves in darkness as it seems to me, not of woods only or the shade of trees. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: google
On 7/22/2011 3:07 AM, Alex Gogan wrote: Hi Jon, No probs but you need to get a gmail email account which are free www.gmail.com and can send out the invite. If there are any others have some invites left. Also if any of you guys are interested in joining my circle just look out for me, alex.go...@gmail.com Regards If you have any left, my gmail account is ahuka5...@gmail.com. Thanks, -- Kevin B. O'Brien zwil...@zwilnik.com He moves in darkness as it seems to me, not of woods only or the shade of trees. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government
On 10/15/2010 4:23 PM, Dan Minette wrote: -Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 1:54 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Down with the government Leftists should recognize the right has a valid argument about wasteful government spending. I would argue that the right (the one that was in power anyway) was the one doing all the wasteful spending. The idea that the right is fiscally conservative _in practice_ is a farce. I'm not saying that the left has it completely correct either, far from it, but if you vote for the GOP because you want to curb wasteful spending, you're barking up the wrong tree. That's what makes the Tea Party so interesting. They are actually small government believers. I don't say I agree with them, I have strong differences with them, but their candidates do have a self-consistent message. I think most folks at their rallies don't think through their viewpoints. I think a little historical perspective can be helpful here. I don't think there is any argument against the fact that some government spending is wasteful, just as some corporate spending is wasteful, some private family spending is wasteful, etc. Simply saying that is not particularly insightful, but I cannot take seriously a claim that the Tea Party represents a disagreement about spending levels and priorities. When large numbers of people start questioning whether Obama is really American, when the Republican health care plan from 1993 is now described as a descent into socialism, and a totally white group of people start talking about taking OUR country back, you have to face the fact that this is much deeper than a budget disagreement. What I think is really going on is that we are going through a period of rapid and intense change, and a whole lot of people want to stop this and turn the clock back. I think we all know it is not going to happen, long term, but in the short term a lot of fear and anger (and that is what the Tea Party really represents) can perhaps cause a hiccup on the path we're headed on. It is not a new phenomenon. One could compare the current moment to the transition from an agrarian to an industrial society a century ago. A way of life that most people thought would last forever was disappearing before people's eyes, and being replaced by something strange and unnatural. Then ,as now, people looked for a scapegoats who could be portrayed as un-American. This was also the first period of intense anti-Immigrant agitation . Only then it was not Mexicans. In my family I grew up hearing stories about signs in the windows of Boston establishments Help Wanted - No Irish Need Apply. The changes that are coming are pretty clear. Whites will be a minority in America in a few decades. Young people today not only are much less racially biased, they also don't see the point of homophobia, they tend to think women and men should work together more equally, etc. And they came out in force to help elect the first black President in 2008. In other words, we have a continuing culture ware against a backdrop of change that is rapidly making the old culture obsolete. And I would suggest the economic difficulties, which are very real, are best understood within this context, as just another example of everything going haywire. The Republican party is basically the party of old white folks, and there are fewer of them every day. I don't think they will win in the long run. In my lifetime, I saw people lynched in the South, and we now have our first black President. The numbers of women in top positions is generally increasing, even if some of them make me wince (Sarah Palin). But it is still a notable change. And there is no doubt in my mind that if we had not elected our first black President in 2008, we would have elected our first female President (Hillary Clinton). And I don't see much of that progress being reversed, even if the Republicans stage a temporary comeback. There are some notable things about this year that are very interesting. Thew first is that while the Republicans are likely to take over the House of Representatives in this election, their approval rating is still abysmal, and in fact lower than Democrats. The second is that the policies the Republicans advocate are not very popular. In particular I am struck by the fact that the general concept of health care reform is about even in the polls, but if you poll on the specific measures within the legislation they poll much higher. What that tells me is that this election is not about polices, it is about Stop the world, I want to get off. And that is something the Republicans simply cannot deliver. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL zwil...@zwilnik.com Linux User #333216 ___
Re: On Listmail
Doug Pensinger wrote: Ahem. Hello? Anyone here Just got back from Penguicon. I had breakfast with Karl Schroeder, which was fairly wide-ranging in looking at Canada and the US, among other topics. And attended a great talk by Geoffrey Landis that discussed the physics of time travel. But your point about Facebook and Twitter may be correct, to some degree. The unfortunate thing about that is neither medium is worth a damn for any serious conversation. I am not in Dan Minette's league, as 3-4 paragraphs into an e-mail I start to run out of steam, but you simply cannot talk intelligently at 140 characters per message. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL zwil...@zwilnik.com Linux User #333216 The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers - Bill Gates, The Road Ahead ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: What the heck is Maru?
On Mon, 2007-10-15 at 11:28 -0500, Mauro Diotallevi wrote: On 10/13/07, Kevin O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL Speaking of TANSTAAFL, I just reread _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ again over the weekend. I think I enjoy it more each time I read it. I ma a huge fan of Heinlein, not surprisingly. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in human history--with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila. -- Mitch Ratliffe, Technology Review ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What the heck is Maru?
On Sat, 2007-10-13 at 13:25 -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: Kevin B. O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:48 PM Subject: What the heck is Maru? I have been reading this list for months, and I don't know what this is about. I suppose some kind of in-joke, but would someone explain it to me? The long answer: Wow, that was certainly comprehensive. Thank you for sending it along. I knew about the Kobayashi Maru in Star Trek, and suspected there might be some kind of relationship, but there is obviously a lot more than that to it. Thank you to everyone who replied. -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together-- Carl Zwanzig ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
