Re: [Brin-l] Re: Attack Iraq, Alone If We Must
- Original Message - From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 9:15 PM Subject: Re: [Brin-l] Re: Attack Iraq, Alone If We Must At 11:26 AM 9/21/2002 -0500 Robert Seeberger wrote: John, can you please make an effort to not be so obnoxious in the way you respond to people on this list. You are surely intelligent enough to be able to make your points in a nicer way. Perhaps if you wrote in a way that does not bludgeon your opponents, you would have a much greater chance of infecting us with your memes. I would add to Rays comments that the skill is called diplomacy. It is very usefull when you desire a discussion that is less volatile than the subject matter has potential for. O.k. after writing one response to this early yesterday, sleeping on it, and waiting until this evening, I've toned down what I was going to say. Nevertheless, I would like to ask one serious question: Does the double-standard here apply just to me or to all conservatives/Republicans in general? I've thought a lot about this over the past two ideas, and I honestly can't decide. Let's review the course of events here: 1) A Brin-L poster accuses a certain individual of rallying a nation to war and ordering people to their deaths for political and personal economic gain. 2) The same Brin-L poster admits that they have not actually kept up on events regarding the said rallying of a nation to war. 3) Only *one* Brin-L poster bothered to object to this incredibly insulting and slanderous comment. This second poster did not attack the first poster, but simply asked if the first post ever felt guilty about casting such incredibly vicious insults when, by her own admission, without actually keeping up on the situation. 4) This second Brin-L poster then reserves twice as many criticisms for his post (2) than the original poster received for hers (1). Conclusion: If anyone ever wants another Brin-L poster to take their friendly advice and criticism towards that poster seriously, offer that advice/criticism in private, not on-list in front of that poster's friends and the entire community. Another good idea is to avoid the appearance of hypocrisy whenever dispensing advice/criticism to anybody, as that appearance can certainly alter the reception of that advice/criticism. Actually, I think you missed the real unwritten rule. It is assumed, by most folks here, that it is a truism that anyone with any political power at all is fair game for any criticism. The worst things you can say about Bush are probably true. But, its not just Bush. Most folks are willing to think the same about Clinton. So, its perfectly good manners to say anything you want about public people not on this list. However, its considered bad manners to criticize anyone on this list personally. I think that there is some sound understanding of how most groups work that underly this. After all, it is very unlikely that GWB will get in a flame war with Kat over her statement. I think the unspoken assumption, though, is that no-one will take insults to national leaders personally. I think that there is a fundamental cynicism about politicians among most folks, so everyone believes that anyone running for office must be morally defective. Actually, that's not really true. I did notice that Kat stated that she voted for third parties. I guess the real rule is that honest folks may be able to run for office, but if honest they won't get many votes. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Releases National Security Policy Statement
- Original Message - From: Matt Grimaldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 1:07 PM Subject: Re: US Releases National Security Policy Statement It is really a significant departure, not just from the containment doctrine but from widely accepted American principles such as: America will not strike first, Buchanan said. And to elevate it to the status of a doctrine--without incorporating specific examples of a clear and present danger--that's a novelty. It's going to take a while to sell it to the foreign policy establishment. That, in a nutshell, is why I think that what Bush is trying to do is a bad idea and a dangerous road to travel. We should not be in the business of determining another soveriegn country's government and leaders. Nobody should, for pretty much the same reason why we do not and should not perform assasinations of leaders we dislike. You made a universal statement, which makes me think of the exception. What happens when an unelected government is committing mass murder against its own people, and the US has a chance to intervene. Are you saying that it is always wrong to intervene? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Housing Out of Reach
- Original Message - From: Russell Sherman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 6:37 PM Subject: Re: Housing Out of Reach From: Rik Burke [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Housing Out of Reach Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 00:32:13 +0100 Erik said: Well, it's not quite random. It's relevant, in the way I argued. Do you disagree with the conclusions I drew from it? Yes. As I said, it is irrelevant. Maybe I should have been less glib. I'll try again. You had my interest until you started quoting irrelevant statistics. Then you lost it. It is better to give no statistics that irrelvant statistics. If you want to make a point to me, you'll need to quote relevant statistics. Otherwise, I will probably bow out of the discussion. Fair enough. But glib is also thowing back an argument in someone's face without explanation, to my mind. I don't mind you taking issue with my extrapolations (and I note you've not taken issue with anything else I raised in my original mail). I fully admitted what I'd said wasn't *directly* applicable as soon as you and others asked. My point, however, I think still stands. Which was that 60% of the US population earn les than twice the minimum wage, or thereabouts. And the fact that they aren't a one-parent family doesn't mean that it's easy for a single person with no kids to survive. If you want to take issue with that, fair enough, I'm interested to hear your views on this. I'm not claiming I know everything about the matter. But coming at me all verbal guns blazing isn't convincing. Convince me that the orginal stat was irrelevant. I don't want a slanging match here, I want to learn. And if I'm sure enough about my position, then to educate. But believe me when I say I'm feel on the back foot. Rik. Just a run-down: The original stat is irrelevant because: - Less than 40% of the US is single-parent two-child househoulds, therefore there's no proven overlap. 60% of the US population earns less than twice the minimum wage is a relevant statistic, if you can show that the majority or even more than 40% of people cannot live on that. Actually, that statistic alone is worth something, but the addendum of the one-parent two-child comment made it seem (to me at least) like you were trying to prove something that wasn't there. Sum up: 60% of people under 2x minimum wage = bad A Family of one parent and two children cannot subsist on that = irrelevant The conclusion you drew was also rather unsubstantiated, as it depended on the one-parent two-child required income. That's (I believe) why it's not a fair conclusion. -Russell Well, let me try to extrapolate from some numbers. We have the mean income for a single mom with children: There are 12.5 million of these families, and their mean income was 28.1k in 2000. This is a tremendous increase from 1998, when it was just 24.4k. Now, we don't know have the mean size of the family from this statistic. But, I'd bet dollars to donuts its close to 2. I can give all sorts of reasons for that, including the mean fertility rate (2.1), and the number of women who don't have children. The data are at http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/income00/inctab1.html Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: how religious fanatics attack free speech
- Original Message - From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 3:23 PM Subject: Re: how religious fanatics attack free speech They put 'crime scene investigation' on their list of top 10 worst shows, at #3. Unless I am mistaken, csi, is not a drama or fictional, but shows professionals in action. Apparently anything that teaches people how to think logically, using the scientific method, is baa-ad. Must protect the children from concepts like a spherical earth, and evolution. Or the second law of thermodynamics? :-) No hard feelings, but I do not consider you an authority on the scientific method. Indeed, I'm pretty sure that you stuck to positions that countered scientific methodology, even after that was pointed out to you. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: how religious fanatics attack free speech
- Original Message - From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 7:46 PM Subject: Re: how religious fanatics attack free speech Venn Diagram. AFAIK religious people are the only ones actively opposed to the 'occult'. Actually, I can think of a number of different atheistic groups that are also. Try Marxist and Objectivists for two. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: how religious fanatics attack free speech
- Original Message - From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: BRIN-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 9:13 PM Subject: Re: how religious fanatics attack free speech on 25/9/02 2:00 am, Dan Minette at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 7:46 PM Subject: Re: how religious fanatics attack free speech Venn Diagram. AFAIK religious people are the only ones actively opposed to the 'occult'. Actually, I can think of a number of different atheistic groups that are also. I thought we had already established on this list that 1) religious does not equal non-atheist 2) atheist does not equal non-religious 3) religious does not equal theist (or deist or pantheist even) Established means general agreement; I saw two people buy into this definition. That is not equal to establish. I think that it is definition of convenience for you, allowing you to put movements you don't like into the other camp. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: cars, air
- Original Message - From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 2:19 PM Subject: Re: cars, air From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lets see how long it takes the oil cartel to crush this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/988265.stm They won't have to.Where does the compressed air come from? Your website says: The designers of e.Volution say it will be possible to merely plug the vehicle into any electrical power source to fill it up. Unless nuclear power makes as comeback, that means burning more coal or oil. Plus, since, IIRC, electrical power transmission has about 50% losses to homes, we're talking about even more fuel being burned. You forgeth Hydroelectricity wind power. It's more coal than gas, so the oil / gas cartel would oppose it. It's also a good thing because more oil can be used for things other than fuel, like plastics. No, I didn't forget. We are tapped out on hydro in the western world. We might be able to squeeze another 1% of the total electric energy budget, but not likely. There is some potential for additional hydro in the third world, but its going to be pretty well spoken for with other increased electricity usage. Any switch from gasoline to electricity will have to be powered by conventional fuel plants. incremental use is As for wind, a good first order approximation is that it is a PR cost for major oil companies and politicians. It has to be highly subsidized to compete. Finally, OPEC has enough trouble just staying together. A conspiracy to stop a switchover to coal by stopping compressed air cars is just a bit much. Indeed, all they would have to do is point out how much better natural gas is for the environment than coal. IMHO, articles such as this one shows the power of wishful thinking. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Acronyms (was: Firefly)
- Original Message - From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 4:00 PM Subject: Acronyms (was: Firefly) --- Marvin Long, Jr. wrote: I can only accept payment in charbroiled chicken-hearts. Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) Did I miss the explanation of 'LLP?' And why not grilled Rocky Mountain oysters? evil grin Limited Liability Partnership ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 33lb's of uranium
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 5:44 PM Subject: Re: 33lb's of uranium The Fool wrote: http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=topnewsStoryID=1508708 What volume of uranium would that be, anyway? 33 lbs sounds suspiciously like a rounding for 15 kilos. So, lets do that. The density of uranium is about 19 g/cc. That gives a volume of just under 800 cc. That would be a sphere with a radius of just under 6 cm. Translating into English units, we have a volume just under 50 cc, and a sphere radius of about 2.25. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Georgia school board OKs alternatives to evolution
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 9:56 PM Subject: Re: Georgia school board OKs alternatives to evolution OK, now, how do you tie in *metal* with Harry Potter? Doesn't Harry show his metal in many a tight spot? Wait, that's mettle; nevermind. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Georgia school board OKs alternatives to evolution
- Original Message - From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 5:08 AM Subject: Re: Georgia school board OKs alternatives to evolution All of it complete and total crap. Some people will believe the weirdest shit. Notice the thread of religion in each of these sites? So? The results of a highly biased sample are meaningless. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
brin@cts.com
Dear David, I see your messages. And, FWIW, I think your analysis of the difference between the LOTR and Star Wars is valid. I made some comments about Tolkien's anti-modernity at the Tolkien newsgroup to mixed reception. I give JRR a great deal of leeway because he deliberately wrote an ancient legend, with different types of beings in it. Thus, a Jeffersonian democracy would really have been out of place. Further, the effort of inventing a history and a language was rather amazing. But, it does appear that he did not accept the correlation between labor saving devices and the creation of a middle class. Best regards, Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Evil Empire: the World leader in executions
And why only make those exceptions as to the regard of criminal law? Suppose that a briljant student who is exceptionally gifted and would depend on the capabillity of getting independantly around at the age of 15 cannot have a drivers license even if his whole future depends on it? Hardship drivers licenses are available at 15 in the US Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Intellectual output from the Arab World
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 10:57 PM Subject: Re: Intellectual output from the Arab World Dan Minette wrote: Look up anti-Semitic, not Semite. Or, are you arguing that English is a language that doesn't have exceptions to the rules. I think that is a badder thing to do than assuming that there are many rule exceptions in English that are still part of the language. Speaking of which, you missed one such exception. Shouldn't it be worse, not badder? :) By golly, I think you are right. I am embarasser than you can imagine. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Intellectual output from the Arab World
- Original Message - From: Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 6:25 AM Subject: Re: Intellectual output from the Arab World Julia Thompson wrote: I think that is a badder thing to do than (...) Speaking of which, you missed one such exception. Shouldn't it be worse, not badder? :) No, it should be ungooder Oh, Alberto, you are about 18 years out of date. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Intellectual output from the Arab World
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 7:51 AM Subject: Re: Intellectual output from the Arab World - Original Message - From: Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 6:25 AM Subject: Re: Intellectual output from the Arab World Julia Thompson wrote: I think that is a badder thing to do than (...) Speaking of which, you missed one such exception. Shouldn't it be worse, not badder? :) No, it should be ungooder Oh, Alberto, you are about 18 years out of date. Actually, you didn't get it right for 18 years ago, so maybe you didn't mean that. It should have been plus ungood. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Newspeak [was: Intellectual output from the Arab World]
- Original Message - From: Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 9:50 AM Subject: Newspeak [was: Intellectual output from the Arab World] In other words, *_plusgood_ is excellent, not better Actually, I think it is both. That's the point; English has nuances that must be removed. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Intellectual output from the Arab World
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 3:16 PM Subject: Re: Intellectual output from the Arab World Sorry to disappoint you, but it is the other way around. If both Jews and Arabs are Semitic, than *by definition* the word anti-Semitic must mean anti-Jew *and* anti-Arab -- just like anti-American means hatred of anything American and not only hatred of anything Texan. What the pro-Israel crowd is doing, is ignoring part of the meaning of the word because it does not suit their needs. Let me get this straight. English is a second language for you and you are claiming that the definitive source of English (OED) is wrong and you are right in defining an English word? So, do you also claim that the catwalk on an oil rig is misdefined because cats don't walk on it; software is misdefined because it actually isn't soft or a ware, a miser is not a tightwad because he isn't drunk? Or a photograph is not a snapshot because there is no gun involved? If you study the etomology of words, you can see how words evolve and are defined through usage. Dan M. But then, they really have no choice -- if they were to admit that anti-Semite also means anti-Arab, they would end up having to admit that their logic is fatally flawed. Jeroen Likud Delenda Est van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: English, was: Intellectual output from the Arab World
- Original Message - From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 4:29 PM Subject: English, was: Intellectual output from the Arab World Not To Be Confused With Worsted Maru Right. Worsted wool is high quality wool on a sheep that has yet to be sheared and has been ruined with an indelible die so it cannot be sold. It use to be the best wool, but the animal rights activists worsted it. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: English, was: Intellectual output from the Arab World
- Original Message - From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 4:45 PM Subject: Re: English, was: Intellectual output from the Arab World --- Dan Minette wrote: Right. Worsted wool is high quality wool on a sheep that has yet to be sheared and has been ruined with an indelible die so it cannot be sold. It use to be the best wool, but the animal rights activists worsted it. Dan M. Link! Link! I wanna link proving it! ;) (And shouldn't they have snipped or slaughtered it? I adore English! And had to add _something_ to avoid the despised one-line reply...) Three Bags Full Maru The link is www.dewoolisindewurst.com Unfortunately, the guy who maintains the website turns the computer off a lot, so you may have trouble accessing it. :-) And, don't you feel sheepish for asking. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Intellectual output from the Arab World
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 5:24 PM Subject: Re: Intellectual output from the Arab World The authority on this is called plain and simple logic. If X equals Y, then -X equals -Y. If X equals Y, then -X does not equal -0.5Y. So, anti-matter has negative mass? Out of curiosity, have you ever taken a course in logic? I don't think that word means what you think it does. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Intellectual output from the Arab World
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 5:39 PM Subject: Re: Intellectual output from the Arab World At 17:30 03-10-2002 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: The authority on this is called plain and simple logic. If X equals Y, then -X equals -Y. If X equals Y, then -X does not equal -0.5Y. So, anti-matter has negative mass? Out of curiosity, have you ever taken a course in logic? I don't think that word means what you think it does. Then what do you call the reasoning if X = Y, then -X = -Y? Illogical? No, I'd say its a statement that may be true or false, depending on the formal system it is applied to. It depends on what you substitute for =, -, X, and Y. A language is an interesting thing, the meaning of words do not always follow the general rules. Assuming that they must is ignoring data in favor of one's own theorizing. Words mean what the speakers of a language agree they mean, not what you think they mean. The fact that the compound word anti-Semite means something different than one would expect by simply following the usual rules of the language to derive meaning is not surprising in English. English is full of exceptions to the rules; one must just know them. Your argument would be valid iff you could prove that English is not a valid language. (The iff is not a typo it is a logical term for if and only if) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Definitions, Hey Julia
- Original Message - From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: BRIN-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 10:46 PM Subject: Re: Intellectual output from the Arab World on 3/10/02 4:29 am, Dan Minette at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You looked up Semite, not anti-Semitic. I looked up anti-Semitic. I quoted the definition Anti-Semite a hater of Semites, esp. Jews, or of their influence. - adj. Anti-Semitic. - n. OK, so you did, sorry I missed it. I've got another question for you. Do you consider OED authorative? Do you think that people shouldn't be allowed to coin words to mean things that bend or break common linquistic patterns. (For example, should we not have allowed the term computer bug to exist?) Do you argue with the etomology of anti-Semetic? Finally, to go back to our discussion on religion, I'd love to see the entry on religion from OED (hint hint Julia :-) ) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: cars, air L3
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 8:37 AM Subject: Re: cars, air On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:37:40 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: This is a huge assumption. This vehicle has many inherent efficiencies that might overcome these losses. Well, it would be very hard to believe. Lets look at some numbers. The general efficiency of an internal combustion engine is given in http://ecen.com/content/eee7/motoref.htm at around 40%. The initial efficiency of a big power plant goes up to about 60% http://www.ecoling.ch/englisch/thermal_power_plant.htm So, the electricity that gets to the pumps that compress the air is about 30%. Then, we have to figure in the efficiency of the compressed air pump and the air engine itself. The compressed air pump has two sources of inefficiency. The electric motor, which we can assign an efficiency of 90%, http://www.industrialcenter.org/Learn/Air_Compressor_Tutorial.htm#Economics %20and%20Operating%20Costs and the compressor. From the same source, leaks in an efficient compressor account for a 10% efficiency, so a generous efficiency is probably 80% for the compressor itself. , we are down under 25% by the time the air is in the car. Assuming 90% in the car, and we are close to 20%. So, for rough numbers, we are talking around 20% efficiency. You underestimate the intentions of third world countries. One of the steps in reaching developed country status is cleaning up air quality. Improvements in transportation is likely to come before, or at least along side, residential air conditioning. There are several parts to an answer for this. 1) Electrical power will not just be used for air conditioning. I'm not totally unfamiliar with Africa, BTW. I think I remarked here that I have an African daughter from Zambia (her church is a mission partner with our church and we're her home in the 'States while she goes to school nearby). Most people are not at the point where the incremental use of electricity will be AC. The per capita use is very low, and they will be able to use up all of their remaining hydro capacity without massive use of AC. 2) Addition commutes. That is to say it doesn't matter what order the consumption comes on line. So, if the additional use for purposes other than transport is greater or equal than the additional capacity available from non fossil fuel sources, then it is fair to say that the use of these cars will result in additional use of fossil fuels, no matter what the temporal sequence is. 3) Air quality is cities is a different question than consumption of fossil fuels. It may very well be reasonable to use more fossil fuels to have cleaner air. The US does this by having pollution control equipment on autos. They both decrease the fuel efficiency of the cars and significantly reduce pollution. There will be no overnight switch to electric vehicles. This does not diminish their potential. I never really argued for a step function. Aren't these vehicles compressed air? My guess is that fuel cells would be a more likely source for electric cars. That may be feasible. Among other things, they don't have the transmission loss problem associated with a car that is refueled at home. The greatest value in zero emission vehicles is in centralizing harmful emissions. Moving the exhaust source from the tailpipe to the smokestack gives the ability to control and position emissions so they don't impact urban airsheds in the same way. That's perfectly valid. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with the sales pitch for these vehicles that includes false statements. The reality is that the use of zero emission vehicles will result in lower energy efficiency. You could argue that they are lighter, and will thus be more efficient. However, the power source has, historically, actually been heavier for comparable output. The fact that a small electric vehicle is more efficient than an 8 passenger SUV isn't really relevant. A small gas powered car is still more efficient; but people want the big cars. Although they may not limit total emissions, planners now have the ability to apply more efficient pollution controls and distribute it over a larger area. While this may not affect global warming, it may make Houston smell better. :) Actually, not. Houston smells the way it does because of the petrochemical industry. It will make _Houston_ smell worse, because there will be greater output at the petrochemical plants. As for wind, a good first order approximation is that it is a PR cost for major oil companies and politicians. It has to be highly subsidized to compete. That statement is quite true and I would expect no less from oil companies or politicians. Wind has no immediate large profit potential, as did, or does, nuclear, in an economy with an established oil and coal infrastructure. Huh? Any type of plant can plug
who says what a word means?
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 1:54 PM Subject: Re: Evil Empire: the World leader in executions At 14:25 04-10-2002 -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote: Not that it matters, but Jeroen has been dismissing people as pro-Israel fanatics in an effort to invalidate their viewpoints. More accurately, I have been labeling them as members of the pro-Israel crowd, not as pro-Israel fanatics. The fanatics are only a (hopefully extremely small) subset of the pro-Israel crowd. I felt that the foundation of his argument was based on a false assumption, so I proved it with help from Julia Adam. But, as you say, it will most likely go nowhere. He's been proved wrong, but if previous precedent is any indication, probably won't admit it. :-) That is because I do not consider myself proven wrong. Could you help me understand your position. The OED was quoted as defining anti-Semitic as holding views hostile to Jewish people. You claim that anti-Semitic means holding views hostile to all Semites, including Arabs. It appears, for you to be correct, the OED must be wrong. Are you saying that the OED is wrong? If so, it appears that the rational for that is that you use the usual rules for determining the meaning of a compound words in the English language to derive the meaning of anti-Semite. But, it is a well know fact that English has a disproportional fraction of rule breakers. The reasons for the definition of anti-Semite being one of those exceptions have been provided. Are you arguing that the definition of a word must follow the general rule, that there cannot be exceptions? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Definitions, Hey Julia
- Original Message - From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: BRIN-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 4:38 PM Subject: Re: Definitions, Hey Julia OK, so you did, sorry I missed it. You wouldn't need to be apologising if you just read a little more carefully :) Well, I make mistakes and I admit it. I am self confindent enough to think that I've got a decent enough reputation to be able to survive a mistake or two. I've got another question for you. Do you consider OED authorative? Yes and no. Yes I do, but not in the sense I suspect you mean. Dictionaries are descriptive rather than prescriptive: that is they describe how words *are* used not how words *ought* to be used. And what decides ought? My impression, which may be wrong, is that the right definition of a word is the one that fits your arguement. Let me quote an early post from you in that manner: ROTFLMAO! That is a hoot Dan. You are a real comedian! You are the one trying to redefine words to suit yourself. I am just referring to standard encyclopaedias and dictionaries to clear up the confusion you are trying to spread. I then proceeded to give numerous quotes from dictionaries, giving my meaning as the primary meaning. The meaning that you appeared to give as the primary meaning was sorta there if you squinted in the interpretation of latter definitions. I realize that you quoted an encylcopedia, later, and I will get to that in a bit. I didn't respond right away, because I was not impressed with the free online dictionary one gets with a cheap computer as authorative. But, since you gave origional sources, I'll adress that. My point in the above is that you mocked me as giving twisted definitions of a word, when I gave the first or second definition in most dictionaries. Your definition is an streach of even your source, IMHO. Additionally they are inclusive rather than exclusive: if a usage is in a dictionary that means that some people have used the word that way, but if a usage is not in a dictionary that does not mean that the word has not been used that way by some people. But, you interjected yourself into a threat to correct_ my use of the word religion. Am I really out of line when I use a primary dictionary definition of a word? If you were a theologian, and wanted to give a more technical definition, I might accept that. But, IIRC, we have approximately the same amount of education in philosophy, (BA and some graduate work, but no MA or PhD) and I dare say I've studied a bit more theology than you. So, why do you feel justified in mocking me for using the primary definition. I like neologisms. Do you argue with the etomology of anti-Semetic? Etymology isn't about the use of words, but about their derivation. or development, as I've seen it defined. And that was given by Adam, IIRC. The word was deliberately coined to describe anti-Jewish attitudes. Arguing about the etymology of a word is best left to philologists. An example (maybe not a brilliant one) of etymology and use diverging is the current popular usage of 'decimate'. Right. And anti-Semitism is another. But, in one case, it is quite acceptable to you; and in the other its not proper. Why is it OK to describe killing off the majority as decimating a population (instead of killing 10%, while it is not OK to define anti-Semetic as opposed to the Jews. How could the dictionary definition of the word be more useful for a serious discussion of the subject than the more detailed and expert definitions of two professional theologians? [That I provided earlier.][1] Well, there are several answers to that. First, I've had discussions with a number of theologins also; and have never gotten a hint that they considered Marxism and Objectivism religions. Further, it is not at all clear that these authors would have agreed with your definition. I read it a bit differently. I'll agree that these folks would argue that there can be atheistic religions; but I have a hunch they are in the minority with that opinion. My daughter is a seminarian at Columbia seminary. Its a pretty well known seminary in the states. She considers it better than Yale and Princeton, turning down a very good scholarship at Yale to go there. (I know this may sound like bragging on my kid, but I'm only doing it to establish Columbia's reputation). It has two well noted theologians that she is taking classes from: Walter Brueggemann and Shirley C. Guthrie. I did searches on your two and her two and got many more hits on Amy's professors...a few vs. scores. So, I think her professors would qualify as well known theologians. If I ask her about Marxism and Objectivism as religions, would you consider that authorative? If I could persuade her to ask them, which she might not feel comfortable doing 'cause she just started, would you consider that authorative? Dan M. ___
Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
- Original Message - From: Ritu Ko [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 10:33 PM Subject: RE: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack I mean, look at what happened in 1947/8 and '71 - India won both the wars decisively and convincinglywas stupidly magnanimous in victory. So '48 gave birth to the Kashmir problem and in '71 Bhutto declared a 1000 year jihad against India. Right after he came back from Shimla, before descending from the plane even. :) Well, I won't argue against your examples, but I am thinking of a much more decisive win than that. All of Germany and Japan were under the control of the winners of WWII. Pakistan wasn't after those two wars. Indeed, I'd argue that there were more similarities to Germany after WWI and Iraq after the Gulf War than to WWII. I'm not really faulting India on this, they had constraints, like those on Israel after they won their wars, and like those on the US during the Cold War. However, they did not have the same type of total control after the war that, say, the US did in Japan after WWII. I agree, BTW, that India would have been a better ally than Pakistan for the US. Whatever the disagreements may have been from our standpoint, it was a democracy. Its my understanding that India pretty well chose the USSR as its patron and the US got Pakistan by default. Do you know differently? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Baby's surname Re: U.S. drops leaflets warningIraqofcounterattack
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 12:55 PM Subject: Re: Baby's surname Re: U.S. drops leaflets warningIraqofcounterattack I agree with Erik on this. I knew someone whose child had a hyphenated last name, Yea, and he's planning on having dinner with you tonight :-) He has a hypenated last name too. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Baby's surname Re: U.S. drops leaflets warningIraqofcounterattack
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 1:52 PM Subject: Re: Baby's surname Re: U.S. drops leaflets warningIraqofcounterattack Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 12:55 PM Subject: Re: Baby's surname Re: U.S. drops leaflets warningIraqofcounterattack I agree with Erik on this. I knew someone whose child had a hyphenated last name, Yea, and he's planning on having dinner with you tonight :-) He has a hypenated last name too. Actually, I was thinking of a child that had one from birth. (I should have been clearer on that, but I'm a little slow today. My apologies for the confusion.) I knew his mother. Was your last name hyphenated from birth? Julia No. I hyphenated my name when I married. My children had theirs hyphenated from birth. So, I'm someone whose child had a hyphenated last name. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: education
- Original Message - From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Brin-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 5:31 PM Subject: brin: education I'd be interested in what Dr. Brin has to say about the dumbing down of education in america, how we went from the top in math and science to dead last. Sigh, I know the real answer, but its boring. Instead of giving tests only to an elite few, as we did before, we give them to nearly everyone. If American math and science were _really_ that bad for as long as they have been saying, then there is no way that American engineering would be where it is today. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: war
- Original Message - From: d.brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 6:16 PM Subject: RE: brin: war Dig it again, folks. The Brits have come aboard, but read their press. Even THEY don't want this dogwag spasm. And when the brits don't want a war, something is very very bad about the plan. I have a hard time accepting that last statement. The Brit's didn't want a war in the early to mid '30s. It had a chance to stop, or at least slow, Hitler for a fairly low price early on. The appeasement of Hitler is the paradigm example of how not to conduct foreign policy in the '50s and '60s. Indeed, JFK wrote (or had written for him) Why England Slept on this very subject. So, we have a fairly contemporary example of England not being interested in fighting, when hindsight would indicate that a little early fighting would have saved a lot of later troubles. That doesn't prove Bush right now, but it does indicate that Britain not wanting a war does not mean that war is unnecessary and unavoidable. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: war L3
- Original Message - From: Ray Ludenia [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 9:05 AM Subject: Re: brin: war d.brin wrote: Moreover, I am all in favor of Pax Americana, which has led to vastly more human opportunity and happiness than any other 'pax', and which may lead to a world of Justice and Law. This may indeed be the case. However, I cannot for the life of me understand how so many Merkins expect the rest of the world to be happy with this state of affairs. I can understand why others wouldn't be happy in a unipolar world. If we had Pax Britannica, and the US was an ally with minimal influence, then I'd probably be less than sanguine about that situation. But, this raises the question: what is a reasonable way to get out of that situation? I have strong personal prejudices about that. These prejudices are from my work and volunteer experience; not inherently political. But, I'll get to them in a bit. In reality, the US has done all the heavy lifting for developed non-Communist world for the last 60 years. The US and USSR, to first order, won WWII between them. Other countries were involved; it would have been much harder to invade France without a staging area in GB, but a good first order approximation to the effort is the US and USSR. (Actually, a good zerorth order approximation is that the USSR beat Germany.) The pattern continued when the US and USSR became adversaries instead of allies of convenience. The general agreement in Europe was that the European countries would focus on being much more appealing than the East European countries by having a better economy and a strong social welfare state. They would spend relatively little on defense. Part of this plan included the US defense of Europe as if it were US soil. The US stated its willingness to escalate any war of aggression against Europe into WWIII. That is why the USSR pledged no first use of nuclear weapons, but the US didn't. This, along with the policy of containment, worked well enough to win the Cold War. Then, the whole thing needed to be rethought. There were two key tests of this: the Gulf War and Bosnia. The first was a full fledged tanks across the border driving to the other border invasion. Further, it was an invasion that begged the question of what might be the next invasion: Saudi Arabia and the UAE? Those countries could not stand up to what was then, IIRC, the 5th largest and 5th best equipped army in the world. If that were to happen, then Iraq would have enough control of oil production to threaten the economy of the western world. As Hussein has shown by his actions over the last 10 years, he would have been more than willing to trade the loss of income for the political power that would give him. The possibility that he would take over the Arab world; would bring Europe and Japan to their knees was enough for a broad coalition to form to oppose him. But, to first order, the US did all the work. British planes helped some, and there were some other forces that were enough involved to say they were there. But, except for the staging advantages of protected Saudi Arabia from within Saudi Arabia, the practical military value of those forces were minimal. Also, for the initial step, protecting Saudi Arabia; there was no other country who could possibly have rapidly sent troops. Now, lets turn to Bosnia. I remember reading about it as it developed during the '90s. At the start, it was a matter of European pride that they would handle the situation in their own back yard. On paper, they easily had the forces to handle it. I definitely remember thinking that this was a good development; it represented a sound way to handle the new situation. The NATO partnership would become more equal. However, that did not happen. The Europeans frankly, did little with the mess in their own back yard. One of the worst parts of this was when the Dutch stood aside to let the Serbs massacre the Bosnians. I have an explanation for why it happened; but it is not flattering. Europe was so use to depending on the US being the one that gets its hands dirty; it was unwilling or unable to use force to stop the Serbs. This does not reflect well on Europe's ability to project power. Indeed, when push came to shove, Europe relied on the old familiar pattern: call on the US, and then sit back an critique the actions of the US. This is not a stable situation. Before 9-11; it was fairly well tolerated/ignored in the US. However, one should note, that there was a growing reluctance in the US for being the one who was always called upon. After 9-11, the safety of Americans was seen to be at risk, and things changed. How they changed is still in progress; but I think one thing is clear: Americans will look to the safety of the US as a prime policy goal. It may very well result in a strain between the US and other Western Countries. Further, as the US becomes
Re: The UN
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 2:35 PM Subject: Re: The UN At 16:24 22-10-2002 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: Where in the UN charter does it say that a country must gain permission before defending itself? A country's self-defense is an internal matter, not an UN matter. However, invading an other country is an act of aggression, not self-defense. So, all wars of self defense must stop at the border? It is wrong to defeat a country that attacks? Further, if one decides to sue for peace short of uncoditional surrender, it is wrong to enforce the terms of the treaty? Your suggestion, that a country should wait until its borders were its borders were crossed would fail the Chamberlin test. The what? I have never heard of the Chamberlin test. It is considered a trueism that Chamberlin made a significant mistake by refusing to stop Hitler's advance into Czechoslovakia. The Chamberlin test is whether the rules set forth allow any stronger action than Chamberlin's. That is to say, by that rule, England should have done nothing while Hitler took over Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. England does not have borders with those countries, so when Hitler attacked them, England was not under attack. So, your argument is that England could only respond to Hitler _after_ English soil is attacked? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: N. Korea Says Has Nukes
- Original Message - From: Doug [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 1:02 AM Subject: Re: N. Korea Says Has Nukes Dan Minette wrote: This seems like a good reason for the difference between our attitude toward North Korea and Iraq. Which is the greater threat? The guy with a loaded gun or the one that is frantically trying to figure out how to make a slingshot? Does it really enhance our safety if you go after the guy with the slingshot because he's the easier target? Don't you have to deal with the one with the gun eventually? As for the oil stuff, here's a thought. Not one that I think is necessarily true or accurate, but something that occurred to me as possible: I'm not sure that the short term profits of Texas oil people are as much a consideration as the long term control of all the spigots. The long term control of all the spigots goes to the _owners_ of the well. No offense, but you are speaking from ignorance. Go to the Middle East to ex-pat oil worker communities, and see what the standing of the oil companies there are. For example, in UAE, there is a clear, strong social order. 1) Citizens 2) Other Arabs 3) European ex-pats 4) Packies (who are mostly Pakistanies, but refers to any other people from non-Arab third world countries brought in to do the work that's too menial for the citizens to do. What people are looking for are lucrative contracts to work for the folks who control the oil. They are not in charge, they are well paid hired hands. Now, one of these contracts may be to administer the oil production, but that's different than control. For example, the Saudies are negociation with several oil companies for turn key jobs. However, massive conglomerates have also negociated turn key jobs with service companies. Do you think they control the oil long term? BTW, the Russian contract is a joke. Russia is the absolute worst place to try to drill for oil in the entire world. The problems in Russia are legendary in the oil patch. One example, their sand control is so bad that tools that usually last for hundreds of jobs can be eaten up in one job. They are horrid at oil exploration; they have ruined many good fields. Giving Russia control would be good for the oil patch in Texas. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Evolution vs. Creation - aka. Mass Stupidity Hits Ohio
- Original Message - From: Gary Nunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 6:16 AM Subject: RE: Evolution vs. Creation - aka. Mass Stupidity Hits Ohio Gary Nunn wrote: For those not familiar, the Creationist crowd is trying to have a law passed so that Ohio schools will have to teach Creation as an alternative to Evolution. I am ashamed that this is being seriously considered here :-( Actually, that could be a very neat class in the nature of science. Probably too advanced for high school, but I could easily put together a class outline out of my head. Another subjects would be the comparison of the Copernican and geocentric models of the solar system. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Question for everyone
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 9:51 AM Subject: Re: brin: war Once again, taking things back on-line, where it belongs. I'd like to ask a question about general rules of politeness. From what I've seen in a number of places, people are suppose to publically divulge the contents of private emails only with the explict permission of the sender. Do other folks remember differently? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 2:04 PM Subject: RE: Question for everyone No, but given his behaviour it would not be a bad idea for him to start looking for such advice. Sigh, let me put this bluntly, since you tend to ignore things that are subtle. I realize that this is a YMMV issue, but personally, I will rejoice if and when you raise your on list behavior to the level of JDGs. Dan M. Further, any suggestion that he's looking to *you* for such counsel? No, but that does not mean I cannot offer to help him. Of course, he is free to not accept my offer; I am sure there are enough people in his area of the US who are qualified to offer him professional help in his quest to improve himself. Jeroen Just trying to help van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN (Hey, JDG!)
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 3:16 PM Subject: Re: The UN (Hey, JDG!) At 16:53 20-10-2002 -0400, John Giorgis wrote: It may not be perfect, but it is the best we have. It is certainly better than having one country throwing its cherished principles of democracy overboard and then unilaterally decide to drag the Middle East into another war. Which principle of democracy are you referring to? Typo. Where it says principles it should say principle. BTW, notice what I am doing here? I am answering a question, I am answering it the first time it is asked, and I am giving a real reply rather than trying to evade the question. You really should adopt that practice too; it will give your credibility and reputation that much-needed boost. And who knows, maybe someday you will even become a respected person. Well, I'll go in where wiser folks fear to tread. The UN is not a democracy. It is a place where voting occurs, but voting does not make something a democracy. For example, if the Politburo decided something by a 10-4 vote, that didn't make it a democratic vote. The UN is an organization of nations; it is not a body that represents the people of the world. To give an example of the flaws of relying on the UN, if the League of Nations were to be constituted as the UN was during the Cold War, then Germany and Japan would each have a veto. Thus, the League of Nations would have not sanctioned any actions to stop Japan or Germany without the approval of Japan and Germany. A reasonable question would be, then, would Britain have been wrong in stopping Hitler? Was the proper course for Britain to stand by when Europe was overtaken and only act once Hitler started bombing the UK? BTW, I saw the meaning of JDG's answer immediately. I'm guessing that you saw it too, but are having too much fun gigging him to respond. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN
- Original Message - From: J.D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 4:20 PM Subject: Re: The UN Jeroen wrote: Come on now! While most of the world gives credibility to the UN, you claim as Absolute Truth that the UN is a discredited body. If you are so intelligent and so intellectually superior to the rest of the world that you can make such a statement of Absolute Truth (thus implying that hundreds of thousands of politicians and diplomats worldwide are all wrong), surely you should have no problem whatsoever figuring out what I mean! * O.k., let's try the parphrase trick. John, let me ask you a question of clarification. I see the UN as a useful, but flawed institution. It is far better to have a world with a flawed UN than no UN. Yet, I agree that one cannot rely on the UN to always do what is necessary. Is that consistant with your understanding of discredited? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Democracy (was Re: The UN (Hey, JDG!))
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 4:52 PM Subject: Democracy (was Re: The UN (Hey, JDG!)) At 15:30 21-10-2002 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: It may not be perfect, but it is the best we have. It is certainly better than having one country throwing its cherished principles of democracy overboard and then unilaterally decide to drag the Middle East into another war. Which principle of democracy are you referring to? Typo. Where it says principles it should say principle. snip Well, I'll go in where wiser folks fear to tread. The UN is not a democracy. It is a place where voting occurs, but voting does not make something a democracy. That depends on how you define democracy. When you use its literal meaning (the people decide), then the UN is indeed not a democracy. When you use the word in the way it is more commonly used, however (the majority decides), then the UN *is* a democracy. Actually, the common loose usage of democracy is representative of the people. Thus, countries with representative governments with constitutions are referred to as democracies, while countries that are governed by small groups of people, like the Politburo, are not. But, I'm sure you know that. Out of curiosity, why do you keep on twisting meanings, even when you don't have to? Why is it more fun to turn every discussion into a matter of personal anamosity and arguements over minutia than over issues? In the general sense of the world, the UN is not a democracy. It is a forum for countires to work together. It is deeply flawed, but better than nothing. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Democracy (was Re: The UN (Hey, JDG!))
Out of curiosity, why do you keep on twisting meanings, even when you don't have to? I do not see this as twisting meanings. Apparently I use a different definition of democracy than you do. But then, the definition the majority decides is the everyday definition that gets taught in schools here (at least, in my days it was; I cannot tell if it has been changed since then). I suppose that US schools teach representative of the people as the everyday definition. So, if you think my definition is wrong, blame the Dutch educational system. :-) The real question, of course, is the majority of whom? Was the USSR a democracy by the Dutch meaning of the word, because the majority of the Politburo decided? If so, the UN is a democracy, just like the Politburo was. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
World government in 50 years
I'm taking brin out at his request. I've been meaning to answer this for some time, and I sorta waited to late to get a response from the author. But, better late then never, I guess. - Original Message - From: d.brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 2:55 PM Subject: Re: brin: war Given the frequency of irrational tyrants andzealots and the proliferation of WMD, do you envision such a situation holding even 50 years? If so, HOW can you manage such a mental feat? Because it is highly probable. The world has had states of one kind or another for at least 4000 years. The idea that, after all this time, they would wither away and a world government would form in 50 years is possible, but not very likely. It is interesting that you are the first person I've read who has hinted at all that this was an expected results. That doesn't prove you wrong, of course, but I think it shows that some very intellegent people, who have worked productively in the field of foreign affairs for years don't believe it is true. So, at a minimum, the idea that there will not be a world government in 50 years is a reasonable one. But, I argue for much more than that. I think it is very unlikely that a a world govement would form within 50 years. I've already given my first arguement: it is rare that 4000+ years of history all come to a conclusion in 50 years. Part of the reason for that is that it takes generations to change world views. For example, it is usually third generation Amerericans that become indistinguishable from other Nth generation Americans. There is a big uproar in some circles that some second generation Hispanic Americans still speak Spanish as their first language. While I agree with the need to mainstream all new Americans as quickly as possible, I should also point out that my Mom, who was a fourth generation American, didn't speak English until she went to school. In addition, if you look at Europe, you see an area that started out with a Common Market 50 years ago, and are now starting to form a European Union that is still too weak to call a government (personally, I'd put the Articles of Confederation level of federal power as the lower limit.) Since they started out with much more common culture than, say, Tibet and the US, it is probable that it was easier for Europe. Finally, dictatorships would have to be forceably ended and representative governments formed. My daughter from Africa points out how hard it is to transfer representative governments to places which still believe in trusting authority with little question. Finally, things like a common government take a lot of trust. For example, would the industrialized world really agree to a world government that could set tax rates? Some day, after the developing nations develop, very possibly. But, that will take more than 50 years, alas. If not, then how do you envision a world of law coming about? If not via the UN, then in what way? The world is full of possibilities. John's earlier suggestion of NATO being enlarged to encompass all democracies (earlier as in years earlier) is one possibility. Multinational non-governmental organizaitons is another. A totally transformed UN is a third. But, that is so many years away, that speculation on limited data now is fairly meaningless. After hearing The Times They Are A'Changing played in a bookstore, I was reminded of how obvious clear trends can be reversed. Finally, I've been thinking that, since db's time here is limited, we should not expect him to read our responses to him. So, maybe we should only use brin for direct questions a number of us would want him to spend a little time answering. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 4:01 PM Subject: Re: The UN Where in the UN charter does it say that a country Needed to finish the thought, sorry.. Where in the UN charter does it say that a country must gain permission before defending itself? Your suggestion, that a country should wait until its borders were crossed would fail the Chamberlin test. That is to say, by that rule, England should have done nothing while Hitler took over Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. I'm more than willing to agree that the problem is hard, but that's not the solution. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN
- Original Message - From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 5:37 PM Subject: Re: The UN I'm sending this again because it didn't show up after ~10 minutes; if there's a glitch and 2 copies go through, I apologise in advance.-Deb Well and good, but there's a problem with symmetry. There is no way for us to accept your apology in advance, is there? Unless, of course, some of those weird interpretations of QM are right. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: test
- Original Message - From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brinl [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 5:49 PM Subject: test I've sent 2 messages (re: the UN) in the past 15 minutes, but they haven't made it - at least to my computer. Would someone reply to this? Thanks- Debbi No, I refuse to reply. Actually, they made it. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: test
- Original Message - From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 7:28 PM Subject: Re: test --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip ::clears throuat:: ::stands upon soapbox:: ::strikes classic orator's pose:: ::raises hand:: To this! Hey, if you are using a library computer, ain't your hour up yet? Well, I went to read a magazine for 15 min, then got on another one (wouldn't have if there were folks waiting, but there are 5 'empties' right now). :) Well, I post from work. My boss is pretty easy going about this, but he insists on going on all of my family vacations. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN
- Original Message - From: Doug [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 12:03 AM Subject: Re: The UN Dan Minette wrote: Where in the UN charter does it say that a country must gain permission before defending itself? Your suggestion, that a country should wait until its borders were crossed would fail the Chamberlin test. That is to say, by that rule, England should have done nothing while Hitler took over Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. Note here that the UN _did_ vote to act against Iraq when they invaded Kuwait, a situation analogous to Germany's invasion of Czechoslovakia. It is somewhat analogous, but not fully. It did so because the UK, France, Russia, China and the US all thought it was a good idea. To first order, the Security Council does whatever these five agree upon. Yes, 5 of the 10 temporary members have to concur, but it is likely to happen if these 5 agree. In my analogy, I had Germany and Japan as two veto powers: corresponding the USSR and China being veto powers during the Cold War. It is true that the UN backed defending S. Korea, but only because the USSR made the mistake of boycotting the UN after the PRC was not given China's seat at the UN. Given that scenario, it is unlikely to impossible to conclude that they would have let the UN take action. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Calf Utilities
- Original Message - From: Doug [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 11:41 PM Subject: Re: N. Korea Says Has Nukes Dan Minette wrote: It wasn't the worst of any worlds for the providers that came away with billions in profits. It was definitely the worst for California who lost a $4 billion surplus and went deeply into hock overnight. http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/operational_capacity.html lists 3 investor owned California utilities: Pacific Gas and Electric and South California Edison are the two biggest ones, and have 95% of the capacity of the three between them PGE reported a 3.3 billion dollar loss for that year and filed bankruptcy. Edison International reported a 1.9 billion dollar loss for that year and narrowly avoided bankruptcy. I couldn't break out California, but the annual report for Edison International gives the impression that other branches of the company were, on average, profitable. How is this a big win? SDGE was the third, and is part of Sempra, and it appears that Sempra was still profitable during 2000, making about 400 million. However, since SDGE is only a small part of a larger company that made a profit, its not clear whether SDGE made a profit or loss. Even if you include this profit as all coming from California, which is probably not valid, the three companies lost more than 4 billion. It seems to me that everyone misread the situation. Even companies, like Enron, who profited by gameplaying in California, lost enough elsewhere to less profitable gameplaying, so that it went bankrupt. Yes, the officers fleeced the company, but its losses were far bigger than their gains. So, a company had to be foolish to supply California with electricity for less than they'd get elsewhere. Ok, that's at first... What's a first? Plus, the costs of generating electricity went through the roof for some suppliers. Those that used natural gas, 40% of California's suppliers, saw that price go from under $2.00 to as high as $9.00 on the spot market. People producing with natural gas would have to lose money to fit under California's cap. But of course later on, when they learned how to game the system there was lots of money for all the big boys. Not all of the big boys. The two big companies who had to play it by the book lost over 5 billion in a year and were on the brink of elimination. Indeed, I'm guessing that they were the strongest presence pushing for deregulation. They played the game and lost big time. The beginning of 2000 was the height of the crisis after which massive conservation measures were taken. Considering that, the numbers above by themselves don't mean anything. There is no thought to looking ahead? California's policy was based on the assumption that the spot market for energy would always be cheap. With the .com boom and a hot dry summer, they were relying on cheap spot market prices to keep energy costs down. When the spot market for gas went through the roof, they were hurting. The policy of buying on the spot market at the last split second is foolish, to say the least. The logical thing would be to have long term contracts that allow retail prices to rise if fuel costs rise. Retail prices rising would cut use more than anything. Further, what big conservation measure are you talking about? The drop in usage from 2000 to 2001 was only 4%. The consumption fell to the 1999 level. And, we cannot attribute all of this drop to conservation measures. The summer was cooler in 2001; and industrial use dropped with the .com bust in 2001. Given the fact that the 2001 consumption was close to 1999 consumption, I don't think we can attribute much more than 1% or so to conservation measures. And, the indications are that the usage rose again in 2002. The bottom line is that, to first order, people tend to conserve only if there is a significant financial incentive to do so. I won't argue that the restructuring was done very poorly. I will argue that it would have been in the best interests of the industry that _desires_ deregulation to pounce on California like a lion pouncing on a wounded animal. Dereg. was set way back, and Ca. is suing the industry to the tune of $9 billion. Interestingly enough, deregulation just passed through in Texas. I'm rather disappointed in the Sierra club using the up to line. That statement is true if there is one small, high polluting, inefficient plant out there. Why do you hold the Sierra Club to a higher standard than commercial or political institutions that wouldn't bat an eyelash at using such language when they have to compete against these institutions for media attention? Because I had considered them a reliable source of information. Now, they are not in my book. They also don't provide details from which I can make my own conclusion. I can tear apart a financial report and understand what's really
Re: cars, air L3er
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 2:53 PM Subject: Re: cars, air L3er On Fri, 4 Oct 2002 13:54:47 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: Well, it would be very hard to believe. Lets look at some numbers. The general efficiency of an internal combustion engine is given in http://ecen.com/content/eee7/motoref.htm at around 40%. The initial efficiency of a big power plant goes up to about 60% http://www.ecoling.ch/englisch/thermal_power_plant.htm I am not sure how you could have attempted to reach a conclusive efficiency number by this method. It is an extremely complex calculation and then only valid in the particular case that you analyze. Your efficiency number for internal combustion engines above is based on extrapolated data taken prior to 1975. It is also an analysis of efficiency IMPROVEMENT and does not necessarily reflect the efficiency of converting btu's to usable work. I will also note that this was a Brazilian web page and that Brazil gets I think at least 75% of its energy from hydroelectric :) (I only point this out to note that the situation will be different in every locale). Anyhoo, here is one that says the IC engine is 20% efficient. http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/102spring2002_Web_projects/Z.Yates/Zach's%20 Web%20Project%20Folder/EICE%20-%20Main.htm This one gives 26% thermal efficiency and doesn't give a number for mechanical efficiency(which would make it even lower) http://www.auto-ware.com/combust_bytes/eng_sci.htm I am not trying to prove you wrong here, I am just trying to show you that there is not much agreement on precise numbers and you can't write off a potentially beneficial technology based on a back of the napkin calculation That's fair enough, I guess. I did the back of the envelope calculation far enough to get to less efficiencies with very generous allowances to the new technology. As you pointed out, 40% may be high for an internal combustion engine. However, the project tripped up my BS detector early on, so I was looking mainly for correlation. Let me explain some of the basic reasons the BS detector was tripped. First, I should also give my perspective. My job is, basically, to provide new technology. As I've mentioned, while my innovations have not been earth shattering, the guys down the hall have invented a technique that was half of the technology that cut finding costs for oil by $5.00/barrel. But, at the same time, I've had to listen to zillions of smoke and mirror presentations on new technology. I've developed a test to seperate the wheat from the chaff that has worked pretty well over time. This report tripped my BS detector. Let me explain why. 1) First and foremost, compressed air is not new at all. The technology is rather old. Air compressors have been around for a century. Compressed air cars have been proposed for years. There is nothing that seems to jump out and say this new technology gives a factor of two improvement. I've seen that elsewhere. For example, the factor of N improvement in computing now allows for the design of formation evaluation tools that would have been impossible 20 years ago. In my field alone, I can do things that were impossible for me earlier. As a result, the results are much better. An old colleague of mine gave a good rule of thumb on this. The guys before you weren't idiots. Why didn't they come up with this? If you can provide a good answer for that, (they didn't have the tools I have, for example) then there is a good chance you are on to something If not, its usually worth rethinking your stuff seriously. If its that obvious, then reasonable people are not likely to overlook it. 2) The numbers are not proven. No one has tested the car. So far, its vaporware, not hardware. http://www.spacedaily.com/news/020928042702.fkqpd20t.html gives a review of this. Now compressed air, even though its old technology, is improving, so the possibility is not zero. But, looking further, one needs a good way to recover the head from the air expanding. The temp is 400C, so there are ways to do that, but recovering waste heat is a problem for all engines. I'm guessing that my figure of 90% efficient for the engine is really way to high, now. 3) The energy density available in compressed air isn't all that much, unless one has _extremely_ strong tanks. The numbers they quote at http://www.bellwetherinteractive.com/mdi/specifications.html is for about 300 atmospheres of compressed air and a total of 3200 cu. ft. Clearly, that's 3200 cu ft. compressed into 10.7 cu. ft, becasue 3200 cu. ft. is far bigger than the entire car. So, the total stored energy available is calculated at 8.78 x 10^6 Joules. Let me give you how I calculated this. 300 atmospheres is 3.1 x 10^6 kg/m^2 pressure, or 3.04 x 10^7 N/m^2 pressure (1 g = 9.8 m/s^2) or 3.04 x 10^7 J/m^3 energy density (multiplying numerator and denominator
Re: N. Korea Says Has Nukes
- Original Message - From: Doug [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 10:04 PM Subject: Re: N. Korea Says Has Nukes J. van Baardwijk wrote: So, can we expect an American invasion of North Korea in the near future? If nothing else, the US would at least show something resembling consistency by invading North Korea. No Oil. 8^( Doug, do you really believe that? Who do you think owns the oil in Saudi Arabia? Who owns the oil in Nigeria? The locals do. Various international companies can make more or less money developing Iraq oil depending on who is in charge. But, the Texas oil patch benefits a great deal by the present impasse in Iraq. Without it, with Iraq going great guns, oil prices are expected to drop again. My personal finances would benefit from years of foot dragging and partial sanctions, and I'm fairly typical for the oil patch. Why do you think Bush wants to damage the economy of Texas? Now, lets look at other explanations, for example the difference in threatening armies. North Korea is likely to respond to any threat by attacking South Korea first. They have overwhelming forces already on the border. Let me quote a source you respect on this: We came within an inch of going to war with North Korea, in a conflict that a Pentagon study found would have killed a million people, including up to 100,000 Americans. Now, I think that overstates it: we only have 34k soldiers there, and all analysis indicates that the danger from the North would be the short term taking of Seoul as a hostage, not a long war. But, lets just say 100k South Koreans would die in such a war. That is an enormously greater loss of innocent life than the highest estimates for Gulf War II. Due to the embargo, Hussein's conventional forces are a shadow of their 1990 self. This seems like a good reason for the difference between our attitude toward North Korea and Iraq. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Call the UNSC's Bluff
I'm responding to Debbie's post first because it deals more with the question at hand and less with list conflict than another poster that I'll respond to. - Original Message - From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 9:24 PM Subject: Re: Call the UNSC's Bluff From a posted article; just a couple of nitpicks that I have - Debbi, who snipped a lot Let the U.N. Vote Wednesday, October 23, 2002; Page A26 Washington Post Editorial NEARLY SIX weeks have passed since President Bush challenged the United Nations to act to enforce its resolutions on Iraq. Yet there has been no action. Instead, in its attempt to build support in the U.N. Security Council, the Bush administration has made a series of significant concessions. Which I think is both concilatory and prudent; such flexibility subtly demands of allies that they also make some concessions. I just wish that this had been the initial approach, not the latest one. Im curious to see what has been going on behind the sceen. I'm guessing that there had been unpublicized negociations over the last 6 weeks. Since I voted for GWB to be the Texas governor in 2000 (I was thinking about getting a bumper sticker that said Keep Bush our governor), I do have a tendency to downplay his ability to work with other nations. However, since Powell is in charge of that, and, by all accounts, he is masterful in 1 on 1, there is a real chance that it isn't just a matter of his skill. raises eyebrows Something the like of which the US has, of course, _never_ done... Certainly no American company has any interest in Iraqi resources. I'm not quite sure what the point of this statement is. I'm not saying this to diss your statement, rather to point out that it is open to a number of alternatives. It is certainly true that commercial interests has affected US foreign policy. The response to China's capture of a US plane was partially influenced by the hue and cry from the Chamber of Commerce types to not jepordize 100 billion in trade. Since they are, by and large, conservatives, I attributed this to their desire for profits overwhelming their natural political inclinations. And, to some extent, they suceeded, there was no real attempt to threaten China with a trade embargo. But, I think it is fair to say that the US foreign policy towards China and the Middle East tends to be less trade influenced than European foreign policy towards the same area. In both cases, the US has set policy that presents a significant trade disadvantage with respect to these areas: support of Israel and support of Tawain, than does Europe. Do US companies have interests in trading with Iraq? Certainly. Is Bush's actions the most cost effective way for the US to set up such trade? Definately not. If trade were the prime concern, then the best course of action would be to drop the embargo as soon as it was determined that France and Russia were working to finesse it. ...In fact, even as Mr. Chirac was proclaiming the sanctity of the United Nations' authority over war-making, some 1,000 French troops were intervening unilaterally to protect French interests in Ivory Coast; Paris never dreamed of forging an international coalition or consulting the Security Council. Now wait just a minute: they went in to protect not only French nationals, but other foreigners - including American citizens - and I believe there was talk of active US support for said action. The actions were quite reasonable. To first order, the people protected were French. I think the valid point is that France feels free to act, for reasons of compelling national interest, outside of the framework of the UN. The US was right in supporting France in doing this; they actions were justified. However, their actions were inconsistant with the concept that any violation of national soverenity, such as the French action, must go through the UN. U.N. Mr. Bush has challenged that body to live up to its principles by enforcing its own Iraq resolutions... As indeed it ought to do. sigh Repeat the bass-ackwards sentiment here. Of course, if it turns out that Saddam had anything to do with the Oklahoma City bombing, as implied in another recently posted article, his regime is toast. The real question is how constrained should the US feel by a lack of a supporting resolution from the UN Security Council. On the whole, a reasonable assumption is that nations do not act for the greater good, rather they act in their own self interest. The greater good for the world is often in most nations self interest, so things often do work out. But, sometimes the tragedy of the commons rears its ugly head. While it is best for every mouse to bell the cat, it is best for each mouse if the cat is belled by another mouse. There are a variety of ways to get around the tragedy of the commons in
Parenting advise from an old man who's done a lot of parenting
I thought this might be a good time to offer general parenting advise for those list members who have small children. I've noticed three things from my near quarter century of parenting. 1) The single most difficult task for parents to teach children is to accept responsibility for their own actions. They tend to say that other people made them do it, argue for technical legalistic interpretations that show that the didn't really break the rules, technically. 2) Children tend to model their behavior after their parents 3) The time to work on the behavior of your teenagers is when they are under 8. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: corporations
- Original Message - From: Doug [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 11:20 PM Subject: Re: corporations Erik Reuter wrote: On This is a GOOD thing. Bandwidth costs money to provide, and is a limited resource. It makes perfect sense to charge based on how much bandwidth is used, that is how a free market works. If you try to suppress the law of supply and demand, you get shortages and outages, much like what happened with power in California. This essay is misguided, and the comparison to the airwaves is false (cables and routers cost money to install and maintain, unlike airwaves which could be used in peer-to-peer fashion without any expense by a 3rd party). What about cable TV? They don't charge by how much of a couch potato you are. I'm not trying to be a wise guy, just wondering what the difference is. Doug The easy answer is that the signal is broadcast to your house whether you are watching or not. A lot of traffic goes on a broadband connection, but only when used. For a while, they use to charge for more than 1 TV, but the real reason for that was enhanced revenue, not the need to put in better connections for the folks with 5 TVs. Indeed, my broadband internet is spliced in with the same cable as my cable TVs now. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Call the UNSC's Bluff
- Original Message - From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 11:37 PM Subject: Re: Call the UNSC's Bluff --- Erik Reuter wrote: snip You always seem to have a roundabout excuse for doing nothing rather than addressing the issue. Then I shall cease this particular discussion. Debbi But, just this branch of it, right? I do have some nuance differences with you that I'd like to explore, and I thought we were pleasantly conversing. At least you were being reasonable about it; I'm too close to me to be impartial concerning how reasonable I am. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 4:30 PM Subject: Re: The UN At 16:01 22-10-2002 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: The why was not adressed to that part of your statement. It was adressed to whether letting governments vote is the next best thing. Do you have a better suggestion? Yea, accept the reality of what the UN is, instead of pretending it is what it isn't. It is a forum for the countries of the world to talk, and occassionally express their collective will. The big 5 winning powers of WWII got veto powers on the Security Council, while the rest of the nations got the power to pass general resolutions in the UN. The fact Why should dictatorships be able to dictate their will to representative governments. In the UN (with the exception of the UNSC), no dictatorship can dictate their will to other governments. No, but the governments of dictatorships, when they comprise the majority, vote to ensure that resolutions favoring dictatorships pass the UN. First of all, I do not know how may of the 191 UN member countries are dictatorships, so I cannot say whether or not they would comprise a majority. Second, the fact that a certain number of countries qualify as dictatorships does not mean they all agree with each other. If they would, they would be controlling the UN completely. I think that what keeps them from controlling the UN is what keeps the European right-wing extremists from controlling Europe -- these parties have roughly the same unhealthy ideas, they would even be willing to work together, but each and every one them only wants that if *they* can be the leader. And of course, none of the parties are willing to let someone else lead them. They do not trust each other. The same applies for dictators. (Being somewhat paranoid is a great help if you want to be a dictator; do you think that someone like, say, Saddam Hussein, would trust someone like, say, Khadaffi to lead the United Dictatorships?) It wouldn't have to be that strong. All they would have to do is figure out what actions would benefit all of them and get the UN to pass that action. For example, You surely know how they stack the Human Rights commisions with representatives of dictators who commit gross violations of human rights. Actually, this is the first time I hear that. Can you point me to a website that lists the various members of the various Human Rights commisions? (This is not a I demand proof! statement -- it is a genuine question.) Here's a website: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/chrmem.htm There was quite a bit on it last year when the US was off for the first time ever, while bastions of human rights, such as Syria, Nigeria, Cuba and China were in. You know that these folks work to make sure that nothing of substance happens. Now there are other countries who are democracies, such as China or Italy that are on it too, but it makes sense that areas dominated by dictatorships will make sure that dictatorships and forces that strongly surpress human rights have their viewpoints adaquately represented. So, its much better to do whatever terrorists will want, and hope that its the US they hit first, and you'd be spared? That's gutless. Dan, you have to read my statement complete with the paragraph that preceded it. In that paragraph, I did not write about do what the terrorists want, I wrote about the responsibility of the US with regard to the rest of the world. The US should consider that a war against Iraq will have consequences (in the form of terrorist attacks) not only within the US, but throughout the world. If the US decides to go in alone, without support from the rest of the world, other countries would get attacked by terrorists because of a war they did not even support. Then, the question is why they didn't support it. I can see arguing that the war in Iraq isn't wise. I'm not really a strong supporter of it; there have been thoughtful people who have argued that the negatives outweight the positives. But, arguing that the UN should walk away from its promises because you are afraid that terrorists will get mad if it doesn't is not a reasonable suggestion. I am not arguing that the UN should walk away from its promises; I am arguing that the US should keep in mind that if they decide to go to war on their own, other countries will still feel the consequences. Certainly, the US needs to keep that in mind. It needs to weigh the risks to others vs. the risks to its own citizens and others if it doesn't. Then the real question is how extensive are the possible consequences to the US vs. the rest of the world. Considering the fact that N. Korea has surprised the US by admitting a nuclear weapons programs that may very well already have produced bombs, and considering the fact that the US is still very vulnerable to a nuclear device
Re: Call the UNSC's Bluff
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 3:37 AM Subject: Re: Call the UNSC's Bluff I think Israel is a much more likely target, as it is closer; a hit on Israel would also be extremely inflammatory - do you foresee Sharon asking the US to retaliate _for_ him? What will happen when Israeli fighters and bombs are launched - even though in national self-defense - at an Arab state? Then you do not want to be anywhere near Israel. Chances are that the Arab nations, despite any differences they may have, will join forces (following the reasoning an attack against one of us is an attack against all of us) and strike back at Israel. Personally, it would not surprise me if they would then attack Israel and keep going till the State of Israel is nothing but a memory. They tried and failed 4 times. The only logical reason they didn't try a fifth time is that they would lose a fifth time. Israel's military position with respect to the Arabs is better than it was from '48 to '73. If the Arabs couldn't wipe them off the map then, why would you think they could now? Israel, for its part, has signaled its willingness to take the risks associated with the US attack on Iraq. Since they are in the direct line of fire, the question is why are they willing, and much of Europe is not? Again, let me point out, I'm arguing against what I consider the bad reasons for not going into Iraq. The good reasons have been mentioned by other posters, but tend to not be discussed much. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: test
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 9:17 AM Subject: RE: test -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:brin-l-bounces;mccmedia.com]On Behalf Of J. van Baardwijk ... Sounds like an awful lot of work for something that is not really useful, not really complies with IAAMOAC, and goes against David Brin's wish that this list be unmoderated. David Brin *suggested* the system. *touche* I know I would never use DB to support my position without talking to him first; especially when fussing at someone who has lunch with him. :-) On a practical matter, you are not planning on letting one poster give another 20 dings/day by themselves, are you? That could be a problem, I think. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The UN
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 5:19 AM Subject: Re: The UN At 00:07 27-10-2002 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: Do you have a better suggestion? Yea, accept the reality of what the UN is, instead of pretending it is what it isn't. It is a forum for the countries of the world to talk, and occassionally express their collective will. The big 5 winning powers of WWII got veto powers on the Security Council, while the rest of the nations got the power to pass general resolutions in the UN. The fact The fact... what? Unfinished sentence. Sorry, I shouldn't post long complicated posts late at night. The fact the UN was founded on the realities of post-WWII politics should not be lost. There would be no way that the world powers would allow the small countries of the world to dictate to them. Especially in '46, when GB had about 40 votes or so in the UN General Assembly. It wouldn't have to be that strong. All they would have to do is figure out what actions would benefit all of them and get the UN to pass that action. For example, For example... what? Unfinished sentence. For example, if the UN was a real government, they could impose a tax on the rich democratic to support their regiem. Or, they could write international law requiring that their regiems be defended by the combined armies of the world declaring anyone who revolted against them would be stopped by all means necessary. There are plenty of things that would benefit most dictatorships that would be passed in a UN, if the rules allowed it. The US should consider that a war against Iraq will have consequences (in the form of terrorist attacks) not only within the US, but throughout the world. If the US decides to go in alone, without support from the rest of the world, other countries would get attacked by terrorists because of a war they did not even support. Then, the question is why they didn't support it. Well, the usual reason for not supporting an idea is the belief that said idea is a *bad* idea... Why is it a bad idea? I Considering the fact that N. Korea has surprised the US by admitting a nuclear weapons programs that may very well already have produced bombs, and considering the fact that the US is still very vulnerable to a nuclear device inside a shipping container, it seems reasonable to assume that there is a very good chance that Hussein is developing WMD. That is the whole problem: it is an *assumption*. I think that before you go to war (and drag the rest of the world with you), you should have a hell of a lot more than assumptions, suspicions and reasonable doubt. The only way to know for sure is if 1) Hussein publically tests a nuclear weapon 2) It is used on a population center. Further, given Iraq's history of playing cat and mouse, isn't it reasonable to have strict rules that will ensure that an inspection can be thorough? I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is that the US wants military action to be the first option, not the last option. No, the US has publically stated that they were willing to have inspections first. When are you willing to have it as an option? Are you willing to support a resolution that says We inspect thoroughly, and if we find no WMD, then you are off the hook. If we find them, you destroy them or else we will do whatever is needed to destroy them, including removing you from power. If you interfere with the inspections, then we will use force to remove you. My read of France's and Russia's position is that they think this is too strong. What besides talk about it some more will the international community support. In Realpolitic terms, it makes sense for other countries to wait and see if the US loses 100k or 1m people before taking any risk on their own. That would assume that Saddam Hussein will use a WMD against the US. I do not think he will; I think he will use it to drag as many people with him when he is brought down, and in that case Israel will be a much more likely target. Fair enough. So, Israel supports the US's action. The logical conclusion is that they are happy to see it resolved now, before his ability to kill people increases. Better to lose 10,000 that 1,000,000. If NY gets hit by an A-bomb instead of a Instead of a... what? Unfinished sentence. instead of a plane, I suppose we'll get the Netherland's permission. Do you really think it is reasonable to expect the US to give up hundreds of thousands of people because other members of the UN have an inherent right to back out of their agreements? Considering the fact that your country kept its representative government only because the US was willing to put NY and Washington on the line to protect it, Huh? That requires some explanation. That was well explained by Steve Sloan. It was clear from
Re: Parenting advise from an old man who's done a lot of parenting
- Original Message - From: Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 9:18 AM Subject: Re: Parenting advise from an old man who's done a lot of parenting Ronn Blankenship wrote: At 06:54 AM 10/27/02, J. van Baardwijk wrote: At 21:33 26-10-2002 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: I thought this might be a good time to offer general parenting advise for those list members who have small children. Why would this be a good time for it? Maybe it is because of the whining about my attempts to improve this list, or maybe I am getting paranoid, but the combination of timing and content of your post suggests to me that you really want to say: Jeroen, you really should raise Tom the way I think you should, otherwise he is going to be just as big a pain in the ass as you are. I for one didn't take it that way. Nor did I. The thought never occurred to me, and I certainly *hope* that wasn't Dan's intent, because I really believed his advice to be pretty solid and worthwhile. If it was a veiled attempt to bust Jeroen's balls, I'd be a little disappointed. It was not an attempt to bust Jeroen's chops. If that's what I want to do, I can do that straight up, just fine, thank you. Several things triggered the post. 1) The debate concerning whether one's actions are caused by others or one's own responsibility came up again. 2) Debbie made some mention about parenting requirements 3) Difficulties with teenagers were brought up on another list...which got me thinking. 4) I've recently been reminded that the kid who shot one of my former girl scouts in the face last May (both were seniors at the time) was arrested for killing ducks about 6 years before. The parents didn't do much about it besides making sure he had the best lawyers. 5) I've thought about another friend who has had repeated heartbreak with an adopted son who had a troubled past before she adopted him at 9. 6) I fussed at my son for bad habits that my wife pointed out that he got from me. 7) I thought about other kids who we thought would be in trouble as teenagers when they were 8, and now they are. 8) I thought about the young woman who lives with us for a short bit now and who came from a home with addiction and irresponsible behavior as parents, and what a burden it placed on her. I'll admit that I think that it would be worthwhile for folks with young children to think about their own habits with respect to accepting responsibility for their own actions. I'll also admit that I have my own guesses as to who would benefit most from such meditation. But, those guesses are really not that important. If you think it might apply to you, then it wouldn't hurt to do a better job of accepting responsibility for your own actions. Even if you are someone who is doing a good job, doing a little better will pay off in the long run. Its too late for me to do that; my youngest is 16. I still have almost 3 years of work before he is gone, but the die is pretty well cast, now. But, its not too late for others. If you want to take my advise with a grain of salt, that's fine. But, I don't see parents of teenagers and older on the list, and I know there are some, contradicting me. So, it makes sense that what I said is considered valid and useful by other war veterans. So, Jeroen, I am not trying to publicly point fingers at anyone. I really see no value in people speculating over who it applies to. I do see value in thinking about whether it applies to one's own modeling for one's children. I certainly don't want a thread on who really needs to take this advise started. However, a thread on general application might very well be worthwhile. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: test
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 11:08 AM Subject: Re: test Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 9:17 AM Subject: RE: test -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:brin-l-bounces;mccmedia.com]On Behalf Of J. van Baardwijk ... Sounds like an awful lot of work for something that is not really useful, not really complies with IAAMOAC, and goes against David Brin's wish that this list be unmoderated. David Brin *suggested* the system. *touche* I know I would never use DB to support my position without talking to him first; especially when fussing at someone who has lunch with him. :-) On a practical matter, you are not planning on letting one poster give another 20 dings/day by themselves, are you? That could be a problem, I think. I think that dinging should be limited on a per-day basis. I think that no single person should give another single person more than one ding per day, at least until we see how the system works out in reality. If someone wants to ding 10 different people in one day, I don't have a problem with that, especially since being the dinger would carry some cost. (This is just my opinion, though.) I think that is reasonable. But, I've got a neat, IMHO, variation on that. If person A dings person B, who dings back, person A should be free to ding again. But, then person B would also be free to ding back. The question is whether we will have two antagonists who act like dingbats by dinging back and forth. Dan M. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: test
- Original Message - From: Steve Sloan II [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 11:08 PM Subject: Re: test At 11:42 PM 10/26/02, William Taylor wrote: Ten dings = one dong Ronn Blankenship wrote: And 10 dongs = 1 dung? That makes an odd sort of sense, because if we ever need that many dings, it will probably be during a major shit-storm... ;-) And, we can have a provision that the offending poster be kicked off the list for a week if it gets that high. Afterwards, we can sing ding-dung, the witch is dead Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: cars, air L3er
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 2:48 PM Subject: Re: cars, air L3er On Sat, 12 Oct 2002 15:40:50 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: Please forgive the lateness of my reply. Life gets in the way. ..much snippage throughout... Feel free to check my figures, but it appears that the energy storage is consistant with about 12% efficiency. Which kinda makes sense, because air compression at high pressures is not terribly efficient. Further, the tank appears to be a 77 gallon tank. Yet, it contains less energy than 1 gallon of gas. That is not efficient energy storage. It appears that the car must have tremendous mechanical efficiency and be run at very slow speeds to work as advertised. I rather suspect that the real figures are much worse. Well, I am not qualified to check your methods but I will take your word for it considering your expertise. So what they need is the equivalent of a 125mpg (using your 1 gallon of gas figure) vehicle to put this energy source in to overcome the inefficiency of compressing the air and meet their speed and range specs. Impossible? Maybe. An engineering challenge to be sure. I may be overly optimistic because it is my personal belief that now is the time to start a shift away from non-renewable fuels, starting with oil. Any vehicle that will run on anything but gasoline will play a part in starting that shift. If this vehicle worked, it might help fill the gap until practical fuel cells are available. Or, the government decides to make them prohibitively expensive. Even in the US, taxes have been a significant part of fuel costs. Far from prohibitive now. But, that is another good point. Since much of fuel taxes go to road construction and maintenance (hence rebates for use in aircraft or farm vehicles), any vehicle not running on gasoline will be effectively evading this tax. It is likely, that if alternative fuel vehicles gained a significant market share, it would have to be made up in the form of additional taxes on electricity. This should bring gasoline taxes down. However, if they are only urban runabouts, they shouldn't shoulder the burden of highways such as the interstate system. Well, most of the new cost of interstates is in the city. The real cost effective solution is I'll assume you meant 0.5% in the US. It is somewhere around there. Nope: http://www.eren.doe.gov/consumerinfo/refbriefs/da8.html Yes, my number was high. I was likely remembering a projected number. But, to be fair, your data source is 2 years old. Wind capacity in the US has close to doubled in that time. Are you sure, at http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0004691.html I obtained the following historical trend 1989 7034.4 MWh 1990 9379.2 MWh 1991 9379.2 MWh 1992 8793 MWh 1993 9086.1 MWh 1994 10551.6 MWh 1995 9672.3 MWh 1996 10258.5 MWh 1997 9672.3 MWh 1998 9086.1 MWh 1999 13482.6 MWh 2000 14948.1 MWh 2001 17586 MWh 2002 2931 MWh 2002 is very low because it is just for the first quarter. However, there is absolutely no indication of higher usage in 2002 than in 2001, since 4x2931 17586. It seems to me that the two-year increase is no more than about 30%. The two big jumps coincided with tax breaks, so that's not surprising. Agreed. the infrastructure is in place and the bugs have been worked out. . But, is overall efficiency improving as oil becomes harder to find and more energy intensive to extract ? Actually, it is far less energy intensive to extract than it was 20 years ago. :-) Or are we more efficiently depleting a non-renewable resource. This is good news only as long as there are no alternatives. It is nonrenewable, but will probably last another 100 years, at the present growth rate. Then there is coal and, then shale after that. Yes, we do need to come up with alternatives, but I'd argue we need to do real research now, instead of trying to commercialize stuff that isn't really ready. We do have a very environmentally friendly alternative, but it is not PC, so it is being phased out, alas. No global warming, a strong safety record in the West. I can understand that. But, let me point out, its not immediate. I'm probably a bit older than you. I remember the PR for these technologies being about the same for the last 30 years. So, I look for an indication of real new technology advances. When I don't see them, I tend to conclude that this is just more of the same. Over that 30 years, the cost of producing energy from wind and solar has reduced by a factor of 10. is this due to PR?. Actually, yes. Let us look at solar costs from: http://www.solarbuzz.com/StatsCosts.htm A wonderful graph, showing a factor of 4 reduction in 17 years is given. According to the graph, the costs were $6000 per kWp in 98, and to reduce to about $4000 in 2001. But, in reality, the costs were $8000-$1 per kWp in 2001. So, the factor of 4
Re: FW: Brin-l Digest, Vol 76, Issue 2 Rebels seize Moscow theater
- Original Message - From: Halupovich Ilana [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 11:31 PM Subject: Re: FW: Brin-l Digest, Vol 76, Issue 2 Rebels seize Moscow theater Ron wrote I suppose by now you have heard the outcome: 50 Militants, 90 Hostages Dead After Moscow Siege Gas Used to Subdue Chechens; Fate of Americans Unknown Spent Saturday glued to TV screen. Russian channels. Saw some pretty strange things - as syringes (sp). It's 115 dead now. :-( head Moscow doctor is saying that this is some nerve (sp) gas, some hospitals' doctors are saying that this is regular anesthetist gas, which is more logical. In my anti-Saddam kit I have three different injections against nerve gas. It's illogical to presume that big Russia does not have enough antidote for nerve gas, but for regular anesthetic - this is something else. And the thing is not harmless - as daughter to parents who had several operations I know that there are plenty of checkups (sp) before the right anesthetic is chosen. The only Israeli citizen is OK and will go home soon. Nothing about other foreign citizens yet. Guatama, if you are reading this, answer, pls. AFAIK, Gautam has stopped reading brin-l due to time constraints. He has switch jobs and is now a high powered consultant, for McKinsey, I think. He is running around the US, and is no longer working on the Russian program. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: cars, air L3er
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 6:51 AM Subject: Re: cars, air L3er On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 11:42:23PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: Are you sure, at http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0004691.html I obtained the following historical trend 1989 7034.4 MWh 1990 9379.2 MWh 1991 9379.2 MWh 1992 8793 MWh 1993 9086.1 MWh 1994 10551.6 MWh 1995 9672.3 MWh 1996 10258.5 MWh 1997 9672.3 MWh 1998 9086.1 MWh 1999 13482.6 MWh 2000 14948.1 MWh 2001 17586 MWh 2002 2931 MWh 2002 is very low because it is just for the first quarter. However, there That includes only grid-connected electricity, so I imagine it is an underestimate, since solar and wind should be more economical in remote locations far from the grid, right? I don't think its that simple. The way I read the footnotes is that only the wind power is limited to grid connections; the solar includes off grid. That makes sense, because solar is close to equal to wind, and I know of significantly more wind on the grid than solar. Further, I haven't heard much of off-grid wind generation of electricity. Efficient wind energy requires the right location, while off-grid usually refers to preselected locations. So, the numbers for wind generated electricity on grid is probably the lions share of total wind generation. An additional problem with wind powered off grid is the fact that, for the contenental US, there is a significant risk of many low wind days in a row; while there is not a risk of total darkness many days in a row. Thus, for remote locations where the main cost is not fuel but the trip in, solar has advantages. Also, is wind energy generation steady from quarter to quarter, or is it higher, for example, in the spring and fall? In other words, is it valid to just multiply Q1 by 4 to get the annual value? And it DID double from 1998 to 2001, maybe that is what he was talking about? It almost doubled, but it had fallen from 97 to 98. 2001 is less than twice of the average from 90-94.I'll agree that multiplying by 4 probably isn't valid; I don't think wind and solar use really fell that much, but I only claimed that it was not consistant with a big jump. Plus, looking at California wind energy, I recall virtually no new systems that are coming online in '02. Actually, yes. Let us look at solar costs from: http://www.solarbuzz.com/StatsCosts.htm A wonderful graph, showing a factor of 4 reduction in 17 years is given. According to the graph, the costs were $6000 per kWp in 98, and to reduce to about $4000 in 2001. But, in reality, the costs were $8000-$1 per kWp in 2001. So, the factor of 4 was really a factor of 2. Plus, they give the month by month trend over the last 2 1/3 years elsewhere at the website: showing a slight rise in prices over that time. I wonder if the title of that graph is wrong. Maybe it should be module prices rather than system prices? They quote for MODULES, $27/Wp in 1982 and the graph shows $19000 (per KWp ?) in 1984. If the graph really were system cost per KWp, than the $27/Wp for MODULES in 1982 corresponds to about $54,000 to $67,000 per KWp system cost in 1982, and the price dropped to $19,000 by 1984? That seems unlikely. Also, the text quotes $4/Wp module cost today (2001?), which corresponds to $4000/KWp, which is about what the graph shows. Strangely, the last actual data point on the graph looks like 1996, the rest is extrapolation? I don't think that graph is reliable, it seems to have mistakes and be out of date. Which is my point. That's part of the problem with the industry, there is a lot of PR data floating about. I'm not arguing that conventional energy companies do not have PR relations going, but the price of gas is well known, its not fabricated. The historical oil price is a transparent figure, while the price of solar, alas, often involves proctonumerology. Look at the module price shown at http://www.solarbuzz.com/ModulePrices.htm Its steady at $6.00 per Wp for the last 2.4 years. There is no indication that the technology is dropping in price significantly. From what I've read in Physics Today, it is going to be very hard to squeeze out added efficiencies. Everything that I see indicates that we need to do a lot of fundamental research before there is a breakthrough. So, money should be spent on basic solid state physics, not applications of present technology, IMHO. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: cars, air L3er
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 12:27 PM Subject: Re: cars, air L3er On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 12:02:21PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: From what I've read in Physics Today, it is going to be very hard to squeeze out added efficiencies. Everything that I see indicates that we need to do a lot of fundamental research before there is a breakthrough. So, money should be spent on basic solid state physics, not applications of present technology, IMHO. What about rural areas and developing countries? I think remote, not rural is where the break even is. From http://www.go-solar.com/Pvinsolation.html I got the average sun hours as 4.8/day. If you factor in the fact that the cells rarely operate at peak efficiency, you are talking close to 4 kwH production per day for a $10,000 unit. If we assume an 8% interest rate, and 20 years amatorization, we are talking about $1020/year in costs. Plus, there will be maintenance costs, so I'd put the yearly cost at $1300/year. This is for a system that produces 1460 kWh/year. That comes to just over $1.00/kWh. There are locations where this works out, but they are remote, not just rural. There is some limited use in developing countries, but this is a very high price for power. My daughter's family is on the grid in Zambia, I know that. Dan M. Might it not be worthwhile to spend money on solar applications for those areas, since you aren't competing with the grid, you are competing with the costs to BUILD a grid, which makes solar look much more competitive. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: cars, air L3er
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 1:32 PM Subject: Re: cars, air L3er - Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 12:27 PM Subject: Re: cars, air L3er That comes to just over $1.00/kWh. under Might it not be worthwhile to spend money on solar applications for those areas, since you aren't competing with the grid, you are competing with the costs to BUILD a grid, which makes solar look much more competitive. But, grids are not _that_ expensive. Our county grew 70% in 10 years, requiring a massive build out of the grid. They can amatorize the cost over 20 years and still charge us $0.10/kWh and make a profit. One also needs to remember that 1400 kWh/year is a low household usage by American standards. That would mean, for a standard user, bills of only about $12.00/month. For a household which uses 1000 kWh/month, about 7 such systems are required. The breakeven point for extending the grid, factoring in fuel costs, is roughly $50,000 in that case. Few American households cannot be wired into the grid for 50k. For a new neighborhood of 1000 houses, that would be $50,000,000...well under what the cost would really be. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 2:47 PM Subject: Re: Question for everyone At 06:55 27-10-2002 -0600, Adam Lipscomb wrote: Jeroen, it's obvious that you're suffering from some kind of bizarre fixation on John. No, I am suffering from a highly developed sense of wrong and right -- a mental condition that very few people seem to have. Most folks with a highly developed sense of right and wrong that I know focus on their own misdeeds, not the misdeeds of others. To accuse me of having a questionable moral compass because I find it easy to debate with John would be insulting, were it not so foolish. Before you say, friend, let me take the splinter out of your eye, be sure to take the log out of your own. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: I'm just getting burned out.
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 11:34 AM Subject: Re: I'm just getting burned out. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Three nursing teachers killed at our University Medical Center. The gunman makes four. And my first reaction when the police hold a news conference? Well, there goes Jeopardy. Not a very nice thought, but it must be becoming pandemic. I'd've thought the same sort of thing if they'd pre-empted Jeapordy here for a news conference. I'm still coming off the rough time from last week (nothing like being left alone for a week with a small child and two dogs who like to dig, at a time when the week fell into a 10-day stretch of rain falling every day and very little sunshine for the whole time, so it's gloomy and a lot of mud ends up in the house), though, so I hope it's a temporary condition in my case. :) One of the things that strikes me is how we single out certain deaths for national/international concern. I remember driving by an auto accident a few days after Princess Diana died. There was a car smashed under an 18 wheeler. I cannot imagine how people lived through it. IIRC, 4 people died, but it barely made the local news. Yet, 4 people in Arizona is enough to interrupt regular scheduled programming. I don't think its really compassion that's lacking when we don't want to spend a lot of time on these deaths. Every death is a loss; thousands per day are lives cut tragically short. Yet, we cannot be emotionally tied to each one. The fact that we do not want to focus more on a particular subset is not an indication of being hard hearted, IMHO. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Well, I'm feeling pretty good, considering...
- Original Message - From: Adam C. Lipscomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 10:49 AM Subject: Well, I'm feeling pretty good, considering... considering the telecommunications company for which I work had pretty big layoffs yesterday (25% of the workforce got axed). I found out late in the morning that I was saved from being cut at the last minute, although I did get demoted from a salaried position to hourly. This was upsetting at first, but the more I think about it the better I feel. That's good. I've been where you are too many times. The oil patch is cyclical, while employment in the oil patch has been a downward spiral for the last 20 years. I've been through cycles of 50% layoffs, 80% layoffs, and 50% layoffs, getting caught myself in the last one. One of the hardest things about remaining is survivor's guilt. However, most of the folks that I know who have been laid off are better off within a year. Its considered a trueism. I'll admit, working for a technical company, I've got a biased sample, but then again you are too. Even when unemployment was at 10% back in the bad early 80s, folks bounced back fairly well. So, its OK to feel bad, if you do; but it still helps to know intellectually that folks usually do get through layoffs just fine. Indeed, its often the survivors who have the tougher row to hoe. (1) I can get overtime pay again. Since I normally pull about 43-44 hours a week, it should help my bottom line. (2) Fewer meetings and conference calls. (3) I don't have to do annual reviews for my employees. (4) If I get promoted to supervisor again in the future, I'll probably get another raise. That all sounds reasonable. And demotions in the presence of massive layoffs means that the company is working hard to keep you because they think you are valuable. And people say bootlicking and toadyism don't pay off. Are you positive its not that you've demonstrated your worth? I know it may not be the ideal time to argue with you, but you might consider that you were kept because that was a sound business decision. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 2:29 PM Subject: Re: Question for everyone At 15:36 28-10-2002 -0600, Dan Minette wrote: So, dinging is not moderation according to your definition. Why did you call it moderation, then? First word that came to mind, probably. Fair enough, many of us are a bit imprecise with word choices when we post quickly. From what I understand now, while we may not agree as to the advisiability of a dinging system, a list with dinging is not a moderated list. Posted by you on 10/27 at 2:12 AM CDT, according to my computer. Yeah, well, that is what your computer says. But your computer is a M$ Windows machine; how much do you trust Bill's Evil Empire? GRIN I'll warn you once. Never ever bandy the the reliability of data and the certainty of observation with someone who has degrees both in science and philosophy. You risk being subjected to a L8 post on the minutia of the philosophy of science. grin Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 3:59 PM Subject: Re: Question for everyone At 15:43 29-10-2002 -0600, Dan Minette wrote: Posted by you on 10/27 at 2:12 AM CDT, according to my computer. Yeah, well, that is what your computer says. But your computer is a M$ Windows machine; how much do you trust Bill's Evil Empire? GRIN I'll warn you once. Never ever bandy the the reliability of data and the certainty of observation I am not questioning the reliability of your data or your observation skills; I merely do not put overwhelming trust in the operating system used on the computer on which you store your data. :-) But, it corresponds to my analog clock. It is true that there is an error bar on the observation, but the error bar is a quantity that has been verified by numerous other measurements. So, I admit that it could have been written as early as 1:00 AM or as late as 6:30 AM. But, that does not change the substance of my claim. The substance of my claim could only be laid at Microsoft's doorstep that Gates or one of his flunkies actually wrote that post. with someone who has degrees both in science and philosophy. Hey, are you threatening me? :-) Yea, and I'll insult you too. Yo mamma sews socks that smell. You risk being subjected to a L8 post on the minutia of the philosophy of science. grin Nah, I do not believe you would be able to write such a post. You are bluffing... :-) Well, I've got books on the philosophy of science and a scanner. Can anyone say extensive quotes? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sillier and sillier Re: Question for everyone
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 4:14 PM Subject: Sillier and sillier Re: Question for everyone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/29/2002 2:44:40 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: L8 post on the minutia of the philosophy of science. grin Ooh! I want to read this. I hereby bandy the reliability of data and the certainty of observation!! L8? How can one read a post that's late and hasn't arrived yet? By using time reversal, of course. Actually, backwards signals in time are required in one of the more prominant realistic interpretations of QM. Heh heh heh. L8 in this case means significantly longer than L3, which is the tag for longish messages. (There's a thread which includes L3er in the subject line, meaning longer than L3.) But I very much like your question. :) If one is going to bandy the reliability of data and the certainty of observation, then there will be a certainty of decreased observation based upon the reliability of the brandy being served during the observation. Brandy? Where? Oh, never mind, I prefer port, anyway. Then the recent weather we've been having would have offered you many excuses: any port in a storm. That 8 in 3 hours was a good rain. Duck? DUCK? Are you sure you're not a witch? ;) Ducks liked it too. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 4:16 PM Subject: Re: Question for everyone Julia who read *every* *single* L3+ post from Dan on the subject so far, and who will force herself to read this one, if it is posted, and isn't sure if that's a good sign or not It sounds as though you consider my posts the cod liver oil of mailing lists. Good for you but, eww Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 4:26 PM Subject: Re: Question for everyone Then either Heaven or Hell (or perhaps Purgatory) must be a rather smelly place by now. GRIN Well, actually, it was a devilish quote. Since you have the archives, do you remember the reference quoted in Brin-L :-) You risk being subjected to a L8 post on the minutia of the philosophy of science. grin Nah, I do not believe you would be able to write such a post. You are bluffing... :-) Well, I've got books on the philosophy of science and a scanner. Can anyone say extensive quotes? Dan, I said: *write* such a post, not *scan, copy and paste* such a post. Let me 'splane something to you. When it is just scanned copied and pasted, its plagiarism. When there are footnotes and some text around it, its well researched analysis. I didn't go to school 23 years with them learning me nutting. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Sillier and sillier Re: Question for everyone
- Original Message - From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 4:51 PM Subject: Re: Sillier and sillier Re: Question for everyone --- Dan Minette wrote: [Julia and Jean-Louis and William wrote:] L8 post on the minutia of the philosophy of science. grin Ooh! I want to read this. I hereby bandy the reliability of data and the certainty of observation!! L8? How can one read a post that's late and hasn't arrived yet? By using time reversal, of course. Actually, backwards signals in time are required in one of the more prominant realistic interpretations of QM. So *that's* what is occuring in the bowels of my computer?! I see... Julia wonders if William is a witch (well, I suppose he'd really be a warlock), and he _has_ been chanting on-line. Are you suggesting that foul play is afoot? No, on principal, I'm arguing that the answer is uncertain. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: POST
- Original Message - From: Adam C. Lipscomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 9:46 PM Subject: Re: POST Doug wrote: Adam C. Lipscomb wrote: Jim wrote: William Taylor wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ahem. Post. Ehrum. Kellogg's. Naw, I'm holding it in Chex. It's a Trix. Get an ax. :) Ah, get a Life. Jeeze, what a bunch of flakes. Cheerio, How lucky we all are, to be gifted by your charms. I'm a married man who is not interested in being gifted by Doug's charms. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: test
- Original Message - From: Steve Sloan II [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 10:32 PM Subject: Re: test Reggie Bautista wrote: Somehow, the thought of anonymous dinging had never entered my mind before this discussion started. Since I first heard mention of dinging, I always assumed it would be an open, transparent process. Personally, I'd like to see the ding-er give an explanation to the ding-ee as to why they are being dinged in a calm, polite way, much like it used to be when someone was tapped by the legendary wand of dinging. Same here. The dinging Nick is developing seems pretty far from what we called dinging in Jo Anne's day. The idea of anonymous dings makes me nervous, plus I always thought of a ding as merely a message telling the dingee (or other small boat ;-) ) to cool off, not a mechanism for slowing down the dingee's posting. I can see anonymous dings being a problem. I think we can do without that feature. To first order, the folks who will ding are now the folks who write emails discussing their displeasure with a post or a series of posts. The difficulty with the Jo Anne method is that times have changed. We have at least two posters who have indicated a strong disinclination to stopping a series of posts because it was politely requested. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Our Friends at the UN
I found a well written article that details the negatives for going into Iraq unilaterally. Its at http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/11/fallows.htm Its too bad Gautam has a problem with his email server that keeps his as a part time lurker. I'd be curious to see what he'd say about this, since it presents the best arguement against going in that I've seen. (Actually, it didn't actually say don't, it said here's the problems if you do. I heard from him, BTW, and he is doing fine, although he's pretty busy. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Our Friends at the UN
- Original Message - From: Matt Grimaldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 11:46 AM Subject: Re: Our Friends at the UN Dan Minette wrote: My issues of concern (which I've stated before) are: There are moral and political problems with forcing a foreign soverign nation to enact a regime change and install a government that does things as you want them done. This is only acceptable when you have a broad coalition of nations and the general world opinion states that this has to happen. Lets look at what happened with the Gulf War. Hussein attacked Kuwait, the US lead a coalition (which was mainly there for moral support) to push Iraq out of Kuwait. The question, when the Iraq army was quickly routed, was do we go to Bagdad? There were a number of reasons for the answer being no. At the time, I thought Bush's Sr.'s judgement was sound. Hindsight is 20/20, but the problems with overturning Hussein presented in the Atlantic Monthly article I referenced existed then, and a reasonable person could very well believe that there was a good chance that his regiem would fall fairly quickly. But, part of that was a stringent or else regarding inspections. The UN would enforce manditory inspections. Well, it didn't happen. And, it seems that you, JDG, and I agree that Iraq is in material breach of the provisions that let Hussein stay in power. Further, the chief inspectors, from what I read, generally support the US resolution on the subject. What is interesting is that France and Russia object to language stating this fact. They seem to feel that this gives the US the right to enforce the agreement, even without their explicit approval. IMHO, there is a strong basis for such an agreement. The US agreed to stop the Gulf War, based on an agreement of what will be done. Does the desire of other countries to back out of that agreement invalidate it? Is the US really operating as a rouge if it feels that the agreement is still in place? Further, we have the unfortunate example of the Balkins. The US behaved as just one of many members of the international community, unwilling to force its will on the world, or even its allies. Lets look at what the Dutch review of the tragedy in Kosova has to say about this: From http://194.134.65.21/srebrenica/ we have Christopher's trip was typified by inexperience on the part of Clinton, who did not fully understand the extent to which the rest of the world waited for America to take the initiative.Indeed, it had already been decided beforehand that Christopher would not be permitted to present America's preferred policy of lift and strike as a fait accompli in the European capitals.[13] It would probably have been possible for him to persuade the Western European leaders with a single utterance of power, but this would have made Bosnia America's problem and the Clinton administration definitely did not want this.The American Government was prepared to make a contribution to a multilateral approach at most. As his briefs for discussion in London indicated, Christopher had come 'in a listening mode'. [15] This gave both the Europeans and the Americans the impression that the Washington administration sought support for a policy they did not wish to fight for.[16] Together with the fact that the European leaders still needed to get used to Christopher's soft-spoken attitude, the American approach merely sewed the seeds of confusion in the capitals of Europe, which were used to America dictating the way. It appears that the Dutch report indicates that the US should be faulted for not dictating terms to the world. My memory of the period was that it was a time where the US was trying not to be the world's policeman, but to just work with everyone else. That sounded real reasonable at the time. The Balkins were a problem that Europe had the capacity to handle. Unfortunately, as is detailed later in the report, the UN would not authorize action clearly needed to stop the massacre. I'm beginning to assign some of the blame I focued on the Dutch to the UN as a whole. But, I see this as evidence against your arguement that the US should wait for world consensus. When it did, many died as a result, and the US gets faulted for not forcing its opinion. When you decide that you have to do this, you are then saying that it is OK to do. Others will use the same rhetoric and excuses that you did, but toward their own ends. This exact thing is playing out with the War Against Terrorism. Both Russia and Israel are using GWB's words and actions for their own purposes, even though we might not agree that the situations are similar enough. This also applies to assasinations. But, what is the alternative? Hasn't the UN shown that it cannot be trusted to protect anyone? It also opens the door for other nations to do the same types of things to you. Why? What's to stop them, otherwise
Re: heading towards a singularity
- Original Message - From: Brad DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 7:01 PM Subject: Re: heading towards a singularity - Original Message - From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Brin-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 9:49 AM Subject: heading towards a singularity http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.11/view.html?pg=4 I started reading this and felt that I had read it before. I read a bit further, skimming, and knew I had read it recently. Oh Hell Its that article by Brad Delong. Been posted recently on the Culture list, where Bradford can be seen with a bit more frequency than here. xponent Brilliant Brinnellers Maru rob Yes. My secret has been revealed. I now control the Change column in _Wired_. Mwuhahahahahahaha!! Now any suggestions on what I should tell the cybermasses? Why energy and farm prices go up and down so much? Is productivity is as critical as Greenspan thinks? Is there a tradeoff between economic growth and pollution control? BTW, I know the consensus among scientists at sci.physics is that the pace of technology change is slowing, not speeding up. I'd be happy to debate that with you. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
- Original Message - From: Ritu Ko [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 10:53 PM Subject: RE: Question for everyone J. van Baardwijk wrote: As for what I said, well, personal attacks doesn't ever let anyone 'win' an argument/discussion. So I fail to see what the big deal is. Those personal attacks tend to have quite a lot of effect on the list as a whole -- and not exactly a positive effect... I'll disagree here again. :) The personal attacks, in and by themselves, do nothing more than cause a momentary unpleasantness. The effect on the list is determined by how the list reacts to these attacks. I recently was called some names by a listee. That was one event. In response, a lot of nice folks here spoke up in my defense. That's another event. And I think that the negative effects of the former were more than made up for by the positive effects of the latter. Of course, all this is strictly imho. Well, not to be argumentative, but I think it is impho. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Our Friends at the UN
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 7:31 PM Subject: Re: Our Friends at the UN Which section of the report was that in? Part 1, chapter 11 Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for everyone
- Original Message - From: Ritu Ko [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 11:31 PM Subject: RE: Question for everyone Dan Minette wrote: Of course, all this is strictly imho. Well, not to be argumentative, but I think it is impho. Okay, I'll bite... P - Personal? In Many People's Humber Opinion. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Just for the record
- Original Message - From: Jean-Louis Couturier [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 9:17 AM Subject: RE: Just for the record De : Julia Thompson [mailto:julia;zurg.net] I haven't been reading the WSJ editorial page much recently, but my husband has, and he's seen a fair bit of the following as of late: 1) Arguments that France shouldn't be a permanent member of the UN Security Council. 2) Arguments for a somewhat new set of permanent UNSC members: US, Russia, China, India and Japan. How is Japan more important than the EU, especially security wise? The EU isn't a country. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Dinging plans (was RE: test)
- Original Message - From: Jean-Louis Couturier [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 9:41 AM Subject: RE: Dinging plans (was RE: test) De : Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten [mailto:prutje;softhome.net] Male whore, interesting idea. I always thought those were called play boy. :o) If ever you work in close contact with marketing, look at some of the people gravitating around the director or VP. A friend of mine has a quote that was considered to be very true by his colleagues. It's not just the oldest profession, its the only profession. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: cars, air L3er
We've now gotten to the point where we are discussing strongly conflicting data from different sources. Rereading my post, I was worried that it might appear that I will simply not accept any number you put out. But, I am applying self consistent rules, well at least they are consistent as far as I can tell. 1) Projections must be taken with a big grain of salt. Hard numbers win hands down over projections. 2) Government consumption figures are pretty accurate. 3) Two sites quoting a third count as one reference, not three. Additional references must be independent to be add weight to a previous one 4) If a variety of industry information is provided, the most pessimistic is the most likely to be accurate. 5) One page general overviews with massive generalizations are less trustworthy than detailed explanations that give credible sources. You are free to disagree with my criteria or on how I apply them. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 8:26 PM Subject: Re: cars, air L3er http://www.awea.org/faq/instcap.html http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/14061/newsDate/17-Jan-20 02/st ory.htm http://dallas.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2002/04/22/daily7.html I don't have 2002 numbers. www.awea.com has a list of projects somewhere. Consumption never adds up to capacity. If you look at the original, at awea.org, you will find that the 2001 number is a projection. I'm always skeptical concerning projections. If you look at the 32% increase in capability listed from 98 to 99 at awea.org, it was accompanies by a 48% increase in consumption. So, I don't see evidence that use lags capacity. I'd argue that the most logical conclusion was that the projections were optimistic. Indeed, I remember projects that were cancelled on the Calf. page when prices went back down. We do have a very environmentally friendly alternative, but it is not PC, so it is being phased out, alas. No global warming, a strong safety record in the West. True. The *potential* disaster is why most people fear it. But, they use different criterion for evaluating the potential disaster for nuclear power than anything else. With Chernobyl, they did almost everything about as badly as possible, and still killed only 200. My standard comparison before 911 was the destructive power of a fully fueled airplane. I wish I wasn't proven right. :-(. Yet, we never worried about planes until 911. And we still aren't talking about getting rid of them. Solar, A factor of 4 in 17 years is fair. A definitive source is hard to find. This one says a factor of 5 over 15 years http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articles/Potential.PDF That statement has known falsehoods in it. Nuclear plants do not get massive subsidies. I have a post from 2 months ago that show total subsides for wind higher than nuclear. This one says 20 fold but doesn't give a time frame. http://starfire.ne.uiuc.edu/~ne201/1996/jmbradle/ I look for key words, such as low as. The most recent average numbers I quoted were from an industry survey; which seemed like a good number, at $6.00. The timeframe was from 1973 till now. Putting numbers from different sources Most of the progress was made in the first 10 years, This one says 99% from 1972-1992 http://www.nr.state.ky.us/nrepc/dnr/energy/doePhotovoltaics.html That's really curious, because the figure for 1992, $5.00, is less than the industry average for 2002. These ones says 100 fold since 1972. http://www.nrel.gov/hot-stuff/press/1999/299phys.html I didn't get a number there. http://whyfiles.org/041solar/main1.html This one had projected numbers. I always take industry survey numbers given in 2002 over projected numbers for 2002 given in 1999. I don't find this hard to believe. Up until 1972 PV's were used almost exclusively on spacecraft. now there is 1000's of mW installed on earth. High volume brings manufacturing costs way down. But, there is a real limit to economics of scale. It works if there is a high NRE cost, or if extensive research is needed. So, prices may have dropped quite a bit at first. But, this can bottom out when technological walls are hit. From what I've seen, such a wall has been hit with PV. Flat prices for the last two years, plus articles in Physics Today of a few years ago indicate to me that a wall has been hit. That doesn't mean it will never work, but that it is not simply a DE, manufacturing quality, and manufacturing scale problem. Wind from $.40/kwh in the 80's to $.05/kwh today http://www.worldmarketsanalysis.com/InFocus2002/articles/energy_renewable.h tml Wind has come down significantly in cost. But, there are two significant problems that have not been addressed. 1) There are a limited supply of quality high wind areas close to consumers 2) Even there, the wind cannot be relied upon. So, wind power cannot be part of the supply that is guaranteed for
Re: Aside Re: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 9:50 PM Subject: Aside Re: UN Security Council Reform Re: Just for the record Ritu Ko wrote: Ritu GCU Still Sleepy GSV Is 9am Too Early To Call It A Day And Go Back To Bed? No, but 10AM is a perfectly acceptable hour to begin a nap. :) Julia trying to gauge when to haul someone upstairs, plunk him into pajamas and start the just-before-bed routine -- probably should have been 15 minutes ago You still do that with Dan? How sweet. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Dinging plans (was RE: test)
- Original Message - From: Ronn Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 7:13 PM Subject: Re: Dinging plans (was RE: test) And does your friend consider himself a professional person? Definately. It was after we were discussing how disgusted we were with ourselves 'bout what games we had to play just to get our jobs done in spite of management. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: I Voted.....
- Original Message - From: J.D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:14 AM Subject: I Voted. The other huge difficult with my votes this year is that I am opposed to building the Inter-County Connector, a new superhighway that is being proposed. As an economist, I know that the evidence from the experience of other cities is that building duplicative highways like the ICC usually does little-to-nothing to reduce congestion. Rather, people simply take advantage of the additional roads to live even further from the cities than they already do. The only proven way to alleviate congestion is to invest the money into mass-transit, such that the critical mass of transit destinations and transit frequency makes the mass transit a truly viable alternative to roads for consumers who want to travel exactly where they want to go exactly when they want to go. Son, here in the Lone Star State, that'd be enough to get you branded as a damn socialist. They wouldn't listen any mealy mouthed excuses that you were really a conservative. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Unilateralism
- Original Message - From: Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 10:45 AM Subject: RE: US Unilateralism You want US unilateralism. I'll give you US unilateralism: In the immortal words of Randy Newman: Political Science While studying political science, you can leave your hat on grin. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Unilateralism
- Original Message - From: Ritu Ko [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 3:24 AM Subject: RE: US Unilateralism Dan Minette wrote: Why I can see being opposed to attacking Iraq, I'm rather surprised by your language. Could you specify the exact portions please? Its been mentioned, but sure. No more credit than the world gave other countries for not provoking an unnecessary war in an unprecedentedly irrational manner, no. Given the fact that the cease fire was based on the assumtion that Hussein's tenure as leader was contingent on him abiding by the terms of the cease fire, and given that we agree that he is material breach, how is the US provoking an unnecessary war in an unprecedentedly irrational manner I could understand an arguement that the war really isn't wise. I posted a link to an article listing the difficulties in handling post war Iraq. But, even if you took out the word unprecedentedly, it stands as a strong statement. How is carrying through on a previous agreement provoking a war? Didn't Hussein provoke the war when he threw the inspectors out? Given the potential for WMD, and given the potential for blackmail, why is going in now irrational? I think that the criterion for your sentence, even without that one word, must be a very strict one, because you have essentially stated that no responsible people could possibly be involved in planning such a war. It gives the impression to me of a bunch of trigger happy cowboys who don't care how many civilians get killed. If you remember just two years ago, there was an outcry concerning the hundreds of thousands of Iraquies killed by the privation caused by the sancitons. While I am sure this is hyperbola, it is true that, with the limited oil sales allowed by the sanctions, the military and WMD programs get the lion share of all income, and there is mass privation among the people. This must be weighted against the civilian deaths that are unavoidable in any war; as well as the potential for violence in the future. In short, I think you have, by your wording, set your self the standard of it being self evident to any thinking individual that fighting Iraq is unreasonable at this time. 4) Do you think the sanctions should be continued? Until an acceptable alternative is found, I guess they are needed. OK, just keeping the sanctions is one option. However, it is likely that they will simply slow down the acquiring of WMD. However, I'm not really sure that a world in which 5-10 dictatorships are able to blackmail all the other countries in the world, because their leaders are willing to risk everything for their own power. Is a part of that sentence missing? Seems like it. Yup, typed that too late. It should have read I'm not really sure that a world I'm not really sure that a world in which 5-10 dictatorships are able to blackmail all the other countries in the world, because their leaders are willing to risk everything for their own power is one I wish to live in. I think that we run the risk of this, unless something is done. Right now, it appears to me that North Korea has some potential to blackmail Japan, if not the US. I shudder to think what 4 A-bombs hitting Japanese cities would do. As far as I can see, the protection of the UN is virtually worthless. Examples of this include Israel and Kosova, and While, at the same time, there is some validity in protection offered by the US. Examples of this are Israel, S. Korea, Bosnia, and Taiwan. Certainly. I wouldn't disagree with that. And I'd have no problems if the rest of the world chooses to opt for US protection. But, what if the UN doesn't OK it, as happened in the Balkans? It appears that the rest of the world wants the US to take all responsibility for protecting other countries while reserving the right to tell the US what to do and what not to do; including actions to protect the US. In that sense, given the many failures of the UN, it would be reasonable for the US to say that, since it has sole responsibility for world security, and since the UN has failed to keep its promises concerning the Gulf War, the US has no choice but to fulfill those promises all by itself. Now, it might not be wise, that's a totally different question, but I don't think it is inherently wrong for the US to bypass the UN as useless. I don't think the UN is useless, its just that it should be accepted for what it is, not a quasi world government. Given the history of the UN, why shouldn't governments consider it a useful place to talk, and a good tool for coordination but an organization who's pronouncements are meaningless? Finally, I am sympathetic to the idea that one country shouldn't play world policeman by itself. However, the real alternative to this, IMHO, is for other countries to become involved, not for the US to promise to do all the work, but to only act when given permission
Re: US Unilateralism
- Original Message - From: Matt Grimaldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 11:26 AM Subject: Re: US Unilateralism John D. Giorgis wrote: I know that the US, especially under the current Administration, is often-criticized for having unilateralist tendencies, and disregarding the opinions of the international community. With that being said, has anybody noticed that the United States has now let the United Nations deliberate for nearly two months (and counting) on its dispute with Iraq? Does anyone know if the rest of the world is giving the US credit for sticking with the multilateral approach, and engaging both its allies and the UNSC members in very long and difficult negotiations, and working towards an ultimate resolution in the United Nations that will not contain a lot of the things that the US was originally looking for? JDG Well, unfortunately, no, we don't get much credit for multilateralism. We *had to be talked into* waiting for the UNSC to debate the merits of action in Iraq, and even then, we show disregard for multilateralism by stating several times over that the USA would be willing to go it alone if we couldn't muster the support of the U.N. If we wanted to claim credit for multilateralism, we would have had to follow the model that Bush Sr. used, namely quietly getting broad support from all of the key countries, then going to the public with talk of war in Iraq. I think it was much easier for Bush Sr. to get the support. At that time, folks were rather worried that Hussein would push to take over Saudi Arabia and the UAE next. He had the 5th best army in the world, on paper, at that time. Now, the primary risk from an attack by Iraq appears to be for Israel and the US. Why should anyone else take any risk for terrorism attacks that might be triggered by an attack on Iraq if the risk to their country of WMD can be minimized by simply opposing the US action? Iraq may very well not use WMD, and if they do, there should be plenty of time to support the US after it got hit. My impression was that much of the spring was spent trying to drum up support, and getting lotsa maybes and nos. The current administration seems to either be doing a poor job of good cop/bad cop, or they found themselves in a position where they shot their mouth off without doing the necessary prep work and are having to go back and fill in the details now that they've gone so far out on a limb. That's possible, but what were they doing when high adminstration officials were flying hither and yon during the winter and spring? All of this negotiation, etc. should have taken place or at least been wrapping up before the President made it a public issue. My guess is that the only thing spurring the negotiations on is the US threat to go it alone. It was sorta, US. are you with us? World No US Then, we're going alone. World Lets talk. World is a substitute for a number of different countries, not including GB. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Nukular L3 (was: cars, air L3er)
- Original Message - From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 4:53 PM Subject: Nukular L3 (was: cars, air L3er) Chipping in with my selective .02$ worth, mostly from a medical perspective (since my environmental engineering days were limited to a summer-and-a-semester of graduate school -- before I thought I knew what I wanted to be when I grew up ;D ). Articles about Chernobyl, the problems of uranium mining, and radioactive waste storage are cited. As I was living in Louisiana at the time when a salt dome stable for thousands of years collapsed, the problem of safely containing waste was particularly illuminated. - Of course, it was humans drilling and mining that caused the collapse: (true story, told humorously)http://members.tripod.com/~earthdude1/texaco/texaco.html --- Dan Minette wrote: snippage We do have a very environmentally friendly alternative, but it is not PC, so it is being phased out, alas. No global warming, a strong safety record in the West. True. The *potential* disaster is why most people fear it. But, they use different criterion for evaluating the potential disaster for nuclear power than anything else. With Chernobyl, they did almost everything about as badly as possible, and still killed only 200... I realize that this plant was poorly designed and operated, but since it was mentioned, I picked out several points. Late sequelae will not be tabulated for years (particularly with regard to solid-tumor cancers). One of the things I found unsettling about this incident is the number of discrepancies I found in reading; one following article is based on an official Registry, listing 170 cases of thyroid cancer in Bryansk, yet failing to mention the total of 1800 (see next article). I think part of the problem is that there is a natural background of thyroid cancer, and the total attributable to Chenobyl is only a fraction of that number. But, in the highly contaminated area, its a bigger fraction. The possible suppression of the full extent of medical consequences, in the case of Dr. Yury Bandazhevsky, prompted a letter from the AAAS (excerpt below). I looked at your source, it corresponds to my main source in discussing this over the years. Part of that source is at http://www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/c05.html I also saw a 2000 follow up, which did not report any real addition to the mortality rates. Indeed, I just found it at http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/chernounscear.htm Apart from the substantial increase in thyroid cancer after childhood exposure observed in Belarus, in the Russian Federation and in Ukraine, there is no evidence of a major public health impact related to ionizing radiation 14 years after the Chernobyl accident. No increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality that could be associated with radiation exposure have been observed. For some cancers no increase would have been anticipated as yet, given the latency period of around 10 years for solid tumours. The risk of leukaemia, one of the most sensitive indicators of radiation exposure, has not been found to be elevated even in the accident recovery operation workers or in children. There is no scientific proof of an increase in other non-malignant disorders related to ionizing radiation. This is certainly a site which is not netural, but at the same time, it actually seems to quote your source. So, your source is through 2000, which is good. Lets continue to look at the two reports together, if we could. I'm sure I could find info at my website in your pdf file, but I hope you don't mind if I take the first place I found info. From that website, I obtained the following information: 31 people died in the first week after the accident About 10 years later, three children died of thyroid cancer in the area. Childhood leukemia has not increased in the exposed area And, both of the official sites show no evidence of increased birth defects. Although, your site indicates, on page 512, that there were reported increases in birth defects observed in aborted fetuses. But, similar increases were reported in Minsk, which received a far lower dose. Indeed, you cite the exact same verbage that I do. Why would a minimally exposed area have the same increase as a highly exposed area? I see a simple explaination Docs looked at aborted fetuses a lot more carefully after Chenobyl. That is why they conclude that there is no evidence for a real increase, because the increase was the same in the control sample. BACKGROUND: Numerous investigations have been carried out concerning the possible impact of the Chernobyl accident, in April 1986, on the prevalence of anomalies at birth and on perinatal mortality. The accident has contaminated Eastern Europe more heavily than Western Europe. If there was an effect of the radioactive contamination on perinatal
Re: Space Pen versus Pencil, was Scouted: Fireworks
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 6:19 PM Subject: Re: Space Pen versus Pencil, was Scouted: Fireworks But there would probably be graphie dust generated when the pencil was used to write. Not as much as there would be with sharpening a wood pencil, but still some. Would that be reduced by using a harder graphite, maybe? Too hard, and it will not do a good job of smearing on the paper just so. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Michael Bellesiles Resigns from Emory Faculty
- Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 7:35 PM Subject: Re: Michael Bellesiles Resigns from Emory Faculty - Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 12:04 PM Subject: Re: Michael Bellesiles Resigns from Emory Faculty - Original Message - From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 11:42 AM Subject: RE: Michael Bellesiles Resigns from Emory Faculty At 04:06 PM 10/26/2002 -0400 Joe Hale wrote: The moral of this story is: 1. Don't mess with the National Rifle Association. 2. If you do mess with them, make damn sure you have your facts right before you publish anything. Ahem - shouldn't the moral Don't tell lies in a peer-reviewed academic discipline be #1 on that list? Well, it depends on whether it is a question of honor and respect or integrity. It appears that in this case integrity was a major issue. xponent He Lied Maru rob I am not defending his integrity. I am musing on what drives people. If he was honor driven, the problem was tangling with the NRA. If he was integrity driven, he wouldn't have lied in the first place. Its an interesting state of affairs. People can lie through their teeth, get caught at it, and have the people who catch them look bad. Others, can't get away with being called a liar, even if they were later proven to be telling the truth on the subject. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Michael Bellesiles Resigns from Emory Faculty
- Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 7:35 PM Subject: Re: Michael Bellesiles Resigns from Emory Faculty Dan M. wrote I am not defending his integrity. I am musing on what drives people. If he was honor driven, the problem was tangling with the NRA. If he was integrity driven, he wouldn't have lied in the first place. I cant see where this is a binary question. Because, with honor, the whole thing is how you look. A man of honor can do what he wants and keep his honor, so long as he doesn't get caught. He loses his honor when falsely accused, as long as other people don't know its false. My point is that if you want to lie about something, then picking a topic that the NRA can throw a lot of manpower and money to chase things down to prove you wrong is really stupid. Now, I think that lying in scholastic research is abhorant, and it undercuts the reputation of anyone else who does that research. So, the question of honor vs. integrety. He may have also been deluding himself, caught up in his beliefs to the point where he justified making up data that he knew was there, but had been destroyed. I dont see where in this case honor or integrity would be the driving forces. I think its likely to be ego driven to the point that his personal prejudices over rode his sense of honor and integrity. That's probably true, because he picked the wrong opponent. However, if he got away with it, his honor would be intact. His integrity would not have been. It does not surprise me at all that he was forced to resign. I smelled BS the first time I heard about him (here on Brin-L). The entire premise was preposterous to begin with, the stuff conspiracy theories are made of. Well, it was proven wrong, but other ideas that have been just as counterintuitive have been well documented. What he has done was make the job of anyone who wants to show something counterintuitive is historically correct that much harder. An example of this is the arguement that the movie cowboy had little to do with reality; or that the Civil War was really fought over slavery. We have the president's wife, who is not uneducated, arguing against that view as thought it was some nasty postmodern reconstruction of history, instead of what really happened. Now, he has given people like that more ammunition to fight against true research. For undermining the assumption that peer reviewed research can be truested, he does deserve to be fired. I'm against it even if he got away with it, but I believe in integrety, not honor. Its an interesting state of affairs. People can lie through their teeth, get caught at it, and have the people who catch them look bad. Others, can't get away with being called a liar, even if they were later proven to be telling the truth on the subject. I agree with the above, but dont think it has much to do with Bellesiles or his resignation. Well, if he had falsified an area where there wasn't a massive army opposing him, do you think it would have appeared on the radar of the school? Would there have been any investigation? Also, it would be interesting to see if other tenured professors caught in this type of shoddy work were fired. But, others didn't do as much damage to the institutions they supposedly supported, so if his penalty was higher than that for others, it would still be justified. Having said that, I am personally strongly opposed to any falsification of any academic research, especially in support of a valid supposition. (Not saying his was by this.) His actions would be especially wrong if he was providing false data for a valid premise. I guess what I was thinking of is how men of honor were known to lie about substantial things, and kept their honor. This was true, even if a man of integrity would not have lied under those circumstances. (For example, a man of integrity would be happy to lie to a potential murderer to save a life.) So, if he picked another subject to lie about, he would keep his honor, he just wouldn't have integrity. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Contraception and Wedding Nights Re: science Vs religion
- Original Message - From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 10:53 PM Subject: Re: Contraception and Wedding Nights Re: science Vs religion Right, but unless one has a grave reason to use contraception, it is hard to envision a scenario in which not using contraception would violate one's own conscience. Thus, the principle of obedience in this case would apply - unless one is able to meet the very high standard of not using contraception violating one's conscience. I never took a vow of obedience. If something is right by my conscience, then I can do it, no matter what the pope says. I do not consider the Catholic church to have much moral authority when it comes to families. But, even if I agreed with you on the need for obedience unless I thought it was wrong, it would be wrong for me to obey. I would cause damage to my family by following the teachings of popes who, to be blunt, don't know what they are talking about and refuse to listen to people who do know. Its like following the suggestions of a art critic who has been blind from birth. Dan M. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Contraception and Wedding Nights Re: science Vs religion
- Original Message - From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 3:07 PM Subject: Re: Contraception and Wedding Nights Re: science Vs religion Ditching the Rhythm Method for the Thermo-symptomatic method, which has comparable effectiveness to other forms of birth control. I'd be very curious to see where you get your numbers. I saw the type of high numbers that you quote and talk about motivated couples. Few websites on Natural Family Planning offer more than generalities, and all of them only show a perfectly regular 28 day cycle. I found one that gives some detail, and its much more pessimistic than what you've said. It is at http://www.epigee.org/guide/natural.html It seems pro-NFP, but fairly reasonable about what's involved. Let me quote some from it: First, it quotes the overall failure rate of this method as 15%. That is significantly higher than the pill. Further, it states as a method: Her last safe day is one week before the earliest recorded day of temperature rise, or 5 days after the first day of her period. Well, this tends to dig a hole in your 75% availability number for many women. Not to be too indelicate, but the first few days of a cycle are usually not considered prime time for sex. Second, if a woman has a variable cycle, this can really mess things up. For example, let's say a woman's cycle varies from 28 to 70 days. That means that her safe time is the first week after the start of the cycle, and from three days after ovulation to the end of the cycle. So, NFP allows sex for this woman, during a long cycle, roughly 16 days out of 70. Now, for the accuracy of the method. It quotes a 1% figure for post-ovulation sex only: Intercourse during the time before ovulation is less safe than the time after ovulation because sperm have been known to live up to six days. For this reason, some couples choose to have sex only after the fertile period. This practice, known as the post-ovulatory temperature method, is the most effective of all methods of true contraception, with a failure rate of only 1% among perfect users. However, it is not recommended because it requires a very long period of abstinence. So, the numbers you quote appear to me to be for ideal cases and perfect use only. The numbers from this site match what I've seen elsewhere. Plus, IIRC, the numbers are for any given year. So, a couple using this form of birth control for 15 years should expect roughly two randomly spaced children during that time. Dan M. Who made these measurements, and what were the controls in the study. Further, I guess this is an adult list and we can go there. You claim by ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Praying for the Poor RE: Christian insanity.
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 2:27 PM Subject: Re: Praying for the Poor RE: Christian insanity. I agree that it is not a good idea in most cases to give them cash. Personally, I prefer to leverage my giving by donating to charities that use the money to improve the general situation long-term as well as the specific instances. But it is silly to claim that praying for them will help them. No, it is not. There are reasons why that do not involve God answering prayers by intervening on the behalf of the person praying. It is patently obvious to me why. If you think about it Erik, it should also be obvious to you. If it isn't, say so, and I'll give more details. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: From Mark on rec.arts.books.tolkien
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 12:45 PM Subject: Re: From Mark on rec.arts.books.tolkien On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 10:48:25AM -0500, Gary Nunn wrote: Julia wrote I'm sorry that people are so bent out of shape about it now. Maybe if people hadn't been getting so bent out of shape about what the listowners should and should not do before then, it wouldn't have been an issue that the listowners felt ought not be publicized. Julia is absolutely right. No, she is not, at least not if that is a statement of policy. It sounded more like an excuse to me, or perhaps an apology with an excuse. But whatever it is, it is NOT good policy. Come on now, if since when is it good policy to keep something secret because you are afraid that others might criticize you if the truth were known? That is a policy of tyrants, not of a free and transparent list like Brin-L. No, it is the policy of a very sick and tired volunteer who is establishing sane boundaries. I've volunteered a number of times, both as a leader and follower, and I've noticed a pattern. There are times when the lead volunteer job is work, listening to kvetching, and no reward. An example of this for me was when I took the TD job for chess clubs. The first time I did this, I had to estimate initial ratings for folks. But, the ratings are self adjusting, so after 40 or so games, a 200 point error in the initial estimate fades to 50 points. One of the folks insisted that I rated him far too low, and was rather upset by it. When I pointed out that his play over the last 40 games was consistant with that rating, he countered that the low rating lead to the poor play. That wasn't too bad, but when I started doing weekly tournaments with kids, and yelling parents, I gave up because the load, both in terms of time and emotions. So, even thought I criticized Eileen in the JDG fiasco, I was still aware that we were very dependant on her goodwill. Now, after hearing how Sonja got many nasty emails, I'm guessing that Eileen did too. Frankly, she was well within her rights to say it was just not worth the trouble. She had no obligation to not pull the plug. Since she participated very little, brin-l was mostly work for her. Given that, I don't think her actions were that out of line. You know, you knew that Cornell was going away, and could have provided a new adress for brin-l yourself. Then, you could have told everyone that it would be an open forum, and we'd have the choice of looking for other volunteers, or taking what you offered. No one should be above constructive criticism. That is one of Brin's memes, and it is applicable here. If the listowners are afraid of constructive criticism, then perhaps they should re-consider being listowners? They should NOT hide things from the list. So, your suggestion was that she should have pulled the plug? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
