RE: Lifestyle changes better than drugs
OK, so I'm still harping on lifestyle as preferable over drugs in treating and preventing chronic illnesses -- nice to have my opinion backed up so decisively! (Not that meds aren't often necessary and life-saving; I just don't like to hear them always put ahead of nutrition and exercise etc.) I'd be curious to see if the lifestyle and weight loss group continued to include follow ups of all the failures. You know of course, that weight loss programs that do not involve surgery have about a 3% sucess rate after 2 yearsso my guess is that these folks are simply ignored in the study. Oherwise, they will have come up with unprecedented techniques for weight loss sucess...orders of magnitude better than any program previous to this. That's why my wife's physician strongly reccomended this surgery for her. After 5 years, she's 120 lbs lighter, and now has two new knees and can be active. She's within about 10 lbs of her absolue minimum weight, which is better than average. Dan M. VFP Just say no to food. myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and application hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Knowledge of Complex Systems and Ecch-onomics
Some of the time, but only some of the time, I have the sender as the poster, not brin-l. Alberto was nice enough to send it back to me so I can repost it. Dan M. - From: Alberto Monteiro albm...@centroin.com.br Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:46:01 -0200 To: dsummersmi...@comcast.net, brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Knowledge of Complex Systems and Ecconomics Dan M. wrote: Subject: Welcome to Hyperinflation! Date: 2008-08-29 12:30 I was just checking the evolution of PPI (PPI and CPI measure inflation in the USA), and noticed that _this year_ the accumulated inflation is about 10% (!!!) Where did you get that? 2008 data. And notice that I said PPI, not CPI. Two things on this. First, PPI is always far more volital than CPI or WPI (Wholesale Price Index). It is highly dependant on commodity prices. When oil prices go from 140 to 35 to 70, the PPI is far more affected than either of these two. Indeed, the CPI and WPI also have a core amount (excluding food and energy) that is a much better indicator of changes in the long range inflation. But, to look at what you quoted we have at http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_too l=latest_numbersseries_id=WPSSOP3000output_view=pct_1mth http://tinyurl.com/ndqm3x the PPI report itself. If you add this year, we have a 1.2% increase in 2009, and for the last calandar year a 6.5% decrease. The BLS is the organization that measures US inflation and puts a lot of work into it. While others may argue about inflation being overstated by not including substitution of new goods to extend and reduce the cost of old goods properly, no one else measures inflation like the BLS. Yes, but I was talking about the period from 2008-01 to 2008-06. Why that period? (the PPI increased 6.5% during that period). It was before the meltdown and the government response. Sinc ethen, we've had deflation. The net for the last 18 months is 0. That's not inflation at all. http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm This site is awful. There's so much information that I have no idea where the data came from. But it probably came from that site. I guess its a YMMV item. I can usually find what I want in a couple of minutes. As an aside, the US is unique among countries in the amount of available data. It's much harder to get data from other countries. Dan M. mail2web.com Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: The thread about the thread Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
No apologies needed. I just remember so well person after person taking on JDG trying to talk about different stuff (abortion, death penalty, politics). While I think Dan talked the longest and the hardest, I came to feel the guy just got off on fanning flames of dissention. Sort of like what's going on now, IMO. Well, not surprisingly, I differ. With respect to JDG, while we cannot really know the motivations of others, everything I see indicated that he expressed strongly held convictions that differed from yours. As Obama said this morning, we should be able to civilly differ when strongly held opinions differ...particularly on a mailing list where RL is only occassionally involved. For a while Brin-L was a place where I feel those exchanges could take place. I think the break point came with the big blow up..on Brin-L 1a. There were RL complications from that blow-up, and the list has not been the same since. Part of it is that, IMHO, IAAMOAC was so compromised, that it passionate discussions became more personal. Another part is that a number of regular participants left the list immediately. At the present time I, a former Obama delegate, is the closest thing to a long time conservative voice on this list (e.g. I was the one arguing strongly against the idea that Bush deliberately destroying the twin towers is as believeable as the official version of 9-11) . Like the blogosphererespect for differing opinions have diminished here. I would suggest that is part of the reason why contrary opinions are usually found with folks like John. This is not a friendly place for a conservative, even one who could find welcome among very prominent liberal voices. And Yeah, the women probably are hiding. I understand your problem with signal to noise, but when John isn't stirring something up, to first order, everyone is hiding. Back in April, there was not one post from a woman, and less than 50 from men. You and I probably define signal and noise differently, but those 50 posts contained very little new and interesting. Nothing wrong with them, just that they didn't say much. So, the signal is clearly down from what it was before the break-up. I'll agree the signal/noise ratio is down, but IMHO, the lack of signal is the biggest contributing cause. If you notice how many different folks posted in the last 6 weeks compared to the number of posters in April-May, you will see that a lot more people feel they have something to say now. Even you. :-) Dan M. myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and application hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Knowledge of Complex Systems and Ecconomics
Original Message: - From: Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro albm...@centroin.com.br Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:13:40 + To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Knowledge of Complex Systems and Ecconomics On 2009-09-05, Dan M wrote: We know that, while we cannot see trends as absolute rules when dealing with complex systems, the most persimmons model consistent within the data has the best chance of being a reasonable approximation of what we will understand as we gain a better, more detailed understanding of the system. In addition, it has the best change of future predictions. Note, I didn't say that it would always be right; there are many times that extrapolations beyond data are wrong. But, if one were to consider all possible theories available at the time,, one's best chance of being close is choosing that theory. I had a feeling that I had predicted the crisis, but I didn't find my message. Here it is: Subject: Welcome to Hyperinflation! Date: 2008-08-29 12:30 I was just checking the evolution of PPI (PPI and CPI measure inflation in the USA), and noticed that _this year_ the accumulated inflation is about 10% (!!!) Where did you get that? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we've had deflation of about 1% over the past 12 months and inflation of 1.7% over the past 7 months. http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm Dan M. Dan M. mail2web.com What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
That's precisely what lots of people wonder. Neither government nor business has a record that exactly encourages optimism. I guess it depends on perspective. Compare the lot of the median citizen of the US with the median citizen of any country 500 years ago; 300 years ago; 100 years ago. Compare, even, the lot of the median person in the world in the same manner. Part of the problem with government is that, as the strong oppositition to socialized medicine by folks who don't want their socialized medicine reduced in any way shape or form, we have met the enemey and he is us. With respect to healthcare, we know the US lags behind the rest of the world in bang for the buck. So, we know improvements can be made. But, we certainly have made tremendous progress in the last 200 years. If we were to make similar progress in the next 200; things would be phenomenal. But, we may have reached the point where the low hanging fruit is taken. It all depends on whether we find good black swans for economics and find a balance to the drive towards individualistic entittlement that we've seen in the last 40 years. Dan M. mail2web.com Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
Original Message: - From: Rceeberger rceeber...@comcast.net Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 17:29:35 -0500 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: DeLong on health insurance reform On 9/7/2009 4:06:38 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote: On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 1:31 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote: Your argument seemed to be: Money I pay in taxes is money I won't give to worthy charities. I didn't buy the ARGUMENT, for obvious reasons. That was not an attack on your views. It is not an argument, it is a statement of the truth. So.you admit you hate America. I can't see how that follows. One can even support higher taxes and make that statement; because money spent on X can't be spent on Y. I think that's what opportunity costs is suppose to measure. In general, I've come to the conclusion that John is not a troll; he just has a _very_ different opinion from the average person on Brin-L. He has surprised me with some of his suggestions; he virtually quotes Rand and then states something that she'd hate in the next paragraph. I find that interesting...trying to understand the viewpoint from which both statements could flow. So, I think he is arguing in good faitheven when I really really differ with him. By my definition, a good faith arguement is one that is actually held by the person. For example, when I discussed relativity and QM with folks who believed they found fatal flaws in these theories, they definately seemed to be arguing in good faith. The fact that they didn't see the logical contradictions in their arguements didn't mean that they were trolling. (BTW Johnthis does not mean I'm throwing you in with crackpots, just giving an example of a good faith arguement I know is wrong). Anyways, when we aren't arguing with John; not much is said around here any more. None of us has his talent for generating list traffic. :-) Dan M. mail2web.com Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
a Nobel Ghostpost on the Ecconomy
An interesting article by Krugman appeared in the NYT magazine: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html?_r=4partner=rs semc=rsspagewanted=all http://tinyurl.com/kmtffm In it he discusses how the ecconomists missed last year's bust. Not surprising to anyone who's followed ecconomic theory for the last 20 years, the market works best by itself ecconomists were the ones with the greatest chutzpah. Dan M. mail2web.com - Microsoft® Exchange solutions from a leading provider - http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
Original Message: - From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 12:46:44 -0700 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: DeLong on health insurance reform On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: The link was broken for me, but from what you quoted above it seems we'd all need 2 or three insurance policies, I'd love to have enough choice with health insurance to have multiple policies tailored to my needs. a medical account and state and federal income tax deductions. You mean a tax-exempt HSA account? Like an IRA? Sounds good to me. And since insurance companies are worried about making money for themselves, not the health of their customers, you can bet we'll probably need a lawyer to keep them honest. Then we'll need an accountant to help keep track of it all. Aren't almost all companies worried about making money for themselves? Seems to work out all right to me. Why would we do all that crap when we can jealously look at other countries and say Damn, why don't we do something like that. It costs less and it works better??? Do you mean, why would Americans choose freedom when they can instead have their money taken from them and told what to do with their money and have their health care choices dictated by their rulers? Actually, that's not what the opposition to health care reform is coming from. Its from folks who are already on government health care, wanting no cuts in it and wanting no one else on it. The freedom you are talking about in a real free market is the freedom to die for many people. People with insurance and second stage cancer do better than people without insurance and first stage cancer. That's one reason why measuremables place the US far down the list of industrialized countries in health care provided, even though we top the list on health care cost. In your idealized world, people happily choose good choices. Historically, we've had market ecconomies with minimal governmental interference in the past; and the choice for the majority was rock or hard place. Now, you've argued that's its the intangibles that matter most, which is convenient, because they are so much harder to measure than tangibles. I guess it's a difference in perspective; when arguing about emperical quesitons; I tend to like measuremables. Dan M. mail2web.com What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
Even if everyone voted democratically to make some minority of people slaves, that does not make slavery freedom. Paying taxes != slavery. You are more than free to leave. You can't be bought or sold. Dan M. mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
Original Message: - From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 14:00:11 -0700 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: DeLong on health insurance reform On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 1:35 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.netdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: Actually, consumer driven health care supporters are where some of the opposition to additional government control of the health care market is coming from. Some, but I can quote data concerning age groups and their viewpointsand guess which age group really doesn't want changethe age group on social security. The freedom you are talking about in a real free market is the freedom to die for many people. No, that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about freedom to choose what to do with one's money. And when you don't have the money because your options for getting money are don't match the cost of insurance or healthcare. It's the freedom to die. Now, you've argued that's its the intangibles that matter most, Where have I written that? The last time I brought up these data. Dan M. mail2web.com Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
Even if everyone voted democratically to make some minority of people slaves, that does not make slavery freedom. Paying taxes != slavery. You are more than free to leave. You can't be bought or sold. The principle under discussion was whether a democratic vote is equivalent to freedom to choose. I gave a counter example to disprove the general principle. Actually, as David's post indicates, you are probably in a minority in considering that the principal under discussion. I would really like to understand your point of view, but when you quote, almost perfectly, well known sentences associated with political viewwpoints and then are shocked shocked to see that people think you hold that viewpoint, understanding your viewpoint becomes nigh on impossible for me. I say this as someone who has sucessfullly understood why some folks are convinced that special relativity is false, so I'm at least average at understanding folks who are trying to communicate what they think. So, I thought of one simple question that would be extremely helpful in my starting to understand how you differ from folks who use the exact same words as you do, but mean different things. It is Is being taxed different from or the same as slavery? Dan M. mail2web.com - Microsoft® Exchange solutions from a leading provider - http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
Original Message: - From: Ronn! Blankenship ronn_blankens...@bellsouth.net Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2009 17:27:28 -0500 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: DeLong on health insurance reform br Some people fear that government-run health care will feature all the cleanliness and maintenance standards of Walter Reed combined with the prompt service for which the DMV is famous and the compassion of the IRS, and want to know what guarantees there will be that it will be like the things government does well instead of the things that make the news as scandals or annoy and frustrate almost everyone who has to deal with them I understand that feeling. But, that's not what is being proposed. The public option is to have government run health care as an alternative. And, fortunately, we have a giant data base of folks who have government run health insurance: those on Medicare. My _Republican_ congressman stated that the overhead for private insurance paperwork is 20%, while for the government it's 5%. But, what about public satisfaction? We have a comparative survey at http://news.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-2/Survey-3A-Medicare-gets-higher- marks-from-enrollees-than-private-insurance-6883-1/ or http://tinyurl.com/mwm3db From the other items featured, it does not look to be a polemic website. We see those on the public plan are more satisfied than those on employer sponsered plans. And, that doesn't even address those who can't get employer sponsered plans. Let me ask a question, and I honestly will respect your answer. Are you so opposed to the government insurance that you'll refuse Medicare and be willing to be untreated as an option? I know folks with health issues in their families who are consultants. They tell me that bare bones catastrophic insurance is about $40k/year. Is this better than Medicare? Right now, we seem to have taken the worst of socialism and capitalism to get the most expensive health care while getting poor measured results. Dan M. mail2web.com Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Health Care:
Bruce wrote: What exactly *do* you propose as an alternative to public-option health care for people who aren't fortunate enough to be able to afford health insurance that will actually cover treatments? You didn't ask me; but I thought I'd actually propose something that makes sense. First, it makes sense for leverage to be used on folks making tons of money on health care. A surgeon can, in an 8 hour day, do 3 surguries and the associated follow up care for about 8k. I've seen what Blue Cross/Blue Shield pays, and I base it on that. We can pay hospitals, physicians, etc. a lot less...other countries do while maintaining superior measurables. Second, reasonable tort reform makes sense. I know from family experience that, when there are two studies out within a few months, one indicating physicians should stop a med; the other suggesting it be continued, the physician can be sued and be forced to pay money. We are unique in the developed world in how often we sue. I can understand the oppositon to upper limits on damages: if a drunk physician were to kill someone and folks knew he was drunk beforehand (coverups have existed), the folks deserve to pay triple lost earnings and punative damages. The amount of malpractice awards is a minor part of the cost. It's the time spent jumping through hoops that costs so much. A physician should be protected by providing a reasonable standard of care; and if studies are inconclusive on a drug...neither using it or not using it should be grounds for a suit. We need to have a reasonable approach to end of life. We spend more than any developed country streatching the last week into the last month or two. Coding a patient with multiple strokes and virtually no functionality and no hope for recovery twice a day for months is crazy. On this point I agree with John; it makes no sense to have a money is no limit view towards expensive procedures for those about to die even with the procedures. Realizing this fact is probably poltically impossible. We need a way to get the rest of the developed world to help pay for innovations. How, I'm not sure. If we cut costs; RD will dry up; drug companies spend on it like ATT use to when it was a monopoly. If they follow more typical companies; we'll have few new drugs. We need to trade off governments helping to study phase III results, with the immediate right to pull the drug, for drug company's agreements to only sell the meds. for the intended purpose. We need to offer affordable insurance for everyone. Brad DeLong's arguement, IIRC, is to have health savings accounts required for X% of income, and after that government insurance can take over. This would have to include Medicare; which can't function as it's going for another 10 years. Well, that's a starting point, although it's not fleshed out. Dan M. mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
What exactly do you propose for everyone in the world who cannot afford basic health care such as childbirth assistance and infant care and vaccination? Well, Iraq showed how hard it is to help folks by forcing out bad governments. My foster daughter Neli and I have talked on how best governments and people can aid folks in other countries. Most of it involves the countries that spend the money taking the responsibility to supervise how the money is spent, cutting down barriers to trade, etc. It's a real hard problem. Personally, I've been doing what I can to help her sister Nymbe (my other African foster daughter), to realize her dream of replacing Zambia's only cardiologist, who's getting up in years. It's only a bit, I know, but treating two young African women as family is most of what I'm doing. Dan M. mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
Original Message: - From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 17:28:02 -0700 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: DeLong on health insurance reform On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Bruce Bostwicklihan161...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Or, for an even darker scenario, how about the people who can't quit or, God forbid, be fired from their job because if they do they'll lose the only insurance that will cover them Which is almost entirely the result of the poor government policy of providing a large tax incentive to get health insurance through employers rather than choosing it oneself. Well, there are problems with employer sponsered health careespecially since it is spotty. But, let's assume we tax all health care benefits as wages or allow all private health care spending to be tax free. For me, and my small business, it's esentially the latter right now. The problem is the fact that insurance is as affordable as it is for everyone who has it (counting the employer's payment as part of the wages), not just because it it tax deductable, but because there is one risk pool per company. My former company self-insured...they were large enough. I am now paying insurance through Teri's status as unemployed minister...which is affordable due to how they pool. But, if I were to pay as myself, then any health issues would put me in the 40k/year bracket. I could probably afford it, but most folks can't. So, after one big illness, you're dropped, and that's it. If you allow people with low risk to choose a special pool, then those with median income and one big illness in their family could not afford catastrophic insurance. That's why we offer it through employers, and why eery other developed country does it through the government. So, if you are advocating a private insurance option with one risk pool, and public help for the poor, then a private/public option is possible. If you are advocating the chance for companies to exclude people from a coverage group, then folks will stay uninsured. Dan M. mail2web LIVE Free email based on Microsoft® Exchange technology - http://link.mail2web.com/LIVE ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
John said: That is incorrect. In 2007, the top 1% paid 40% of the federal income taxes, the top 5% paid 61%, and the top 10% paid 71% of taxes. If the middle class is 25%-75%, then the upper class, top 25%, paid a whopping 87% of federal income taxes. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html I saw that, but since it was a polemic site, I went to the source they quoted. They contradict that source, by a wide margin. At http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html we have the IRS figures. The top 1% of all returns paid 20% of the total income tax on 13% of the total reported income. But, of course, they paid only a small fraction of other federal taxes (biggest one is FICA where they are capped at about 16,000, capital gains don't count and are taxed at a special low rate (which mattered in '07), offshore income doesn't count, etc. And, the total number of returns includes all the returns by kids who make $600/year and get $20.00 backthe income on about a third of the returns is so small taxes aren't owed. If you look at the top 1% of folks who did pay income tax, the fractions become smaller. But, what is critical is the site you quoted contradicted their stated source. This sorta stuff happens all the time; that is why I try to get to the real source. I'm not calling _you_ a liar, BTW. There are two reasons for this. I don't think you'd lie about thisso I guess I do make personal judgements after all, huh? :-) Second, I wouldn't call someone out as a liar unless I had proof. But, I will say that you are someone who believed liars. Now, if my arithmatic is wrong, then I gave the source for you to check me. But, there was something fishy about that number. Dan M. mail2web LIVE Free email based on Microsoft® Exchange technology - http://link.mail2web.com/LIVE ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Knowledge of Complex Systems and Spellcheckers
OK, my spell checker got me good. We know that, while we cannot see trends as absolute rules when dealing with complex systems, the most persimmons model consistent within the data has parsimonious the best chance of being a reasonable approximation of what we will understand as we gain a better, more detailed understanding of the system. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and application hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: First, do no harm
There is one other point that clearly falsifies the first do no harm taken as an absolute rule for medicine. Take, for example, the fact that there are always unknown factors and low probability events in medicine. For example, even with the most common surgeries, there is a chance the patient will die in surgery. Thus, if we first do no harm, we never do surgery. I think First, do no harm is intended to be like something like the law of the Iroquois Confederacy: In our every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations. It acknowledges that there will be times when it is unclear whether the decision to act now or to delay in performing a procedure on a patient is going to do harm. I think both yours and Nick's post are two takes on a liberal interpretation of that provisions; which does make sense in medical ethics. When I wrote the post, I was arguing against a fundamentalist use of that text, if you will. I know when Teri did her chaplan internship at M.D. Anderson, there were a lot of questions concerning medical ethics and there would be medical ethesists involved in working with the rest of the staff and the families on these decisions. So, I was arguing against a literalistic interpretation of the phrase itself, not the tough decisions you and Nick talked about. But, I would also argue that the first do no harm idea has morphed in society into a call for inaction until one proves no harm from something new in a number of areas. As Richard mentioned on the Culture list, there are inherently safer, cheaper forms of nuclear power that are rendered ecconomically unfeasible by the cost of satisfying safely test requirements of new designs, even when it is clear that newer designs are safer than what we are doing now. Or, the inability of NASA to adopt in a timely fashion more reliable technology because of the money and years it takes to pass official NASA reliablilty tests. Dan M. mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
Original Message: - From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:14:11 -0700 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader Taking a complicated situation and equating it to a simple one, and then assuming that what holds for the simple situation holds for the complex one, is likely to lead to incorrect information, flawed decisions, and overconfidence in one's ability to predict the evolution of the complicated situation. You are very very quite about yourself, but your posts indicate someone who has never had to properly simplify a complex situation in order to succeed. I don't think I've corresponded with anyone who writes as though they believe that Murphy's laws never apply to complex systems, and that humans can do nothing but make things worse. Your posts make the antagoist of Earth a look protechnical. :-) Dan M. mail2web.com Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
I origionally just hit reply to while multitaking and the returned it just to John. I'm sorry that it didn't go to the list, but I'm using my portable which does not have my main sorter. BTW, the below is not intended as a flame, but an accurate statement of what the posts indicate to me. I have never ever heard anyone who I know had sucessfully adressed very complex issues say or write what John writes about complex issues. It is possible that I have read such a disbelief in Murphy's laws in the last 15 or so years on line, but I don't recall. You are very very quite about yourself, but your posts indicate someone who has never had to properly simplify a complex situation in order to succeed. I don't think I've corresponded with anyone who writes as though they believe that Murphy's laws never apply to complex systems, and that humans can do nothing but make things worse. Your posts make the antagoist of Earth a look protechnical. :-) It's funny that some of his posts have brin-l as the main return and some don't. Finally, I'm sorry if folks, like John, are offended that I spare time writing to this list in between real work. Dan M. myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and application hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
What are Bill Maher's beliefs?
I've got a question on Bill Maher and germ theory. In various non-Rush type forums (e.g. the atheist alliance) there were numerous references to his favoring of alternative medicines. The quotes I've gotten (including the Letterman quote that his illness is due to being poisoned) are consistent with his viewing that standard biology is wrong on germs, AIDs, vaccines, etc. But, I haven't found a smoking gun. Does anyone have anything conclusive one way or the other on this? Dan M. mail2web.com - Microsoft® Exchange solutions from a leading provider - http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: More Pluto Goofyness . . .
Original Message: - From: Charlie Bell char...@culturelist.org Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 22:09:46 +1000 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: More Pluto Goofyness . . . On 26/08/2009, at 9:03 AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: What's a planet? Debate over Pluto rages on - CNN.com No it doesn't. *sigh* Either planets sweep their orbits of debris in which case we have 14+ or they don't and we have 8. But it's not a debate about Pluto. It's a debate about whether we have lots of planets or we have some planets and some planetoids. It's actually not a scientific debate, but a debate about semantics. Planetary science will not change with any change in definition, or what objects that orbit the sun we put in what boxes. To restate it, I don't know of any predictive or descriptive difference beteween the 8 or the 14+ planet cases. Both cases describe the same solar system; they just attribute different words to different sets of circumstances. Dan M. myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and application hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Returning to Heath Care
Since folks have expressed the desire to resume debating health care, I decide to put out some of the facts concerning health care and public opinion. 1) People want costs contained. 2) Most people, particularly the elderly, are fairly happy with what they have now, but fear the future. 3) The majority of the elderly, who are on government health care, oppose government interference in health care. 4) Any minor hint at adressing the massive amount of money spent transferring the last week of life into the last month of life will raise a firestorm. The safe side for any politician is to call these death panels and be against them. 5) Folks don't want government interfering with their private employer health care. Therefore, I conclude that folks want health care costs contained without doing anything that might possibly affect them in order to contain costs. I am now leaning towards the opinion that we will face this problem only after Medicare requires a 500 billion/year payment from the government after its funds are exhausted. Californias refusal to face its obvious unsustainable position during the last decade until the roof caved in provides good precident for this. Dan M. mail2web.com - Microsoft® Exchange solutions from a leading provider - http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
Original Message: - From: Jo Anne evens...@hevanet.com Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:14:29 -0700 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market Doug wrote: Has he been arrogant at times? Maybe, but that sort of thing is difficult to judge via email. One can often sound arrogant or diffident or whiny and not really mean to. But if arrogance was the criteria by which we judged people for their on list fitness, how long would JDG have lasted? ROFLMAO!! Exactly. And how many times did how many of us try to talk to him about the *way* he said things more that *what* he said. Well, nice to have you back in the conversation, but I differ with you on that. I think most folks with long memories know that JDG and I have gone at it many times back when he was on the list. He certainly got under my skin, but I did not count him as arrogantjust a passionate debator that really believed in his ideas. He was the most conservative long term member of the list, and I think it's no coincidence that I, an Obama delegate last year, is the closest thing we have to an arguemetative long term conservative here. I know there are long term folks more conservative than me here; they just don't get in long debates/ Indeed, I think we lost a lot of IAMOAC in the big dust upwhich ended up in a significant drop in tolerance with those who differed from the normative view of the list. I disagree, Doug. Talking about how we have worked out talking to each other, especially after 'the big blow' and a few of the smaller ones is an important steam release valve, I think, and one of the ways this list continues to work. Unfortunately, it hasn't worked nearly as well after the dust up/blow up. If you look at the number of posts per month when someone like John doesn't start a big discussion, it's down about 90% from before the times of trouble. Dan M. mail2web.com Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
Original Message: - From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 23:21:45 -0700 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care Another good reason for heath status insurance John, you realize what you are arguing, don't you. If the number a is too big, then do a bit of algebra and obtain a =b*(1+c). Pay b and c. Guess what, with this type of algebra, nothing is gained. Now, there will always be niche markets for things like health status insuranceespecially when health insurance tends to be year by year. So, someone in their 20s could pay extra to be in a big pool when they are 50. But, the only reason that young folks can pay health insurance costs is that they don't have families and are in the low risk pool. So, they postpone the inevitable. There is a reason why there isn't affordable long term insurance. It's in the algebra. What you are searching for is akin to trying to find an even prime number. Dan M. mail2web.com What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
Did someone say John's been on this list for 10 years? Did I misread that?? I told John many of us had been. Maybe that got mangled. Maybe by me. :-) Dan M. myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and application hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Brin-:L the 2nd decade
Original Message: - From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 20:08:44 -0700 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market I was just asking questions. Actually, the same question has been asked and answered N times. Nomominal social behavior is for the asker to either help the various responders understand why he doesn't get the answer or to acknowledge that his question has been answered. BTW, like an old married couple, we're sorta exhausted lines of discussion on this list because hundreds to thousands of posts have been written by the long standing members of the list. We know each other and know each other's positions. For this, and other reasons that Rob alluded to, traffic on this list has dropped down. I'll give you points for being a novelty. It's easy to respond to your posts, many of them are hanging curves, belt high over the middle of the plate for those who differ with you. But, I think most people, and not just me, would like actual dialoglike we use to have. BTW, I still am having IM discussions with a former list member who's become a very good friendand I've learned a lot. IIRC, he's publishing in four different types of professional journals virtually simultaneously as we write. Dan M. mail2web.com Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
Rob wrote: LOL.I'm the cellar dweller! Yea, that's true, but we know why. That's where all the best list wines are kept. Dan M. mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
FWIW the _Atlantic_ article is well worth reading carefully. I've already forwarded the link with my recommendation to a couple of other lists, and got a couple of comments back. The problems the article lists are real; I won't argue that the present system is really messed up. However, the solution of having high deductables has been tried; and the results are counterprodutive. People under those conditions eschew paying for services until they reach crisis porportions, then they go in. They gamble that things will get better on their own, and if they lose, they only risk their deductable. Obama, yesterday, was right on target when he said there was no single silver bullet for this problem. But, we do know things can be better, because we are paying twice as much as the average developed country per person with worse than average results. FWIW, I've discussed this with numerous professionals (including my brother-in-law who is one of the few doctors who take Medicaid paitients and patients who can pay only part of their bill, a friend who was the chief administrator of a hospital ranked one of the 100 best in the US, before she went on to an even better hospital, and others who develop new products and are frustrated with how hard it is to get them past regulations and into use. Ironically, one of the things that John is ralling about has become the rallying cry for the anti-government groups: any attempt to decrease the spending of hundreds of thousands on the last month of life so mom or dad could painfully exist the world in four weeks insteasd of four days. Thank God my sister was a hospice nurse, so we knew enough to discuss this and let dad die when gangrine formed in his legs at 90 when his circulation dropped. We could have had an expensive painful amputation, used extrodinary measures, and he would have lived a couple more years in agony and dementia. We chose to let him die. Counseling on this is not a death panel, and Congressmen villifying this after promoting it is some of the worst bad faith I remember in politics. Dan M. mail2web.com Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
Original Message: - From: Trent Shipley tship...@deru.com Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 15:19:16 -0700 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market Obama, yesterday, was right on target when he said there was no single silver bullet for this problem. But, we do know things can be better, because we are paying twice as much as the average developed country per person with worse than average results. I have heard, but have been too lazy to confirm, that there is a GDP per capita health care spending curve, and as a very affluent country the USA is almost right where it should be on that predictive model. Well, the curve would have to be a specially shaped curve for that to be true. In 2 minutes I found: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004ra nk.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004ra nk.html Note how Norway per capita GDP is 20% higher than that of the US, yet it's percentage of GDP spending on health care is only 58%. Looking further we see that it's infant mortality rate is just of half of the US's, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate and its life expectency is 19th in the world compared to the US's 45th http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy I've been to Norway many times and know a number of Norwegians. It's government is one of the more socialistic governments in Europe and is far more intrusive in the ecconomy than the US's. I can't do a scatter plot here, but, if you did a polynomial fit that predicted this, you would need as many orders as data points. :-) So, with only 5 minutes of work, I have pulled up data falsifying this propaganda. Dan M. Dan M. mail2web.com What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
The most enjoyable discussions for me involve new ideas or points of view that I have not encountered before. People interested in SF seem to be more likely to have unique ideas than people who are not SF fans. Not that there isn't a lot of noise of conventional ideas mixed in...anyway, I write about my points of view, and hopefully they are interesting to some, and I hope others will do the same. Well, that explains a lot. There are some _very_ old ideas that I accept (e.g. a good position needs logical consistency) that I see as being the cause of us going in circles. For what it's worth, virtually nothing you've written has been new to me. I've seen new combinations, but virtually all of them involve, IMHO, contradictions that are not accepted by the author. My humble opinion is that, with most internet discussions Ecclesiastes 1:9 is right on target. The value of these discussions, IMHO, is when both parties agree to accept ground rules of logical arguement and data. I realize that my request for that has been called by you trying to impose my will on others. But, if you look at where actual progress has been made (e.g. in science), that has always been present. Thanks for giving me information that helps me figure out from where you are writing. I am very much oblidged for you doing this. I just find it amusing how different your view and Shelly Glashow's views are concerning the vetting of new ideas(he was one of 3 people who developed the standard model of physics). Dan M. Dan M. myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and application hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
I do agree that there is little experimentation going on right now in government. One of the best reasons for getting humanity out into space is to allow that experimentation to begin again. One thing to remember about experimentation: 99.99% of experiments fail; they do not achieve the goals they set out to achieve. In physics, theorists have come up with tens if not hundreds of thousands of wrong theories. Shelly Glashow, who I mentioned, said he came up with 5 new theories per day. Only one of his really paid off...and it paid off big. Most experiments in physics dont find the new and exciting thing they are looking for; they just find that the 2 sigma signal they spent 2 years getting more data on disappear. Economic studies have shown that, for average entrepreneurs, the business ends up failing and costing money. We are fortunate that we have these folks, because every once in a while they come up with something that _really_ benefits everyone. But, even averaging the winners in, the average person taking a risk on a new business loses money. Finally, we do have experimentation in government. California and Texas have very different governments; and very different sets of problems. California is wining the race down to failure, it seems.because Texas doesn't have much of a housing problem and is not about to go bankrupt. You may argue that these are minimalistic changes; and they are. But big changes work better in fiction than in fact. The American Republic stands almost uniquely as a radically new form of government that worked. (Its not the only working form of representative government, of course, but the other representative governments changed to something close to 1 man 1 vote after the US was shown to survive the Civil War.) Dan M. myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and application hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
A Real Free Market in Health Care
People on this list have argued for the advantages of a free market system for health care and health care insurance. I have thought about it, and decided to apply what we know from other markets that have considerable less government intervention. For example, big screen TVs. If you have the money and want it enough, you decide to buy it. If you don't have the money, you don't buy it. So, if a heart bypass will save someone's life, and they don't have the cash to pay for it and the banks won't loan them the money, they die. If someone cannot afford chemotherapy, they don't get it. Thus, they die. The closest thing we have to this in the US are those folks who don't have health insurance and do not qualify for Medicare. We find that those among this group are more likely to die if they have a first stage cancer than someone with health insurance and a second stage cancer. And, this even with the non-free market principal that hospitals must provide care if death is imminent without care. Now, one might argue that privately bought insurance is the answer to this. Well, normal insurance for someone with no history of health problems is about 6500 per year for an individual and about 14k/year for a family (paying for COBRA for my daughter who's between being covered by our health care and health care from her first real job gives me the first number pretty accurately). But, if one has risk, one has to get risk pool insurance. I own my own business, and looked at private insurance vs. COBRA for our family. The health insurance broker looked at our family and gave up...my wife had a pre-existing condition, which meant he couldn't compete. My friend who is also self-employed has a wife with diabetes. He has to pay in the 40k range for basic, no frills insurance. If we extend this to eliminating Medicare, we will clearly see that as one ages, one goes from the low risk to the high risk pool. Thus, older people will find that they would have to pay 40k+ for insurance. For the vast majority of them, this will exceed the maximum amount of income they could devote to insurance (assuming they ate and lived somewhere cheap). Thus, they would not have insurance, and would be looking at any serious treatment as too expensive. The result would be that a lot of people would die far sooner. John Williams pointed out the absurdity of paying for very expensive surgery for those in there late 80s, who are likely to die soon. I don't disagree with thatthe US system is just about the only one where that happens. But, lets say someone can have chemotherapy at 70, the cancer goes into remission, and they live another 15 years. That's not absurd, IMHO. So, I'm curious. Do the advocates of switching to the only totally free market health care system in the world, you know those who are not their brothers keepers, think that we are morally obliged to go to a system that will lower US life expectancy significantly (probably 5-10 years)? Dan M. mail2web.com - Microsoft® Exchange solutions from a leading provider - http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Why not discuss the topic?
Original Message: - From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:30:03 -0700 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Why not discuss the topic? On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 6:43 AM, Dan Mdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: Your writings are consistent with the viewpoint of one who knows government is the root cause of all that is wrong a priori, and needs not look at data to look at the truth. Just so you know: 1) I saw your similar post about this the first time, several weeks ago 2) We had a similar discussion last year 3) Because of 2) and things that you write like the above quoted paragraph, I am not interested in discussing this with you Actually, I gave a lot more data this timebecause I believe ecconomics is an emperical subject. I looked for data that would support my arguement...checked it with someone who has a lot of old schoolmates who worked for the investment banks, and then wrote. I'm sure you see why I am coming to the conclusion that you'd like to avoid specifics when discussing this topic. I can understand why, data do not support your conclusions. Dan M. Dan M. mail2web.com What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
Original Message: - From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:56:01 -0700 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 7:01 AM, Dan Mdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: John, would you agree that some sort of community system, like the courts, are necessary to resolve disputes over true ownership of property, contracts, and the like? Necessary, no, I can imagine alternatives that might be practical, at least on a small scale. But desirable, yes, I think it is a good idea to have some sort of government justice system to settle contractual and legal disagreements. I've never met anyone who thinks that a free market means total anarchy. A free market simply means that people are free to enter into agreements with others. If these agreements are formalized into a contract, then it is a good idea to have some way -- that all parties agree is fair -- to enforce the contract. I think a government controlled enforcement system is a good idea, since I suspect that any privately run enforcement system would be more likely to be suborned than a government controlled system. I thought you'd say that, it's a reasonable position. But, I know from personal experience, that one of the main tactics of Fortune 500 corporations is to game the legal system in order to take the property of others. I'll give three examples from personal experience. Yes, these are individual stories, but since the number of personal connections I have is limitedit gives a much better measure of what actually happens than stories that are told by people who sample all possible stories of what has happened in the US. #1. Friends of mine invented geosteering. They signed away their rights to the patent as a matter of employmentit's a pre-requsite and not really the problem I'm talking about. A competitor patented something that, by law, they could not patent. They couldn't because they had disclosed it before the patent. The company they, and I worked for, patented this geosteering technique. If the law were enforced properly, our former employer would get 5% royalties for the use of the patented technique, while paying nothing for the invention of the other company. But, as things ususally go, it's not what reality is; it's how good your lawyers are and how big you are. Our employers were rolled and ended up paying for a bogus patent and getting $0.00 for their own patent. One emperical fact that butresses this is the fact that the most junior patent lawyer makes far more than the top inventor. The problem is sometimes corruption. But, even with a non-corrupt system, the judge is does not possess ordinary skill in the art. The value of a patent is not fact based, but how well you can convince a judges. Sure, there is the occasional exception, like variable wiper blades, which make great movies. But, that is the exception. Even patent examiners, who have to be engineers, do not know enough about the fields they judge to seperate the wheat from the chaff. #2. I sat on a Fortune 500 company's patent commitee for 7 years. I listened very carefullly when senior legal council spoke. The said flat out our policy is to use our muscle to roll anyone small who has a patent claimthey can't stand up to us. They all but admitted that they would fold before anyone bigger. #3. One of the two key inventors asked for a raise. He was laughed at to his face who'd hire you was the quote. It turned out that this company, and the other two companies in the field had an agreement to honor each others illegal restriction on workers. Now, it was illegal to restrict employmentafter the employee spent his life savings in court he could get that rulingbut it was legal to honor such restrictions. #4. You might argue that this would be a perfect place for a start-up. It was. They were hired by a start-up and promply sued for millions for theft of intellectual property. The property was everything they knew. After a couple of years, and 10 million dollars, a deal was reached. The startup would hire no more people who had been employed by the suing company and the charges would be dropped. They learned their lesson. #5. One of our good friends holds the first bioengeering patent. His partner ended up buying the patent from the company he worked for when it closed. He found a major corporation violated it. He tried to enforce the patent. His laywer told him it was a hopeless case: they were too big and he was too small. But, since it was worth multi-millions he pressed on. That was a _big_ mistake. They countersued with scores of false infringement claims. Each one took hours of paperwork to counter, as well as legal fees. After he lost 300k, he was asked willing to give up? He had to, he was out of money. So, even the minimal government involvement is gamed by those with power. In a pure
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
This went just to john instead of the list twice. I'm not sure why. On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 4:40 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.netdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: Sounds like you have a problem with the government-run patent system. If you understood the patent system and how these issues arise, you would know that isn't true. These issues are settled in the courts, not by patent examiners. What I was trying to point out is that even the most minimal government possible: courts that decide property and contract law, are subject to gaming by those who can have the resources to game the system. The fact that the bottom of the rung gamer is paid _a lot_ more than the top innovator tells me something loud and clear: gaming the system is more important the coming up with the innovation yourself. The patent system itself has its flaws, but those are not the critical factors. _On paper_ the system works just fine. It's just that the way it really works, like most contract law, the Golden Rule of Texas is followed. The way to make money, as was pointed out on the local business program, is to insert yourself into the money stream. Thus, investment bankers who lost trillions for others made billions for themselves, using a model that was inherently flawed but was thought to be a brilliant financial breakthrough by virtually everyone in the financial system. Dan M. mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
Actually, I favor no patent or IP restrictions. I do not know of any way to prevent gaming the system, and I think the benefits of the system, as implemented, are outweighed by the costs, several of which Dan mentioned. Lets assume that companies that innovated got nothing more than a few months head start on the competition copying them. In that case, innovation would only happen when the few months paid for all the RD. Otherwise, the smart move would be to always wait for the other guy to do all the hard work. As flawed as things are, as much as it doesn't favor the smaller guys, I'm in favor of a system that allows those that create wealth to at least sometimes keep some of it. If you look at the last 1500 years, you will see that the increase in wealth per worker is due to innovations. Occasionally, as with Wal-Mart, the innovations are not patentable but hard to copy. But, mostly, they are brand new thing, but once shown..quite copyable. In particular, the high cost of drug development and the relative low cost of production would mean that, without patent protection, there would be few if any new drugs. Only fools would throw hundreds of millions in the toilet. BTW, I chose IP gaming examples because that's what I know best. The entire legal system is subject to gamingwhy do you think there are so many lawyers who make so much money compared to those folks who create wealth who make less? Dan M. Dan M. Dan M. mail2web.com What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
Compassion, folks. IAAMOAC. I agree with your points Jo Anne, and welcome hearing from you. mail2web LIVE Free email based on Microsoft® Exchange technology - http://link.mail2web.com/LIVE ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
BTW, I chose IP gaming examples because that's what I know best. The entire legal system is subject to gamingwhy do you think there are so many lawyers who make so much money compared to those folks who create wealth who make less? Thus my earlier statement that we have too many laws and excessively complex laws. That comes from have too many politicians, and too much government. OK, then why do we have so many more lawyers than much more socialistic countries that have a far more complex history of laws than the US? There is a model that fits all these data. The US is the most individualistic of all the developed countries. If you traveled or talked to folks from Europe, you would know that. We have far more litigation than any of those countries. Instead of control by governmental bureaucrats, we have a version of the old gunfightonly in the courts. See, if X is the problem, one would think that reducing X would decrease the problem. Yet, the developed country that values and promotes individualism the most has the most lawyers. Dan M. mail2web LIVE Free email based on Microsoft® Exchange technology - http://link.mail2web.com/LIVE ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
Compassion and government are strange bedfellows. I'd prefer to express my compassion without government. I understand. But, since you expressed it as I am not my brother's keeper, that's what most folks would call no compassion. You are free to express itbut we are free to disagree. Dan M. mail2web.com Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
Original Message: - From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:20:38 -0700 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Dan Mdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: No, that is the fault of the laws as written. The problem with the court system is that they do not understand enough to enforce the laws as written. Or it could be that the laws are too many and too poorly written for the courts to efficiently enforce them. I wasn't clear. They don't understand enough about what is being regulated to enforce the laws. The laws are very clear to me; its how one interprets these clear laws in the light of facts that are far too complex for the judge to understand. Or, if you just want to consider the law, think about the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is a _very_ simple document. Its interpretation has been varied, subtle and complex. What percentage of lawyers or court time do you think is expended on arguing cases about the Bill of Rights? Well, directly, few. But, from the Bill of Rights, we obtain court rulings or precidents for numerous occasions. Every criminal case involves many of these. Just as Maxwells laws are as simple as can be, but the application of them in real world situations is usually very complex. I would bet a beer against a case that you have never created, say, 10 million dollars of wealth by taking a very complex situation into something simple. If you had, I'd be shocked if you had the attitudes you did. Not trying to diss you, but your posts do not covey the understanding of the essense of simplicity and complexity and their application to practical problems. If you have understandings that I do not see, then I'd be very interested in hearing them. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com mail2web.com What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
Sorry John, After several posts went to Brin-L I thought the problem was fixed. The ones that do and those that don't all have similar headers oh my side. Original Message: - From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:30:31 -0700 To: dsummersmi...@comcast.net, brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 7:39 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.netdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: OK, then why do we have so many more lawyers than much more socialistic countries that have a far more complex history of laws than the US? I'm no really following you. Do you mean to suggest that number of lawyers is a metric for the quality (or disfunctionality?) of a court system? No, its a metric on what fraction of GDP is spent on litigation. Since litigation doesn't create wealth, is a drain on society. I also assume that where there are more lawyers, we have the legal system used as a means of individuals assering what they consider their rights in the part of government that libertarians favor. And why are you comparing to socialist governments? I would think you would compare to something as similar as possible. There are so many other things (than number of laws) that could affect the number of lawyers in a country with a socialist government. Ah, and since I can't track down every possibility, you immunize yourself against falisfication, again. I was going for simplicity, which you say you like, but every time I use it you diss it. See, if X is the problem, one would think that reducing X would decrease the problem. Yet, the developed country that values and promotes individualism the most has the most lawyers. When America was young and had much fewer laws and less government, did it have more lawyers? OK, lets look at the 20 and early 30s, when the government was much smaller. Key interpretation of laws clearly posed tremendous restrictions on most people. It's not getting silly. It's just not going the way you want the facts to go. That != silly. Dan M. mail2web.com What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care
I think I fell victim to several non-glitches in a row and accidently sent this to just John. Sorry. But, I found a fast way to fix it...so I'll try to be good from now on. Original Message: - From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:36:46 -0700 To: dsummersmi...@comcast.net, brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: A Real Free Market in Health Care On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 7:43 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.netdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: I understand. But, since you expressed it as I am not my brother's keeper, that's what most folks would call no compassion. You are free to express itbut we are free to disagree. Why do we always end up with such silly exchanges? Of course you are free to judge me to have no compassion. Seems a rather cruel judgement, though. Well, when you quote Cain as a fudmental moral position, you write words that result in a straight reading of the text leading to that conclusion. Dan M. mail2web.com - Microsoft® Exchange solutions from a leading provider - http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Why not discuss the topic?
Original Message: - From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:59:48 -0700 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: WeChooseTheMoon On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Dan Mdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: Folks do get health care, just not in an efficient or timely fashion. In fact, my Republican congressman says that about 20% of the cost of health care for those with insurance is covering the care and the overhead for hiding the cost of the care of those who can't pay for the care they need not to die. I can pay not to die? Is there a guarantee? I know you are neither stupid nor ignorant. Why don't you converse in a manner that adresses the ideas presented instead of trying to find a way not to? I have A Modest Proposal on this. The free market would be part of evolutionthose who cannot afford healthcare would be considered unfit until all humans could afford it. :-) It? Afford what, exactly? Presumably I don't get the joke. Health care if one gets seriously ill twice. Come on, you have to know the underlying facts. Why not present your vantage point given those facts. There are arguements for the free market. My Congressman wants a free market solution, and I respect him because he doesn't pretend facts don't exist. I realize you can make smart ass comments, but I've been hearing back from when newsgroups were new and hot. Don't they get boring? Why not agree upon facts and play chess; where one's opponents are one's friends because they are the ones who help you understand more? Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com mail2web.com - Microsoft® Exchange solutions from a leading provider - http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: WeChooseTheMoon
An interesting aside on this. It took the Mercury program a bit over 9 months to go from the first sub-orbital flight to the first orbital flight. The big private enterprise sub-orbital flight happened almost 5 years ago (5 years this coming November IIRC). It cost 100 million to develop, and won a prize of 10 million. I can find nothing in development for private orbital flight. (By private I mean without government money, not government contractors). I have no idea when it will happen, but I will bet a case of beer against one beer that it will be more than 10 years from the first sub-orbital flight. Yes, we have announcement of Virgin planning sub-orbital flights in a big-time manner, which will probably be close enough to break even to be worth it in PR. And, the owner is a multi-billionaire who could afford it. But, I think it very worth noting that we are not talking about a step that took the government less than a year not being on the privatae horizen after 5 years. There is something fundamental going on here, IMHO. Dan M. mail2web.com What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: WeChooseTheMoon
Original Message: - From: Bruce Bostwick lihan161...@sbcglobal.net Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:04:59 -0500 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: WeChooseTheMoon It seems like a cruel joke nowadays, that 1950's-1960's technology landed human beings on the moon and all the more modern technology we had later on fell so far short of that mark. I'm with Pournelle on that .. never thought I'd live to see the last ones. One thing that the non-inventor and/or non technical project leader often fails to have a gut feel for is how often advances are dictated by where 5000 foot sheer cliffs and what passes appear as we explore new landscape. I have buddies that made tremendous leaps forward in just a year or two; I've also been part of efforts that looked promising at first, but ended up being dead ends. If you look at the last 40 years of development most of it has been tied, directly or indirectly, to Moore's law. For example, in my field, I and my productive friends would never have been able to design tools without the myriad uses that we put computers to. It allowed us to model responses, it allowed us to build better mechanical parts, it allowed for far superior electronics design, it allowed us to run fast computers at 175C with tools that withstand shocks of 1000G and rms vibrations of 20G over a vast random frequency range for hours. Without computers being fast, none of this would have been possible. Unfortunately, aerospace is a place where, after 40 years of development, a 30% savings in fuel cost is a big thing. There is a cliff there, and no passes have been found since the heady days of the '60s. But, remember, that was a time when engineering was paid cost plus, and money was no object. Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com mail2web.com Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Drinking Water From Air Humidity
Original Message: - From: Charlie Bell char...@culturelist.org Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:25:51 +1000 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Drinking Water From Air Humidity Charlie wrote: Read it again properly, and don't treat me like a first grader. I asked how much energy is required and you said none. I read the reply three times, an d at best the answer seemed to sidestep the question.as did every promotional piece on it. Having lived in a hot humid climate, and having gone through a month of humid weather with no rain, I have some feel for how energy intensive this process is in the middle of the day in Houston, where it is extremely humid. Far more humid than more deserts. It's a WIND TURBINE. I said it was a wind turbine in my original post. Right, and there are wind turbines that passed me on the road capable of generating multiple MW per hour. I was trying to find out if anyone had numbers on the name plate capacity of the turbine vs. the liters per day. Because it clearly won't work well at any time but the pre dawn hours in the desert. The collectors have to be cooled below the dew point. Let me give a US example. In Las Vegas yesterday, in the heat of the day, the temperature was 42C, while the dew point was -1C. Even shaded, it takes tremendous power to keep collectors that cold while deliberately being exposed to a very hot wind. At the coolist hour, the temp was 28C, and the dew point rose to 4 C. At that temperature difference, with a perfect lossless system, roughly 10% of the total cooling has to be added as power. Between the cooling necessary to keep a panel cooling the atmosphere as it blows past it, and the energy emitted by the latent heat of vaporization, there's quite a bit of energy per liter involved. How much involves a lot of specifics. Inherently its the type of problem one usually solves by reading the specificationsbecause I'd have to guess a lot on the efficiency of the unit in only cooling the air it takes water out of and maximizing how much it cools it. For example, if the dew point is 2C and the condensor is 1C, one only takes the water that represents the water capacity of air at 2C vs. 1C out of the atmosphere. So, one would need to pick a lower tempbut how low depends on specifics, and is a days long enegeering problem. But, none of the promos offer specifications. No external source of energy. Self contained. OK if you want to be super pedantic you can say wind or light is the external source of energy, but to me that means energy that has to be transported to site like fuel or power lines. But, self contained electricity units are very ineffecient and thus expensive. In a sense, self-contained energy production is usually seen by the public as not counting. But, if we were to compare its efficiency vs. desalinisation in energy/liter, we'd need to know the energy per liter numberssomething that's just not available. In essense, for this to work in the desert, it would have to cool condensors to below freezing to then cool the air below the dew point. And, this system would only work at all decently in the few hours before dawn if the wind was blowing hard. In other words, I'd bet a case vs. a bottle of beer that it's a lot prettier on paper than in practice as a means of providing, say, Las Vegas, with drinking water. Because turbines supply the energy doesn't mean that its energy efficient. Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com mail2web.com - Microsoft® Exchange solutions from a leading provider - http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: French tour etiquette
Original Message: - From: Charlie Bell char...@culturelist.org Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 19:02:24 +1000 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: French tour etiquette ... the greatest show on earth Well, IMHO, today was pretty exciting. Do you remember when a rider had the best time on tour without wearing the yellow jersey before? I'm not complaining as an American, it seems to me that having only 1 yellow jeresey wearer is reasonable, and going to the hundreths of a second to determine which of the two who are tied for the yellow actually wears it is the most logical thing to do. But, it's unique in my experience for this to happenand it is expected to last for several days because, IIRC, all riders who finish in a bunch finish get the same time, so it will be mountain time before we get a new yellow. All in all, I enjoyed today's coverage. Dan M. You got it - as team leader, Contador is serviced and protected by his domestiques. But team leader or not, if you're in yellow, you're the leader of Le Tour, and you have every right to expect your team to help you defend it. And as it's looking like it was Contador's inexperience or inattention that facilitated the split, he should probably keep his head well in until the climb to Andorra. Charlie. GCU Go Cavo!!! first brit to defend a green jersey ever class ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Iran
Original Message: - From: Charlie Bell char...@culturelist.org Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:10:27 +1000 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Iran On 28/06/2009, at 8:15 AM, Dan M wrote: Even with reporters locked up in their hotel rooms, I would guess than marches of tens of thousands would be heard in the hotels. The types of reports that are getting out indicate that, if anything, the younger more militant aspects of the guard are increasing their power. (I'm thinking of the folks who captured a UK ship as an example). Um... a ship? Do you mean the Marines patrol boat a couple of years ago? Wasn't a ship. Sorry Charlie. You have to remember that, when I was I kid I was on many a boat longer than 200 meters, with the biggest over 300 meters and 30k tons. I realize that it wasn't a big ship, but the way I was raised: saltwater=ship, freshwater=boat. Size didn't matter. But that's what I meant, yea. Even in Britian you might have heard the song the Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald. I was on the Mighty Fitz a number of times and can still close my eyes amd remember the smell of those boats. Dan M. mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: On the Housing Market
Original Message: - From: David Hobby hob...@newpaltz.edu Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 00:08:53 -0500 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: On the Housing Market Rceeberger wrote: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-housing-chart-thats-worth-1000-words-2009 -2 Housing prices may still have a ways to fall. Rob-- Wow. That's certainly what the chart shows. Is it really that clear? If it were, you'd think that enough investors would have bet against the housing bubble that it never would have happened. The bubble was that clear, particularly where housing prices skyrocketed up on the coasts, in NV, etc. There is no way that a doubling in price is anything but a bubble. But, the house I sold, I had to put in about $10k of upgrades and sold at about 10k over what I bought (in inflation ajdusted dollars), so the bubble isn't everywhere. But, we're now starting to drop in value as the market dries up. Houses are now much bigger than they were in the '50s, GDP per capita is much higher, etc. So, a rise in inflation adjusted home prices is not inherently inappropriate: one would not expect to pay the same price for a 3000 sq. ft. house as for a 1500 sq. ft. house, especially if the 3000 sq. ft. house is much nicer. The rent vs. own question is still important. Right now, we're living in a 1350 sq. ft. apartment that costs more than our mortgage payments were on our 3000 sq. ft. house. Working it all out, if it wasn't for the value of getting our appreciation while we did and the relative ease of leaving an apartment when Teri got called, it would have been cheaper to stay in the big house, maintaince costs and all. Dan M. So, home prices could now be 10% overvalued. mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Galactic Effect On Biodiversity
I didn't read about it before last night but this summary of the problem of induction from the Wikipedia article on the Cosmological Principal describes my feelings rather well: Empirical observations of patterns occurring within a limited scope can shed no light on the state of things outside that scope. If you really believe that, then you would throw most of evolutionary theory out, beause we've only been making good scientific measurements over a very limited scope of time, say the last 150-200 years. But, in evolution, we make inferences concerning time by all sorts of different methods. I consider them valid measurements. Just as I consider orbiting telescope measurements valid measurements of distant, past events. But, there is no scientific arguement that can possibly counter Last Thursdayism. But, if we limit ourselves to science modeling what we observe, then having both the universe and life on earth evolve over billions of years makes sense. The next assumption that I would make is that the earth is not in a phenomenally unique position in the universe. I think entropy is a good model to see what I mean. Take for example, a glass full of milk delecately balance on the edge of a counter. A draft of air hits it; it falls, and hits the carpet. The glass is broken an the milk is spilled, soaking the carpet. At a microscopic level, each process involved is reversible. There is an extrodinarily samll but very real chance that macroscopic phenomenon would reverse, and the milk would unsoak, regather; the glass would reattach itself and the glass of milk would find its way back on the counter. The arguement against this is entropy, but that's statistical. The chance of this happening is 1 in 10 to the zillinth power, but not zero. Positing that our galaxie is not in a unique place in the universe is akin to this. It would be arguing that we happen to be at the very center of the universe, and the highly isotropic nature of the observed universe in all directions is merely a result of this. You can't disprove this assumption, but we know no reason to accept it. So, models assume that our galaxy is not singular in its position. Finally, I assume that modern physics (say from SR on) is correct, and we do not live in a Newtonian/Maxwellian universe. If you give me that much, I can show why the principal alternatives to the big bang have far bigger problems in matching data than does the big bang (especially as modified by inflation). It will take some work to walk through the physics. I don't mind doing it, but don't want to do this if the real difference in our viewpoints are with the basic assumptions each of us are making. Not to accuse you of anything, but it feels to me that you are tacitly assuming that QM is inherently wrong.becasue if I am allowed to assume QM, SR, and GR, the arguement becomes pretty straightforward. From past discussions, I think you differ with physicists in that you want science to describe reality instead of merely modeling observations. But, I will stand to be corrected, I just don't want to write long posts that are not germaine to your main arguement. Dan M. Dan M. mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Galactic Effect On Biodiversity
On 26/01/2009, at 7:38 AM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: Empirical observations of patterns occurring within a limited scope can shed no light on the state of things outside that scope. If you really believe that, then you would throw most of evolutionary theory out, beause we've only been making good scientific measurements over a very limited scope of time, say the last 150-200 years. Given that it's the 150th anniversary of the publication of The Origin this year, and that built on a couple of decades of research by Darwin... Most of evolutionary theory was built in the last 100 years, once the mechanism of heredity was worked out and the statistical tools were developed to actually test Darwin's ideas. You would not throw out most of evolutionary theory at all, by your criterion. Really, it's amazing how much of what most people think they know about biological science, particularly evolutionary biology, is completely wrong. I think that I didn't clearly communicate my point. I read the paragraph you wrote above and there is nothing that contradicts the understanding I had when I wrote my post. I was getting at another point entirely. For evolution to make sense, you have to have millions of years of time over which it occured. If the observations we have made since, say, 50 years before Darwin, shed no light at all over what happened before that time, how do we understand evolution? If, for example, fusion wasn't found, we'd be scratching our heads because we couldn't reconcile the maximum length of time that the sun could possibly shine with the intensity it does (I think about 6,000 years without nuclear physics) and the length of time needed for what we see now to evolve from the most primitive form of life. All evolutionary models that I've seen have 1 billion years between the time that life first existed and now. There are no young earth evolutionary models that are real scientific theories (well maybe there is a falsified theory that I don't know about, but you know what I mean). The model extends over a time frame that is many orders of magnitude than do the observations. That's all I was saying. I understand that evolution is the best means we have to understand biology, and it's not just a means to understand fossils, and that fossils are in no way essential to the theory. Fossil record, for example. It's nice that the fossil record is there and is so detailed, but it's entirely superfluous to evolutionary theory. There are nice overlaps, but evolutionary theory explains the fossil record, not the other way round. Yea, models are verified by observations of all kinds. If they don't match observations, they aren't good models. The more data to check the theory against the better. The smaller the difference that falsifies the model, the better. (BTW, like most physicists, I see scientific theories as models of observations) But, my point is that our understanding of life as it exists now is an evolutionary theory that describes a process that took far longer than the time scale over which scientific observations were made. Thus, if this is verbotten, then evolution wouldn't be accepted by the person who wouldn't accept that process. To summerize the arguement I was trying to make: Evolution is accepted as a well verified scientific theory (I knew Doug accepted this). Evolution is a theory that describes a process that requires far more time than the time frame over which observations were made. Therefore, if one rejects theories that require time scales that are greater than the time range of observations, then one must reject valid scientific theories, like evolution. None of the other stuff you were argueing against has anything to do with the point I was making. Dan M. mail2web LIVE Free email based on Microsoft® Exchange technology - http://link.mail2web.com/LIVE ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Galactic Effect On Biodiversity
Original Message: - From: Doug Pensinger brig...@zo.com Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:15:44 -0800 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Galactic Effect On Biodiversity Dan wrote: If you really believe that, then you would throw most of evolutionary theory out, beause we've only been making good scientific measurements over a very limited scope of time, say the last 150-200 years. The difference in limits of scope between evolution on earth and universal evolution, if you will, are vast. Not that vast. Now, as Charlie pointed out, I'm no expert in biology, but everything I've read indicates the timescale of the universe and the timescale of life on earth are best estimated to be within a factor of 10 of each other. Wikipedia (not the best source I know but probably good for an estimate) has single cell life existing on the earth for 3 billion years. We have data points from near the beginning of life on earth to the present, but in UE we have comparatively few data points. A couple of things. First, I've long understood that fossil records are not critical to the theory of evolution (just to reinforce the point that I've long in _agreement_ with Charlie's point on this). Second, fossil records are not measurements made in the past, but measurements made in the present that fit a model that extends far into the past. Similar things can be done with cosmology. I'd be happy to show why other models, that assume that the age of what is observed is vastly shorter than is assumed by the astrophysics community, have been fasified by the array of available data. Beyond that, where in EE we can observe and experiment upon the entire real time scope, in UE we must make our observations from a minuscule point within the system. I return to my analogy about the tiny observer 1000 feet beneath the sea. How much of earths evolution could that observer deduce? Well, that observer can't see very far. How far can we see with our orbiting telescopes (tuned to various wavelengths)? The arguement against this is entropy, but that's statistical. The chance of this happening is 1 in 10 to the zillinth power, but not zero. Isn't this kind of a straw man? A fair coin will come up heads half the time, but an unfair coin is far from inconceivable. No, but if we observe billions upon billions of fair coins(galaxies), why would we live on one of the few unfair coins? In the sense I was talking about, we know that galaxies are receding from us at the same distance/pace rate (to within 1 part in 10,000) in every direction. The simplest assumption is that this is true for an observer in any given galaxy. Now you could assume that the earth just happens to be in the middle of the universe, or in another extremely rare spot, but then I think you need to explain why. Now, if you were arguing that there is variation in the universe and things like the speed of light varies, then that is a different story. People have made up models with variable fine structure constants, etc. Those have testable results, and up to now, they have provided results that do not match observations. Ah, but if you read the article on the cosmological principal you would have found in the last section (sorry about the font): I read that. But, maybe the implications are not clear. Inflation is genrally thought to occure in the 10-34 sec to 10-32 seconds after the big bang. http://aether.lbl.gov/www/science/inflation-history.html from the Lawarance Berkley Lab is my source for these numbers. I'm guessing that we don't have these numbers down cold, and the length and time of inflation might vary a good fraction of an order of magnitude here. The paper that's being discussed indicates that the data might point to events happening before 10^-34 seconds. It presupposes the big bang, in other words. It is fair to say that inflation has explained a lot. As one of my references pointed out, there were quantitative predictions made by the inflationary model that have later been varified by experimentation. So, while we still have a lot of uncertainty concerning the first small fraction of a second after the big bang, we've done a nice job matching the observed universe down to a universe that existed, say, 1 second after the big bang. It has been stated that aspects of the inflationary universe and anything before inflation involve guesswork. But, assuming that the general framework is wrong and we have to start over would take a lot more. You don't have to show me, I'll take your word for it. That merely makes the Big Bang the most correct of all the _proposed_ possibilities and says nothing about the possibilities we can't even imagine because our powers of observation and our ability to conduct experiments is so abysmally limited. But, all science does is model observations. Rich and I have very different metaphysical viewpoints, but we agree (as does virtually every physicists I have talked to
Re: Galactic Effect On Biodiversity
Original Message: - From: Wayne Eddy we...@bigpond.net.au Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 08:10:41 +1000 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Galactic Effect On Biodiversity - Original Message - From: dsummersmi...@comcast.net To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 6:38 AM Subject: Re: Galactic Effect On Biodiversity Finally, I assume that modern physics (say from SR on) is correct, and we do not live in a Newtonian/Maxwellian universe. If you give me that much, I can show why the principal alternatives to the big bang have far bigger problems in matching data than does the big bang (especially as modified by inflation). What are the principal alternatives? The main ones I know of are the steady state universe and the various young universe theories that creationists come up with. The former was a real scientific theory, the latter aren't. Do they include a matrix like we are all living in a simulation scenario? No, that's metaphysics. I don't disbelieve the big bang theory, but the theory of evolution seems much more elegant and obvious by comparison. Well, elegance is a YMMV kinda thing. Although I do agree that there is something inelegant about renormalization, it works very very well, and nothing has taken its place yet, after almost 60 years. Also the big bang theory might model things very well, but to me it seems somewhat unfullfilling. The interesting question is, What caused the big bang? That's the real Brane Teaser. The best explaination I've seen is the freezing of the vacume. But, at some point, theories just start with axioms. Dan M. mail2web.com What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
Doug wrote: Furthermore, because of concerns about climate change and unrest in the middle east, a prediction that batteries and cheap electric cars are going to be in great demand over the next several decades is a good bet. I have no arguement against the concept that cheap batteries and cheap electric cars would be in great demand. That has beent true since 1973, when the oil boycott woke us up to the dependance of the world on Mid-East oil. Since then, I've been seeing promises of competative electric cars. When gas prices were at $4.50/gallon, the premium for hybrids was within $1000 of being a wash. But, now that prices are back close to $1.50 (around here at leastbut when we were up near $4.50, I'd guess you were higher too) hybrid sales are falling like a rock. So, we've made real progress since '73. In another 35 years, we may very well have competative battery powered cars that are flexible enough to be competative in the US and European markets. We also may have biofuels that are sensible because bioengineering has progressed to the point where we have 20%+ efficiency in converting sunlight to complex, burnable, hydrocarbons. But, until that happens, China will pick the cheapest option. Even when oil recovers to reasonable, sustainable prices (say $60-$80/barrel), hybrids will not make sense until the premium is, roughly, cut in half. Compact electric cars are roughly 40k, compared to about 13k for compact gas cars, and have a range 100 miles/charge. So, these cars are only for the richand the well off Chinese who can afford to move up from a bike to a car are not rich by US standards. Further, oil usage in a country that is just starting to introduce automobiles their oil usage is not for private So a move to all electric strengthens government control by alleviating dependence on foreign oil and automobiles and expands the economy not only internally but globally. But, the Chinese do make autos, 7 million in 2006. They import oil, but they are also a producer, about 60% of their oil is internally produced. Coal is their favorite and cheapest option, so that is a plus for electricity (although a minus for the environment). So, while they would have an even better foreign trade balance than they do without importing oil, they are in a far different position than the US. For some reason, I keep on getting the feel that those who think that we can decrease worldwide CO2 output in the next 10 years feel that if nations only had the will, then they could quickly produce cheap alternative energy. It's not like the moon race, where price was no object, its more like space factories, where price is a critical factor. And so far, prices for alternative energy are not falling rapidly. That's why I think we need a disruptive innovation for things to change. For example, several years ago, there were pollution regulations passed. They have all been ignored, with no real consequences. The only exception to this was during the Olympics, when some industries had to shut down and most people had to stop driving so Beijing looked as good as possible. Well, you can only crap upstream for so long before you figure out that it's a pretty stupid habit. IIRC, we know that's been going on in India for 3000 years. :-) Perhaps the Olympics has been a wake up call for the Chinese. I haven't seen any data that indicates that the Chinese will be willing to sacrifice ecconomic growth for pollution control. That is a tradeoff that the West agreed to because we were rich enough to have that on the agenda. But, it wasn't until the '60s that we did. If history is a guide, China is a good ways away from having the per capita GDP at which countries start spending it on pollution control. Perhaps they will do it faster than average, but since they are a factor of ~9 less than the US in 2007(5.4k vs 45k on Wikipedia), it would be unrealistic to expect them to accept lower incomes to attack pollution for at least a decade. I would guess that global warming would be an issue for them later than that. I think the only possible way to change this pattern is to change the relative expense of batteries, biofuels, large capacity energy storage, etc. Without that, China will keep on adding 1% to its CO2 output for 1% growth in income (it's been faster than that lateley, but I think it will fall to that over the next 10 years or so) for at least a decade. At that point, it should have twice the CO2 output of the US and EU combined. We can wish this won't happen, but history indicates it will. Dan M. mail2web.com Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
Original Message: - From: xponentrob xponent...@comcast.net Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:56:08 -0600 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? - Original Message - From: dsummersmi...@comcast.net To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 12:00 PM Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? Since then, I've been seeing promises of competative electric cars. When gas prices were at $4.50/gallon, the premium for hybrids was within $1000 of being a wash. But, now that prices are back close to $1.50 (around here at leastbut when we were up near $4.50, I'd guess you were higher too) hybrid sales are falling like a rock. Aren't overall vehicle sales been falling like a rock? SUV/Truck sales have been getting a larger share of the pie of late, but as I understand it all sales are down and this is why *all* automakers are having troubles. But, hybrid sales are falling much faster. The latest comparison I got was through November, and (according to the eia), gas prices fell 20% from November to December. From http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/04/r-l-polk-co-ana.html quote Sales of the market-leading Prius were down 48.3% to 8,660its lowest sales month since January 2007. Camry Hybrid sales were off 57.5%, down to 2,174 units. That accounted for 8.6% of all Camry sales. Total Camry sales for the month were down 28.8%. Sales of the Highlander Hybrid were down 64.8% to 907 units, representing 11.5% of all Highlander models sold. Total Highlander sales were down 35.9% in the month. end quote So, as of November, they are dropping by about a factor of 2 more than the same gas powered models. Car sales are dropping, hybrid sales are dropping much faster. And, while I don't have the details available, indications are that the relative slide continues. In a couple of months, we'll see if there's a bottom. If not, hybrid sales will drop to the point where the sales become insignificant. Dan M. mail2web.com What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Br!n: Congratulations! Today you get rid of... of... what'shisname?
Doug wrote: Other stuff that struck me as profound: Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone can not protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead they knew that out power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint. A concept lost on the Bush administration. I agree with that and with what David said earlier. But, I was also interested in that it was balanced by other lines in the speech: We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you. And a line just before a line David quoted earlier: To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. The first of these lines had Cheney rising from his wheelchair to applaud. One of the reasons that Obama has been elected, now enjoys 80% approval, and has a real chance to lead through difficult times is that he appeals to beliefs and convictions of many Americans in a manner that few Democrats since 'Nam have been able to. He has convinced those Americans that had been nervous about the Democrats being soft that he has steel. He called out the various terrorist groups, such as Hammas, AQ, and Hezbollah, and told them they can never beat the US. But he did it in balance with lines y'all have quoted. That keeps his strong challenges as statements of strength, not bravado. Akin to this is his repeated call for personal responsibility. Personally, I think Jesse Jackson Sr. did him a favor (accidentally) when he commented about castrating him when he heard him speak about the importance of black fathers taking responsibility for their children when he spoke to a predominantly black audience. Its the balance between personal and community responsibility that appeals strongly to me. As he says, he rejects false either/or statements. I suspect that, as he actually governs, he will disappoint a lot of people with his decisions. That's the nature of real decision making; there will be people opposed to any specific move. But, my hope is that he will do this by requiring everyone to give up a sacred cow for the common good. Indeed, I find it heartening that someone like Bill Bennett was musing that he'll probably end up defending Obama to his listeners on more than one occasion. In the same stream of consciousness he said he's a complex man and I wish him well. Finally, I'd go back to the speech that got him national prominence for a core belief that can be seen as foundational to his governing: There is no Red America. There is no Blue America. There is the United States of America. I see Americans as hoping that he will truly govern from the heart of the US. Dan M. mail2web.com Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: biofuels and Li Batteries.
Original Message: - From: hkhenson hkhen...@rogers.com Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:17:41 -0700 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: biofuels and Li Batteries. At 01:00 PM 1/13/2009, Dan M wrote: I agree, but bioengineered fuels are not ethanol. There are algae that exist right now that produce aviation fuel with 1000x the efficiency of ethanol. I have a hard time with this statement. Corn comes fairly close to 3% sunlight to fixed carbon. Well, let's look at the official ethanol numbers. If you assume only 5 hours of the solar flux per day, there is about 3.6e7 MJ/acre available per acre of land per year. Corn yields about 150 bushels/acre and we produce 2.7 gallons of ethanol per gallon. With 89 MJ per gallon of ethanol, that gives about 3.6e4 MJ/acre for the ethanol. That's a factor of 1000, and would require that the algae be perfect, which I wouldn't expect. But if you put in 2/3rds of the energy available in ethanol in the process of making ethanol (which is not a bad estimate, it use to be worse100% of the output energy was lost in process), then the algae would have to be 33% efficient. Plus, I'm guessing that the lab conditions they worked under were pretty ideal, and that they assumed that the algea farms would be at lower lattitudes than Iowa...so they upped the values from 5 hours to 6 or 7. The factor of 1000 is probably a streach. When I wrote it, I wasn't thinking of a big time production reaching it. But, let's look at what just a factor of 100 would do (which puts the algae at 3% efficiency with 5 hours. We need all of the acres devoted to corn switched used for ethanol to get about 12% of the moter fuel. With a factor of 100, we're talking about 8% of the corn acreage as algae ponds. Since algae can grow in sea water, they can be set up using ocean water, removing the demand on fresh water resources for fuel. I'm not saying we can get there en mass. I'm saying, with bioengineering costs going down, it is possible that we can get there, and that we have gotten there under lab No, there are breakthroughs in many fields that are never mass marketed. What I am saying is that we don't know until we know. In my own career, there have been many times, before I ran an experiment, I was pretty sure I knew how something would work, but it didn't, and I had to scramble. Take for example, scaling up the recent Stanford breakthrough of increasing the Li-I battery capacity 10x. Is that possible from an energy standpoint? Yea, I know of no fundamental physical laws that prohibit 100x or 1000x the energy densities. Now, there may be an upper limit to chemical storage, but fundamental QED doesn't limit it. If I understand correctly, they have increased the surface area by nanotech. That sounds logical to me. The references given by Rob discuss this work, so I'll leave my contribution to this bit. Dan M. mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
Original Message: - From: Charlie Bell char...@culturelist.org Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 08:48:53 +1100 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? On 06/01/2009, at 7:58 AM, Dan M wrote: With a few minor exceptions, the USA is running largely on momentum, which is finite. How does an economy grow on momentum? It doesn't, indefinitely. And GDP is a poor measure, it really is. Even GDP per capita? Even after figuring in purchasing power parity? Is your arguement that per person income is not a good financial measure of the wealth of a country? It doesn't tackle the important stuff, like how many people are in poverty, in jail, educated, health and so on. I can understand why there would be a very complex arguement as to which country is now preferable. But, with the borderline exception of GB, most developed countries have been very good at decreasing potential problems by keeping their coutries homogeneous (e.g. keeping different ethnic groups down to small minorities). I know my Zambian daughter Neli, who studied a semester in Europe, sees Europe as clearly more racist than the US. The US is dealing with the aftereffects of slavery and Jim Crow, which has hurt in very paradoxial ways. For example, after civil rights, a large fraction of blacks though only Oreos studied hard in school, men didn't need to take care of their children, etc. My African daughters have both commented on this. The good news is that Obama's election is starting to change some minds. The US is also dealing with a massive influx of poor uneducated Hispanics across our porous border. In a couple of generations, they become as likely as the next American to be well educated, out of jail, etc, but in the short term they add considerably to the poverty rate, crime rate, etc. I know Hispanic gangs are very dangerous around here. And on all those measures, the USA is not doing well compared to other developed nations. Well, I see you didn't include unemployment, projected workers/retiree ratios, productivity or any of the factors that favor the US. Health is a very complex subject, which I'd be glad to discuss (including the fact that the US is paying for health advances that other developed countries then piggy back on), as is poverty. Again, we can have a fruitful discussion on either topic, but the realities are very complex. That plus the astonishing debt burden left by Reagan/Bush 1 and then Bush 2 and it's hard to see how the US can maintain its position long term. The debt burden (as a percentage for the US is actually lower now than in '92. After the stimulous package it will probably exceed that number, but still be far lower than it was in '46. It will be a problem, but not an insurmountable one. What I cannot figure out among all the people who think that the US is about to fall from its perch and see a singular massive depression (e.g. the US drops while every other country rises) is who's going to take over. Europe is getting old and will be seeing its population drop significantly over the next 50 years, has fianancial institutions that are far more leveraged than the US institutions as well as far less transparent. Why do you think, after the the US had a financial crisis, that the Euro dropped like a rock compared to the dollareven though the balance of trade deficits of the US should have cause the opposite. Japan is getting even older, after sufferoing a lost decade when it was projected to overtake the US for ecconomic dominence. China has far more at risk than the US, besides being far poorer. I realize that there is a great desire in the world to see the US get its comeuppance. But, while I beleived that Japan might overtake the US back in the 80s, I don't see any candidate now. What might be possible, if the US growth slows down, is a non-polar worldwhich will be far more dangerous than anything we've seen since October, '62. Dan M. mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
Original Message: - From: Nick Arnett narn...@mccmedia.com Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 14:17:07 -0800 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? From the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html As if Things Weren't Bad Enough, Russian Professor Predicts End of U.S. In Moscow, Igor Panarin's Forecasts Are All the Rage; America 'Disintegrates' in 2010 I read this a few weeks ago and got a good chuckle out of it. It shows than Americans aren't the only ones who can be clueless about how things work in other countries. :-) Dan M. myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and application hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Incoming!
Original Message: - From: Bruce Bostwick lihan161...@sbcglobal.net Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:30:53 -0600 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Incoming! Unless the fluid flow is completely laminar (which is extremely rare in nature), there's turbulence involved, which is naturally chaotic. Which is why I mentioned that that was a less informative answer than it might appear. (i.e. it was a joke .. :) OK, fair enoughbut quantum chaos comes about so quickly with virtually anything (you weren't here but I did a thought experiment that showed that h-bar introduces chaos in a billard ball though experiment in only 1-1.2 seconds). So, I guess I just don't think about that, because it's true of everything and not useful. OK, in what sense are you talking about fractals here. In particular, why shouldn't standard wave theory work? Dan M. If it were wave action, also, I'd expect some reverse flow in the cycle at least right after the front arrived. From the description, it sounded more like the wind speed varied between zero and maximum in one direction .. (to OP) right? I model phenomenon for a living. Most of it is complex enough so that it is impossible to sit down and calculate it from first principles. But, one can do phenomenology. When I was saying wave action, it was because that the first order fit to what Nick described was A(1+sin(wt)). Clearly there is a constant as well as sin term for the wind to go from zero to high to zero. Since Doug was talking about hiking in the Sierra, I immediately thought of many possible combinations that could results in this phenomenon (just think of all the valleys and canyons and natural resonences). But, in the absense of more data, I tend to think of the simplest phenomenology I can. Plus, chaos and fractal are popular physics buzz words. Most of the time, they have been misused. In particular, I don't understand how fractional dimensions are particularly useful in a modeling a pehomenon in which the information given matches A(1+sin(wt). I realize now that the reference to chaos was a joke, but I still don't understand what brought non-integer dimenisons to mind. Dan M. mail2web.com Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Incoming!
Yesterday was the Summer solstice here in the South Pacific and the day before was cold - only 6 degrees celsius. Global warming harumph. The fact that it is colder in some places than normal may be a sign of global warming. I know that some predictions say that global warming will make it colder and wetter here in our part of California because more cold air will be sucked off the Pacific by rising air in a hotter Central Valley. Global warming will lead to less stable weather and more extremes. Or already is. From what I understand of the models, that's not quite the consensus. Global warming is a long-term trend, not a year by year trend. In addition, we know that the weather had other variables, like the hurricane cycle (30s-40s many hurricanes, 70s-80s few, '00s many, or the La Nina/El Nino variation. Overall, this last year has been the coolest in the decade. This doesn't mean there is more variation than usual. For example, we've not had another dust bowl of the '30s. To first order, one should expect a general warming, and pattern changes with global warming. Most models predict more rain overall. The patterns of drought may not be more vicious, we're just more globally connected now. The data on hurricanes, in particular, is hard to pinpoint, because we can not name a tropical storm that just reaches 40 mph in the mid-Atlantic, or catch a hurricane at its peak of 155 to make it a cat 5, even though it ramped up and down fast, and hit land as only a cat 2. So, if one applies a fairly heavy, say 15 year filter, to the data, one sees global warming. If one looks for general regional trends, they are probably still mostly in the noise, but may energe later (in fact I'd be surprised if none emerged later). Dan M. mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Incoming!
I'm sure there's chaos involved in that somehow. :) Why? It sounds like a pretty clear pattern to me, not chaos. My guess is that if you were able to sample the wind speed at that point, you'd see something rather fractal, probably a 1/f distribution. The periodicity probably is a long-wavelength resonance, though, sort of like seiches in lakes .. OK, in what sense are you talking about fractals here. In particular, why shouldn't standard wave theory work? Dan M. mail2web.com Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Moving the list
Original Message: - From: Nick Arnett narn...@mccmedia.com Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:59:01 -0800 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Admin: Moving the list I'm happy with Bluehost (except for the lack of back-end access to Mailman archives)... the issue is more to do with which technology to use for archiving. They offer several kinds of wikis... I was tempted by MoinMoin because it is Python-based. Which allows you to run the list while showing your computer the full Monty? Dan M. mail2web.com What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Russia (Was What is wealth?)
Original Message: - From: Wayne Eddy we...@bigpond.net.au Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 06:59:18 +1000 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Russia (Was What is wealth?) - Original Message - From: Dan M dsummersmi...@comcast.net To: 'Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion' brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 1:34 AM Subject: RE: What is wealth? I didn't see a lot of drunks wandering the streets, but there were a few indications that alcoholism could be a bit of a problem. Well, on average they drink a lot. Averaging over the whole population, we have from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article1647475.ece A report by Gennadi Onishenko, head of the consumer protection agency, found that Russians drink 15 litres (26 pints) of pure alcohol per year I was last in Russia was in 2004 and the ecconomy seemed to have picked up a lot since when I was first there in 2000, whcih is why I question your assertion that Russia was on the slide. The majority of Russians I've met are very well educated and I definitely got the impression that Russia was recovering nicely from the admittedly rather large hiccup caused by the fall of the Soviet Union. Another few years and oil prices will be higher than ever surely? The last time this happened, it took 20 years until the next oil boom. Again, look at the countries where the ecconomy is all oil. Those with decent sized populations (Venezuala, Iraq, Iran, Nigeria) have not seen the immense foreign currency generated by this wealth trickle down to the average person. The recovery was caused by two things: Putin controlling the mob so businessmen knew who to bribe, and the rise in fuel costs. But, the last 4 years, as he consolidated his power, he also concentrated the wealthI don't think anyone would argue that Russia is not a more autocratic country than it was even 4 years ago. These types of countries rarely have well off citizens. I never saw any indications of massive child neglect - quite the opposite. OK, then the quesiton becomes why do NGOs report it as massive, and even the government report it as quite large. Lets hope the US doesn't attack any else for a while then. Surely with George Bush out it becomes a bit less likely? :-) It depends on the security needs of the US. Obama was clear that he would raise the troop levels in Afganistan. Gates seems to have his head on straight, arguing for soft forces to follow troops in because the US otherwise lost the ground it won as soon as the troops left. I, among many others, argued against going into Iraq, because I thought we would bumble it.although even I didn't guess the magnitude of the incompetence of those involved. But, with Gates and Petreus, we have had very competent leadership, and things are far better now than they were in '06, or '02 in Iraq. Whether they will stay that way after we leave is a good question the answer to which no-one knows, but right now there are far fewer violent deaths than there were 7 years ago. I wonder if Afganistan will have that effect on anyone else? Very unlikely. If you look at 'Nam for the US and Afganistan for the USSR, both were quagmires, but the US managed to grow its GDP 30% in the '70s and the USSR GDP fell like a rock in the '80s. Right now, the US is spending a fraction of the GDP it spent on arms in the '60s, our biggest growth years. I would have thought that a low birth rate is very very good evidence of being part of the first world. It does have that in common with the first world. But, the life expectancy of both men and women in every age catagory is less than it was 40 years ago. http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3439671.html Now, I know the Hoover institute is quite conservative, but from what I've heard from knowledgeable sources in the field, the basic demographics are not disputed Things can turn around quickly - look at China - Which took 25 years to turn around, but go ahead. perhaps global warming is just what Russia needs to become a major world power again? With no people? It's not just that the birth rate is low, it's that the death rate is higher than 40 years ago. Germany has a lower birth rate, and it's birth and death rate are close to even. Russia's death rate is about 50% higher than it's birth rate. For a number of reasons, the average, say, 40 year old man has a high hill to climb before he can achieve his father's life expectancy. Something is wrong there. The life expectency for a Russian male is 3 years less than for a male from Bangladesh. Something is terribly wrong there. Dan M. mail2web.com Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
