From michael at i-magery.com Mon Jan 18 07:26:27 2010 From: michael at i-magery.com (Michael Cummins) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:26:27 -0500 Subject: [FoRK] Google leaving China? In-Reply-To: <021d01ca9560$31d32280$95796780$@com> References: <4B4D634E.1090502@mithral.com> <021d01ca9560$31d32280$95796780$@com> Message-ID: <005d01ca9852$9a8f1910$cfad4b30$@com> > Hilarity and Bedlam ensue. More news: Google probing possible inside help on attack http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100118/wr_nm/us_google_china_attack The sources, who are familiar with the situation, told Reuters that the attack, which targeted people who have access to specific parts of Google networks, may have been facilitated by people working in Google China's office. Google China Employees Given Holiday Leave, Networks Being Scrutinized http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/01/14/google-china-holiday-leave/ The fact that Google employees are seemingly unable to log onto internal systems could be a result of the internal security tests and scans, but Google has apparently also asked China employees to 'relax at home' for an unspecified time. This one is unsourced and potentially full of poo (I found it searching Google, heh) so take it with a grain of salt: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=110121 Translated from a Chinese article, and much simplified: Immediately after Google announced its intention to leave China on its official blog, everyone in Google China no longer had the ability to access the code server. They only found this after going to work in the morning and trying to access the home directory, and there were people writing code at the time but could not proceed anymore. All this happened very suddenly, and no one in Google China knew this was going to happen. In normal situations Google would not have to do this. But in this case, Google could not trust Google China any more, because one (or many) of Google China's employees (who would also work for the Chinese government) have been stealing code and give them to the government. These people would also be responsible for finding the Gmail accounts of political dissidents, and probably finding Gmail's vulnerabilities used for hacking later. When Google said it suffered from "theft of intellectual property", it wasn't laying, except people probably thought differently. The existence of Google China would threaten the entire Google's survival. Even though China is such a huge growing market that Google definitely wants to be part of, in this case Google just does not have an option. When Google said that it will negotiate with the Chinese government to operate an unfiltered search engine, it actually means that it will leave no matter what, even if somehow the government allows that, Google cannot stay, does not want to stay, cannot afford to stay. Of course people expecting other foreign companies to follow suit and leave China will be disappointed, as they are not in such a difficult situation as Google, at least not yet. From michael at i-magery.com Mon Jan 18 07:51:22 2010 From: michael at i-magery.com (Michael Cummins) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:51:22 -0500 Subject: [FoRK] The Wrecking Crew - A Low, Dishonest Decade In-Reply-To: <4B53B6EC.3020009@lig.net> References: <4B53AAB7.9060708@lig.net> <003c01ca97db$89933b40$9cb9b1c0$@com> <4B53B6EC.3020009@lig.net> Message-ID: <006101ca9856$15188ba0$3f49a2e0$@com> Bill Moyers: > President Obama's made plenty of mistakes during his first year, and > we've critiqued them frequently here on the JOURNAL I'm not a fan of Obama's policies, but I was thinking more long term. There are villains on both sides of the aisle going back many years. Fannie Mae? Freddie Mac? The changes made to the Community Reinvestment Act? What about the S&L earlier on? It's not like this is the first bailout. Would it be wrong to just let the failures fail? How can you actually have a "free market" if there are no consequences to failure? - MEC From hkpang at gmail.com Mon Jan 18 07:59:13 2010 From: hkpang at gmail.com (HK Pang) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:59:13 -0500 Subject: [FoRK] Google leaving China? In-Reply-To: <005d01ca9852$9a8f1910$cfad4b30$@com> References: <4B4D634E.1090502@mithral.com> <021d01ca9560$31d32280$95796780$@com> <005d01ca9852$9a8f1910$cfad4b30$@com> Message-ID: <5234e09e1001180759g71c6ee0agf9a77351d080e549@mail.gmail.com> Baidu's CTO resigned...hmm, interesting development! http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704541004575010542693689462.html?mod=WSJ_Tech_LEFTTopNews On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Michael Cummins wrote: > Google probing possible inside help on attack > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100118/wr_nm/us_google_china_attack > > The sources, who are familiar with the situation, told Reuters that the > attack, which targeted people who have access to specific parts of Google > networks, may have been facilitated by people working in Google China's > office. From sdw at lig.net Mon Jan 18 10:17:36 2010 From: sdw at lig.net (Stephen Williams) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:17:36 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] The Wrecking Crew - A Low, Dishonest Decade In-Reply-To: <006101ca9856$15188ba0$3f49a2e0$@com> References: <4B53AAB7.9060708@lig.net> <003c01ca97db$89933b40$9cb9b1c0$@com> <4B53B6EC.3020009@lig.net> <006101ca9856$15188ba0$3f49a2e0$@com> Message-ID: <4B54A5C0.1010100@lig.net> Michael Cummins wrote: > Bill Moyers: > >> President Obama's made plenty of mistakes during his first year, and >> we've critiqued them frequently here on the JOURNAL >> > > I'm not a fan of Obama's policies, but I was thinking more long term. There > are villains on both sides of the aisle going back many years. > > Fannie Mae? Freddie Mac? The changes made to the Community Reinvestment > Act? > > What about the S&L earlier on? It's not like this is the first bailout. > Plenty of blame, agreed. And plenty that should have been learned from and not repeated even bigger this round. It is no excuse to say, "but they did it!". To the extent that irrationality was introduced into the system (easy liar loans to anyone), those responsible remain responsible. On the other hand, it doesn't seem to be that the subprime loans were so easy to get that was the core problem but that AIG et al had created such a large fiction that the risk could be hidden, forgotten, and leveraged in polynomial ways that brought doom. They essentially created an event horizon of complexity and misdirection that fooled everyone, including themselves. If the risk was more clear, the funding for the worst subprime loans would have dried up in time. > Would it be wrong to just let the failures fail? How can you actually have > a "free market" if there are no consequences to failure? > There should be big consequences for the players involved, but the damage to "innocent consumers" should be limited, at least in some cases. Some or all states have victim compensation programs that will give a little bit of money to people who are victims of major crime. A bailout is something like that for the customers of a failed enterprise. The players who caused or allowed a failure to happen should at least not profit, let alone make out like bandits. However, I acknowledge that it is a complicated situation. You need to pay people something to keep them from jumping a sinking ship to limit damage, etc. sdw > - MEC > > From wgstoddard at gmail.com Mon Jan 18 10:39:21 2010 From: wgstoddard at gmail.com (Bill Stoddard) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:39:21 -0500 Subject: [FoRK] Truth (?) about the Google Affair (translated from a Chinese blog) Message-ID: <4B54AAD9.3010002@gmail.com> This is translated from a Chinese blog. Of course, there is no way to 'prove' this accusation; inner workings of the CCP is a black box and there are no civilized tools available to break that black box open. However, you can still reasonably ask 'Does this pass the 'sniff test''? You decide... -//- http://www.zonaeuropa.com/201001b.brief.htm (scroll down to article (012) The Truth About The Google Affair (01/15/2010) (Douban) This is a translation of an anonymous blog/forum post by an omniscient person who is somehow privy to confidential information from all sides. If you have any doubts about the following truth or if you think that there are other versions out there, then you need to explain the following fact: When Google headquarters announced their withdrawal from China, they immediately canceled the rights of all Chinese engineers to access the servers on which their program codes reside. The engineers only found out when they showed up for work that they could not longer enter the home page of their server. There was no pre-notification. Many people were halfway through their coding when they were frozen out. They will have to wait for weeks when they are transferred to the United States before they can continue to write. If Google had planned to leave beforehand, why would they do this? They could have continued to let the workers work and clean up. For example, the Chinese company does Google Music differently than the US (music.google.cn and music.google.com). If Chinese Google Music is canceled, the Chinese engineers can do the code migration. But all Chinese engineers were placed on paid leave while that work is being taken over by foreigners. Why did Google suddenly distrust its Chinese team? After all, they developed their own codes and they should be more efficient in making the migration. The only reason is that the Chinese Communist Party must have inserted special agents inside Google (specifically in the Shanghai office of Google). The truth of the matter is that this person was sent by the Chinese Communist Party. After being hired by Google, this person copied down the critical program code and handed it over the the Chinese Communist Party. The purpose of this action was to gain access to the email of the "human rights organizations." Google's official statement noted this. The flaws of the Gmail system became exposed. Google could not officially acknowledge this, or else their reputation would suffer internationally. All Google could do was to stop all work in China. All engineers in China were not allowed to access the program code server. Then they seized the opportunity to correct their Gmail code over the next few days. So the whole truth is simply this emergency incident. You can read the original Google statement. It was written in haste, but you can sense the shock among their top leaders. The three top managers of Google held an emergency meeting and came to a unanimous decision. How could they have reached an agreement with the United States government to do this beforehand? Do you feel that an official Google announcement would be so crudely written unlike any official document? Google's withdrawal was not because of the Internet censorship. While that was something that Google felt uncomfortable about, they had put up with it over the past few years. But the code theft this time caused Google to face a total collapse crisis. (The official Google blog said that this involved an intellectual property theft problem). To put it bluntly, the survival of the entire company would be threatened if they stayed in China. Therefore, they put a stop to all work at their China company. While Google planned to negotiate with the Chinese government at first, they have given up the effort today. Even if the government makes concessions, Google does not plan to stay. If they stay, they risk their lives. This is not a question of making money in the China market or not. The risk is too high to make a little money but losing the entire company. As for limiting the access rights of the Chinese engineers to the program code, it should that said that Google trusts its technical staff. Even an intern can access more than 99% of the program code. Google has only one program code database. Each person who enters learns the first law of development: Search! Search for similar code in the program code database and then email the original author. By sharing the program code across the entire company, they were able to achieve tremendous coding efficiency. The Google program code, comments and technical description are open to every engineer. You can criticize me, or you can offer other explanations. But please read my whole essay and then see if you can justify your own version!! I can only say that the Chinese Communist Party has gone too far and made it impossible for Google to go on. P.S. This case is still under investigation. There is a person who is a Chinese Communist Party member. After arriving in Google, he downloaded the core program code of Gmail. This person has vanished now. But we know the above. As to who sent him, we can only guess. Over the past couple of days, Google headquarters people have interviewed every engineer in China to see if this person has collaborators. At the same time, Google headquarters is accessing how much program code has been leaked and how much of it has to be re-written. When this is done, they will begin to transfer the Chinese engineers (if they didn't investigate and transfer them immediately, they would be bringing the moles to the United States). At that time, Google headquarters will state the truth. You can wait a month and come back to re-read this post. P.P.S. Forget it, let me explain this. There were three moles, one of whom was the Chinese Communist Party branch secretary. This party secretary was set up four years ago by the National Security Ministry. This guy studied at Jiaotong University and then jointed Computer Security Department. The department sent him to study computers at the Computer Security School in Jiaotong University. He programmed every day. When he graduated, he joined Google. There, he recruited two more insiders. One of them was the insider who broke into the source code for Gmail and gave it to the Chinese government. The government wanted this mainly to monitor the anti-Communist persons who use Gmail. So this was sensationalistic, because of the involvement of the Chinese Communist Party branch. This guy got a 1,000,000 yuan reward, plus public servant status. These people used to sneak over to Lujiazui after work to attend Chinese Communist Party branch meetings. P.P.P.S. How did Google that their code was obtained by the agents? Unless Google installs surveillance software on the computers of all the workers. To access the program code, one must log into the only program code server at Google. The server will keep a record of your visits. It is only known now that this person is a Chinese Communist Party member and he reviewed a lot of program code within a short time. This person has now vanished. Based upon this, I conjecture that he turned the code over to his organization. Firstly, he clearly attacked many servers that carried source code. Secondly, he clearly obtained it illegally. Let us continue to watch this. My mobile phone will be ringing ... Right now, most of the colleagues are prepared to leave. A small number of technical people and the legal department will stay. Everybody is depressed. Nobody thought that this was how this would end. [ESWN Comment: Due to the many links that are coming into this story, I deem it necessary to comment. Firstly and most importantly, I do not think that this is true based upon the internal contents of the story. I referred to the author as 'omniscient' because this person appears to have the knowledge of a Google worker (such as access privileges) and is also privy to information within the Chinese Communist Party (such as the mole receiving 1,000,000 yuan in reward money). In practice, this is extremely unlikely. For importantly, this story misses the details about the hacking breach that David Drummond referred to. This story is just about a mole downloading code from inside the company. There is nothing about hacking. There is also nothing to jump from Google to the 32 companies that were also attacked by the hacker(s). The following story is completely orthogonal to the above story. From kelley at inkworkswell.com Mon Jan 18 11:18:15 2010 From: kelley at inkworkswell.com (kelley) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:18:15 -0500 Subject: [FoRK] Truth (?) about the Google Affair (translated from a Chinese blog) In-Reply-To: <4B54AAD9.3010002@gmail.com> References: <4B54AAD9.3010002@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20100118141308.04aeb208@pop.inkworkswell.com> At 01:39 PM 1/18/2010, Bill Stoddard wrote: >This is translated from a Chinese blog. Of course, there is no way to >'prove' this accusation; inner workings of the CCP is a black box and >there are no civilized tools available to break that black box open. >However, you can still reasonably ask 'Does this pass the 'sniff >test''? You decide... > >-//- > >http://www.zonaeuropa.com/201001b.brief.htm thanks for this. I laughed until I cried reading the hilarious account of the attack in Wired? Who let that horrible mess out and into publication? ugly. just ugly. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/01/operation-aurora/ bwahahahahaha. ultra sophisticated. man. i'm going to pee my pants if i keep laughing like this. Kelley When you need to communicate, Ink Works! Web site: http://www.inkworkswell.com Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kelleywalker Phone: (757) 717-9969 From aaron at bavariati.org Mon Jan 18 11:56:58 2010 From: aaron at bavariati.org (Aaron Burt) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:56:58 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] Truth (?) about the Google Affair (translated from a Chinese blog) In-Reply-To: <4B54AAD9.3010002@gmail.com> References: <4B54AAD9.3010002@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20100118195658.GA2171@aaron-x31> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 01:39:21PM -0500, Bill Stoddard wrote: > This is translated from a Chinese blog. Of course, there is no way > to 'prove' this accusation; inner workings of the CCP is a black box > and there are no civilized tools available to break that black box > open. However, you can still reasonably ask 'Does this pass the > 'sniff test''? You decide... Joe Bob sez, too much plot getting in the way of the story. I'll stick with the _Halting State_ plot-- Google was attacked by hackers working at an arm's remove from the Chinese security services. This violated an agreement with the CCP, so Google is following through by withdrawing money and censorship. Probably all just an external manifestation of an internal CCP power struggle, a la the Cultural Revolution. From aaron at bavariati.org Mon Jan 18 12:24:25 2010 From: aaron at bavariati.org (Aaron Burt) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 12:24:25 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] The Wrecking Crew - A Low, Dishonest Decade In-Reply-To: <006101ca9856$15188ba0$3f49a2e0$@com> References: <4B53AAB7.9060708@lig.net> <003c01ca97db$89933b40$9cb9b1c0$@com> <4B53B6EC.3020009@lig.net> <006101ca9856$15188ba0$3f49a2e0$@com> Message-ID: <20100118202425.GB2171@aaron-x31> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:51:22AM -0500, Michael Cummins wrote: > Bill Moyers: > > President Obama's made plenty of mistakes during his first year, and > > we've critiqued them frequently here on the JOURNAL > > I'm not a fan of Obama's policies, but I was thinking more long term. There > are villains on both sides of the aisle going back many years. Not a lot of villians on either side of the aisle, mostly just whores. > Fannie Mae? Freddie Mac? The changes made to the Community Reinvestment > Act? The changes to the CRA are a red herring. > What about the S&L earlier on? It's not like this is the first bailout. Not nearly. S&L debacle was a result of a basic scam being opened up by deregulation, where folks like Neil Bush and John McCain played with loans that were never meant to be repaid. Much like the mortgage securitization scam, really. > Would it be wrong to just let the failures fail? How can you actually have > a "free market" if there are no consequences to failure? In casino capitalism, the game is to separate the risk from the reward, and pawn the risk to the suckers or lobby the gov't to take it on. The system worked exactly the way it was rigged to. Heck, the only "free market" is right next to the "frictionless bearing" in the Land of Academic Abstractions. Speaking as an engineer, the export duties are really high. From wgstoddard at gmail.com Mon Jan 18 12:30:24 2010 From: wgstoddard at gmail.com (Bill Stoddard) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:30:24 -0500 Subject: [FoRK] Truth (?) about the Google Affair (translated from a Chinese blog) In-Reply-To: <20100118195658.GA2171@aaron-x31> References: <4B54AAD9.3010002@gmail.com> <20100118195658.GA2171@aaron-x31> Message-ID: <4B54C4E0.2030006@gmail.com> On 1/18/10 2:56 PM, Aaron Burt wrote: > On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 01:39:21PM -0500, Bill Stoddard wrote: > >> This is translated from a Chinese blog. Of course, there is no way >> to 'prove' this accusation; inner workings of the CCP is a black box >> and there are no civilized tools available to break that black box >> open. However, you can still reasonably ask 'Does this pass the >> 'sniff test''? You decide... >> > Joe Bob sez, too much plot getting in the way of the story. > > I'll stick with the _Halting State_ plot-- Google was attacked by hackers > working at an arm's remove from the Chinese security services. Reasonable permutation. I'd actually be a bit surprised if the mole was a CCP cadre (ie, member of the party). Why do the dirty work when you can pay someone to do the dirty work for you. > This violated an agreement with the CCP, That seems a stretch... > so Google is following through by > withdrawing money and censorship. > Unless I misunderstand what you're saying this doesn't pass sniff test. Google withdrawing money and censorship because they are 'punishing' the CCP? You kidding me? That they faced an existential threat, as the article points out, makes much more sense. > Probably all just an external manifestation of an internal CCP power > struggle, a la the Cultural Revolution. > Frightening thought but almost certainly true. An aside... just finished reading an account of Mao's life as told by his personal physician of 22 years: http://www.amazon.com/Private-Life-Chairman-Mao/dp/0679764437/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263845933&sr=8-1 Highly recommended. A healthy dose of 20th century Chinese history is necessary for all well informed FoRK'ers. This is a good first foray into the topic. Dr. Li's account is a good match with an account of the same period found here: http://www.amazon.com/Wild-Swans-Three-Daughters-China/dp/0743246985/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263846596&sr=1-1 Bill Bill From ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca Mon Jan 18 13:20:28 2010 From: ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca (Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:20:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [FoRK] The Wrecking Crew - A Low, Dishonest Decade In-Reply-To: <4B54A5C0.1010100@lig.net> Message-ID: <214021.61804.qm@web33004.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Mon, 1/18/10, Stephen Williams wrote: > > ....? You need to pay people something to keep them from jumping a sinking ship to limit damage, etc. > Why? I have seen no evidence that lesser paid rookies hired off the street, or perhaps enlisting some university students for a "work term" during the transition, would not have served as well as continuing to employ the overpaid bozos who caused the problem. There is, in fact, a distinct advantage to getting innocents involved. Since they do not know where the skeletons are hidden, there is no temptation to continue to hide them. In this situation, a bunch of ignorant rookies having to find the answers to all the usual dumb questions makes very good sense. This is not a situation where the conventional wisdom of the status quo should prevail. In my view. ...ken... __________________________________________________________________ Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane with All new Yahoo! Mail: http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/ From ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca Mon Jan 18 13:35:14 2010 From: ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca (Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:35:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [FoRK] The Wrecking Crew - A Low, Dishonest Decade In-Reply-To: <20100118202425.GB2171@aaron-x31> Message-ID: <532290.98774.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Mon, 1/18/10, Aaron Burt wrote: > > In casino capitalism, the game is to separate the risk from the reward, and pawn the risk to the suckers or lobby the gov't to take it on.? The system worked exactly the way it was rigged to. > Just so. Now that they know it works, they're revving up to see if they can push it even farther this time around. All signs are that they will be allowed to. The only stumbling block will be whether our respective governments will be able to print enough money fast enough. ...ken... __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/ From wgstoddard at gmail.com Mon Jan 18 13:45:06 2010 From: wgstoddard at gmail.com (Bill Stoddard) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:45:06 -0500 Subject: [FoRK] The Wrecking Crew - A Low, Dishonest Decade In-Reply-To: <20100118202425.GB2171@aaron-x31> References: <4B53AAB7.9060708@lig.net> <003c01ca97db$89933b40$9cb9b1c0$@com> <4B53B6EC.3020009@lig.net> <006101ca9856$15188ba0$3f49a2e0$@com> <20100118202425.GB2171@aaron-x31> Message-ID: <4B54D662.1000102@gmail.com> > Heck, the only "free market" is right next to the "frictionless bearing" in > the Land of Academic Abstractions. > FoRK quote worth remembering! Bill From marcerickson at gmail.com Mon Jan 18 13:54:55 2010 From: marcerickson at gmail.com (Marc Erickson) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:54:55 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] The Wrecking Crew - A Low, Dishonest Decade In-Reply-To: <4B54D662.1000102@gmail.com> References: <4B53AAB7.9060708@lig.net> <003c01ca97db$89933b40$9cb9b1c0$@com> <4B53B6EC.3020009@lig.net> <006101ca9856$15188ba0$3f49a2e0$@com> <20100118202425.GB2171@aaron-x31> <4B54D662.1000102@gmail.com> Message-ID: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice Economy May 2009 Atlantic The crash has laid bare many unpleasant truths about the United States. One of the most alarming, says a former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, is that the finance industry has effectively captured our government?a state of affairs that more typically describes emerging markets, and is at the center of many emerging-market crises. If the IMF?s staff could speak freely about the U.S., it would tell us what it tells all countries in this situation: recovery will fail unless we break the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform. And if we are to prevent a true depression, we?re running out of time. by Simon Johnson And to prevent a depression in the entire world, especially in my country. When you sneeze, we catch a fever. Marc On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Bill Stoddard wrote: > > Heck, the only "free market" is right next to the "frictionless bearing" >> in >> the Land of Academic Abstractions. >> >> > > FoRK quote worth remembering! > > Bill > > _______________________________________________ > FoRK mailing list > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork > -- A Canadian Geek http://www.lockergnome.com/nexus/marcerickson From dot at dotat.at Mon Jan 18 14:00:16 2010 From: dot at dotat.at (Tony Finch) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 22:00:16 +0000 Subject: [FoRK] The Wrecking Crew - A Low, Dishonest Decade In-Reply-To: <4B54D662.1000102@gmail.com> References: <4B53AAB7.9060708@lig.net> <003c01ca97db$89933b40$9cb9b1c0$@com> <4B53B6EC.3020009@lig.net> <006101ca9856$15188ba0$3f49a2e0$@com> <20100118202425.GB2171@aaron-x31> <4B54D662.1000102@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Bill Stoddard wrote: > > > Heck, the only "free market" is right next to the "frictionless bearing" in > > the Land of Academic Abstractions. > > FoRK quote worth remembering! A bit of history along these lines: "Collective hallucinations and inefficient markets: the British railway mania of the 1840s." http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/hallucinations.pdf Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch http://dotat.at/ GERMAN BIGHT HUMBER: SOUTHWEST 5 TO 7. MODERATE OR ROUGH. SQUALLY SHOWERS. MODERATE OR GOOD. From jbone at place.org Tue Jan 19 05:57:26 2010 From: jbone at place.org (Jeff Bone) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 07:57:26 -0600 Subject: [FoRK] The Wrecking Crew - A Low, Dishonest Decade Message-ID: <49DB22BD-143F-4C09-90B1-E9A9B1809A27@place.org> How ironic. SO Michael opines: > "Yes, yes... The heroes are all on one side, and the villains are > all on the other. Stephen quotes Moyers in reply: > "President Obama's made plenty of mistakes during his first year, > and > we've critiqued them frequently here on the JOURNAL" Hmmm.... so Stephen, what you're saying is that by making this thin disclaimer, Moyers is demonstrating... what? That he's, ahem, "fair and balanced?" Riiiiiiight. This is no more convincing than when e.g. Hannity disclaims (some of) the actions of Bush and claiming that he was a vigorous and vocal opponent when, in fact, he was --- as anyone without partisan rose- coloured glasses on knows --- one of the head cheerleaders and apologists. BOTH "sides" of this debate are equally guilty of this kind of ongoing, hypocritical apologia of their preferred brand and, ironically, of the very thing Moyers is castigating in his lede: the tendency to focus on attacking the other side and apologizing for the preferred side, conveniently forgetting or discounting the recent and ongoing problems being created by the preferred side. Attack Bush all you want --- I *certainly* did. But to be fair, you must also place blame where blame is due for e.g. the failure of much of the recent stimulus, the appalling mountain of debt we've taken on just this year, the "surprising" rate of unemployment relative to promises made / actions taken, and so on. Do "conservatives" have a poor opinion of government? Well, surely. Why? Well, maybe because there are so few instances of it working and so many of it *not* working. Do "progressives" or "liberals" have too high an opinion? Absolutely; but only because their skepticism and hatred of stymergic processes --- particularly those called "markets" --- obscures their ability to see that such things are the worst alternatives (except for all the other ones.) A "low, dishonest" decade? Well, certainly. But Moyers and company are no less guilty of intellectual dishonesty in the present circumstances than e.g. the noxious Faux News and radio talking heads were during the Bush reign of (t)error. -- I like the bit about opposition to monopoly. That's my beef, too, with the caveat that a government monopoly in anything is *even more* noxious (and difficult to undo) than a non-governmental monopoly. Michael later says: > Would it be wrong to just let the failures fail? How can you > actually have a "free market" if there are no consequences to failure? Welcome "moral hazard." Re: market failure, Kling recently said: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/01/market_failure_4.html > I want to propose a new definition of market failure. For me, market > failure exists to the extent that innovation is blocked by > incumbents. If innovators can succeed by out-competing incumbents, > then the market is working. If incumbents have a self-reinforcing > system that keeps out innovators, then we have market failure. > Amen, brutha. Have never seen a more concise or accurate statement of my own principles in such things. Best way to guarantee such a failure? Give monopoly power / authority / responsibility for something to the government, where it is granted and maintained *by law* by largely-unaccountable "public servants" --- and grossly subject to incompetence, inefficiency, and corruption. -- Small tangent: During offline discussion w/ one of the list members last week, I apparently surprised by mentioning that I am not, in fact, opposed to any / all regulation, even in financial markets. Indeed, I am a fan of regulation that increases transparency and lowers barriers-to-entry in financial markets. I.e., regulation that has the effect of unblocking innovation and encouraging true, open, and fair markets. The largest part of the present debacle in the finance industry was created by the obscure and opaque trading activity of vast amounts of certain exotic derivatives over-the-counter. Put them on the books, get them listed, then require reporting of long-term positions at least to some central clearing entity. In the various instruments, assets and markets where that is the norm, things continued to "work" as well as could be expected event throughout the previous series of recent failures. It's only where the "market" did not have such characteristics and mechanisms that the failures really mounted to create systemic risks. jb From jbone at place.org Tue Jan 19 07:04:33 2010 From: jbone at place.org (Jeff Bone) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 09:04:33 -0600 Subject: [FoRK] The World Is Not Flat Message-ID: <0DBD53DE-3110-4D5E-8A2A-ADB4463B890F@place.org> Thomas Friedman is wrong. I've been thinking a lot about supply chains, lately.* When Friedman says "the world is flat" what he's talking about is a supposed increasing tendency for producers and consumers to be participants in a tending-toward-fully-connected network / graph where the edges or arcs (directed; potential transactions) between the vertices (entities such as individuals, corporations, governments, etc.) are of essentially equal weight. This is a romantic, idealized, unrealistic notion. In fact the world is very different; it is characterized by increasingly-long supply chains with increasing intermediation and very different characteristics among its edges. E.g., that thing you ate for dinner last night, if in the US, had components with a mean distance between original producer and ultimate (literal) consumer of about 2000 miles and something like 5-6 intermediate hops. That finished good Joe Consumer buys at Wal-Mart has much fuzzier stats but in many cases has a supply-chain path that extends order-10,000 miles, crosses national boundaries 4-5 times and has a dozen intermediaries. This topological structure comprises gradients in many dimensions. The world is not flat. And this creates systemic risk. Hypothetically each hop and each intermediary "adds value" to the chain and gets paid to do so; but the overall metric tensor of economic-space is warped by the presence of trade agreements, cartels, true monopolies, etc. (including, particularly, intellectual property rights and agreements) that artificially influence such chains towards maximum length and maximum crossing of national, legal, and corporate boundaries to find the highest-margin location for each "finishing" step in the process. This tendency is strongly encouraged by the corrupt collusion of governments and national or multi-national corporate entities to create (and strongly guard / enforce, through the coercive might of government and captive law) such "beneficial" trade agreements, contracts, and flows of money, value, and material. It tends to support incumbents, encourage monopolies, block innovation, and create general systemic fragility / non-resiliency while aggregating created- value "in the middle" of the economic landscape. All value flows towards the middle of the network... and all the while the dynamic equilibria of the network is increasingly undermined, requiring higher and higher (potentially unsustainable) "input energy" (i.e., economic resources and non-economic forces applied) to maintain any appearance of stability. Just a random thought, not fully fleshed out... jb * reading Suarez' "Freedom." Interesting, if a bit crude. From ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca Tue Jan 19 10:15:42 2010 From: ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca (Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:15:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [FoRK] The World Is Not Flat In-Reply-To: <0DBD53DE-3110-4D5E-8A2A-ADB4463B890F@place.org> Message-ID: <396754.67160.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 1/19/10, Jeff Bone wrote: > > ...? All value flows towards the middle of the > network...? and all the while the dynamic equilibria of > the network is increasingly undermined, requiring higher and > higher (potentially unsustainable) "input energy" (i.e., > economic resources and non-economic forces applied) to > maintain any appearance of stability. > Appealing. That last makes me think there's a relationship between that and the "casino capitalism" that was recently mentioned and the whining I've been doing about related activities of gamblers-not-traders in things like commodities markets and elsewhere. There's a holistic thing going on here that I can't get my head around but I can feel it. Yours is the first articulation I've seen of something that makes it fit somewhere. Do you suppose there is a tie-in of these things in the above aspect of Bone's developing Theory of General Relativity as applied to Distribution Networks? That is, to the extent that these activities are intermediation points in distribution networks but add little or no value, do they add to the "resistance" implied by the above, similar to, say, resistance to market entry? Raises the first question: Are they intermediation points? (I think so, but...) Does the theory extend to assigning "resistance values" to intermediation points? E.g. the more value an intermediation point adds, versus its cost, the less "resistance" it adds to the network? E.g. a transporter is physically moving a good from one location to another at a fair market price, thus adding relatively lower resistance. Versus, e.g. a commodity speculator who simply buys and then resells a contract for the same good and peels off some of the available aggregate "margin" while adding little or nothing to the movement of the good from source to sink or to its value and thus adding relatively higher resistance. It seems the former (transport) would be something on the "edge" and the latter (speculation/gambling) would be part of the jam-up in the "middle" that you mention. That last statement is probably wrong on two counts in that I'm inferring "jam-up" but you did not state it. And, there is likely no relationship between a resistance metric of an intermediation point and its location on the network. Or is there? Which, then, causes me to ask what you mean by "All value flows towards the middle of the network..." ("value" is such a mushy word), or at least why you say that? Is this (middle of the network) where the relative difference between value-add [little...lots] versus the quantity of available aggregate margin extracted [little...lots] creates the highest resistance to transit of the network by the good from source to sink? By the way, are you still having problems with my paragraphs not wrapping? If so, would a switch (by me) fom Yahoo to Gmail make a difference? Simple enough to do if it will fix it. ...ken... __________________________________________________________________ Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane with All new Yahoo! Mail: http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/ From dmorton at bitfurnace.com Tue Jan 19 11:22:51 2010 From: dmorton at bitfurnace.com (Damien Morton) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 06:22:51 +1100 Subject: [FoRK] anyone read thomas barnett? Message-ID: <8092dc771001191122p76f77290lb0455008aa492a3a@mail.gmail.com> http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2010/01/al-qaeda_failed_states_r_us.html THE FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM: "Al-Qaeda seeks to make Yemen its safe haven: A Saudi crackdown has shifted the threat to its lawless neighbour," by Andrew England and Matthew Green, *Financial Times*, 5 January 2010. The essential dynamics of my spray-for-roaches-in-one-apartment-and-they-simply-pop-up-in-the-next-apartment-over problem: The growth of the al-Qaeda movement in Yemen is a prime example of the dilemma governments face in confronting global Islamic extremism: one country's crack down can drive the militants next door. So, not unlike how Israel feels it'll never be safe until state-sponsored terrorism in the region is completely rooted out, Saudi Arabia and Egypt (the two prime targets of AQ) can never and will never feel secure so long as there are nearby failed states to which extremists can flee whenever they institute crackdowns (e.g., Yemen, Somalia and the Horn in general). This is simply the Saudis bumping into the same logic that I adhere to regarding the Gap as a whole: containment (by making oneself super-secure and fencing one's population/economy/etc. off from the bad neighborhoods) will not work, nor will focusing strictly on demonstration cases (even as that's certainly a step in the right direction) like Iraq in the Gulf or Afghanistan in South Asia. Ultimately, your grand strategy must revolve around the goal of fixing the entire system. Can that be done using Iraq-level efforts? Obviously not. A pol-mil/aid-heavy approach is inherently self-limiting on cost (not to mention sustainable impact WRT official developmental aid), so even in the demonstration/"crucial" struggle points, your process needs to move the situation along--as quickly as possible--toward private-sector opportunities versus the typical public-sector dependencies. [And yes, if your next point is that all the local country will end up with is simply private-sector dependencies/ "enslavement" in the capitalist world scheme/etc., then our conversation can go no further.] If you want to fix the entire system, then you need to harness the major (and profound) forces of penetration and integration found in globalization's advance. [Again, an ideological stopping-point for a certain class of thinkers whose emotionalism and backward thinking on this subject is not all that different from the local extremists seeking civilizational apartheid as the long-term answer.] On the surface, this can be caricatured as "our blood for their oil"--a line I have used for shock value. Your shock can thereupon drive your logic in one of two directions: 1. Step away from the initial pol-mil challenge (the classic way my point gets abused by the far Left and Right to justify an isolationist/who-are-we-to-impose-upon-the-world? argument) or 2. Seek to augment your efforts there and elsewhere by reorienting your alliance structures away from those suffering your same limitations and toward those most highly incentivized right now to link up their backend networking/commercialization efforts with your front-end pol-mil-aid responses (which naturally dead-end unless they attract business elements--unless you want to pretend that aid workers and military officers are enough on their own to build up national economies). The only way such logic appeals (meaning, can be sustained over the long haul) is when you appreciate the underlying grand strategic logic--namely, that America has actively sought to replicate its states-uniting model for decades now (since WWII), has been enormously successful to date, but in that success we have created the reality that any further expansion of globalization's reach and any further extension of its stabilizing rule sets requires that we recognize our limitations to drive/control the process on its own and admit that the West no longer constitutes a sufficient quorum. The accompanying New-Core-sets-the-new-rules logic means that our success going forward needs to be translated into *their* success in leading globalization's networking function. Once you accept that, you should be able to accept the logic that says a certain amount of division of labor is good (America more the Leviathan [Why? See anybody else coming up with one any time soon?], other great powers more the SysAdmin) but that, unless we make our Leviathan efforts more subject to the collective will of the relevant great powers, they're simply not going to snap to attention on the backend effort every time we decide some country needs the front-end pol-mil effort. If it's unsustainable for Washington to write checks with its own Leviathan force that its own SysAdmin assets cannot hope to cash all by their lonesome, then the same logic applies to other great powers (i.e., we can't expect them to automatically own every backend/post-intervention effort we care to make). This is the fundamental realization that led me to construct and propose the A-to-Z system for processing politically-bankrupt states in *Blueprint for Action*. Naturally, both the primacists and the isolationists on our side recoil from that logic: the primacists are repelled by the notion that America should ever submit such decisions to the approval of the collective, and the serious Lefties are repulsed by the concept that military power should EVER be applied to the promotion of globalization's ends (because they consider it simply a larger version of the inherent "evil" that is capitalism/markets in general). The middle approach requires that you simultaneously accept that: 1. America will be working with non-democracies (offensive to both extremes) for quite some time (my notion of the usual half-life of single-party states) 2. Our interactions with other great powers will involve the modification of our desired rule sets (compromise!) regarding the change we trigger inside nations when we intervene or simply promote globalization's peaceful advance 3. At the end of the day (meaning, for the foreseeable future), our grand strategic approach must be happy enough with triggering the socio-economic change and being patient on the political end-goals (ultimate democratization) 4. In the foreseeable future, that means we accept that globalization's spread will trigger sufficiently revolutionary socio-economic change that the local populations will feel a certain amount of abuse and that a certain subset will find those changes (esp. WRT women) so reprehensible that they'll fight it tooth and nail--ultimately causing us to, in many instances, simply resort to hunting them down and killing them (the dirty work that nobody wants to do themselves and likewise resent and fear America for doing when it locates sufficient cause [like 9/11] to take up the effort itself), and 5. Over the long haul, our efforts are all about making the world safe enough for capitalism to work its magic (economic liberty) and create the underlying conditions for political liberty to emerge (an eminently bearable burden so long as the New Core's assets and drive are added to that of the Old Core and not set in opposition). Hardest of all for many Americans to accept: the more successful we are in this grand strategic quest (and yes, we've been IMMENSELY successful to date), the more the world will perceive that success to constitute a diminution of our "power." Is it crazy for us to allow such defeatist logic to cripple our motivation right now, at this historical moment when our American System-cum-international liberal trade order-cum-globalization is reaching its worldwide apogee? *Of course it is.* And when neocons like Krauthammer somehow pretend that we can have our way globally and still hope to hold onto a preponderance of global power, they're being as disastrously self-limiting in their logic as the far Left is in their instinctive hatred of the military-market nexus (which is hardly evil, as it's yielded the glorious national union and--by extension--the vastly improved world we currently inhabit). The reason why I've spent so much of my life these past several years promoting the concept of grand strategy (at least the expansive way I define it--as in system shaping vice merely winning the struggle in question) is that it's really hard stuff to wrap your mind around. It requires immense patience and the ability to accept sub-optimal outcomes (e.g., markets now, but democracies later) in the near term. It requires your ability to deeply embrace America's role as global leader while working purposefully toward diminishing it (OMG! You expect me to hold both thoughts in my head at the same time!). And it requires a mature appreciation of the military-market nexus (i.e., the warrior exists solely to facilitate the merchant and the merchant cannot survive without the world of security that the warriors create) that eschews the usual ideological nonsense on both political extremes (for the Right, being patient on democracy is too hard; for the Left, admitting that the military is a force for the good otherwise known as markets). Personally, I have found it impossible to promote this vision from inside the government. That's why I moved to the private sector, where I honestly believe--na?ve waif that I am--most of the power in the system is found (and always will be). A lengthy rant, I know. But one I needed to indulge this morning. Everybody wants progress by next week and successful conclusion by the end of the year (or certainly by the next election). I don't have that need, cognizant as I am of the fantastic success this vision has already enjoyed (not strictly *my* vision [puh-leaze!], because I track this thinking all the way back to Hamilton and forward through Clay, Lincoln-Seward, TR and his wise men, Wilson, FDR and his wise men, Nixon and Kissinger, Reagan and Baker and right through the various and sundry globalists found across the Clinton-Bush-Obama administrations) and confident as I am of its looming successes as this emerging global middle class stands up in coming years and decades. I am most definitely the happy warrior, happiest most in picking my points of career intervention and realizing I've found a tremendous set of partners in DeAngelis (biz partner), Enterra (my workaday home), Warren (my great writing mentor), Posda (the vision-spreading mentor), Gates (the publishing mentor) and Meade (the blog enabler). Toss in the best possible life partner in Vonne (who wisely counsels me along all these lines, plus engineers my personal happiness and that of my family), and I've got no reason to be anything but supremely optimistic. Would I like my country as a whole to feel similarly? Sure. But let's be realistic there, as our current series of realignments are inherently painful and therefore confidence-sapping. But back to the triggering article: accepting this dynamic doesn't mean wallowing in some myopic understanding of the tactical, whack-a-mole nature of the day-to-day struggle. On Walt's level of the individual (or the subnational level), that's the inescapable truth. But being reminded of that should only make us more confident to move toward accepting the commensurate logical leaps on the level of states (the reorientation of alliances) and the system level (making globalization truly global by shrinking the Gap). Again, our record of success is our biggest current burden (creating the seemingly high workload), and everything animating globalization today favors our goals and fuels the process, so feeling discouraged is not only unwarranted, it's self-defeating because it blinds us to the simple-but-not-easy (in generational terms) steps we need to take. Is Obama doing enough in this regard? No. There's too much on his plate and too little in his intellectual cupboard (both personally and across his team). But he's not taking us backward and he is pursuing things that will strengthen us over time. Beyond that, the system's evolution will--in combination--both take care of the rest and suitably incentivize us toward additional necessary tasks as history unfolds. Ditto for China and the rest of the great powers. So don't worry, but gear up if you can help in any way. And then enjoy knowing that your work has real meaning. From sdw at lig.net Tue Jan 19 11:33:49 2010 From: sdw at lig.net (Stephen Williams) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 11:33:49 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] The Wrecking Crew - A Low, Dishonest Decade In-Reply-To: <49DB22BD-143F-4C09-90B1-E9A9B1809A27@place.org> References: <49DB22BD-143F-4C09-90B1-E9A9B1809A27@place.org> Message-ID: <4B56091D.4040707@lig.net> Jeff Bone wrote: > > How ironic. > > > SO Michael opines: > >> "Yes, yes... The heroes are all on one side, and the villains are >> all on the other. > > Stephen quotes Moyers in reply: > >> "President Obama's made plenty of mistakes during his first year, and >> > we've critiqued them frequently here on the JOURNAL" > > Hmmm.... so Stephen, what you're saying is that by making this thin > disclaimer, Moyers is demonstrating... what? That he's, ahem, "fair > and balanced?" > > Riiiiiiight. > > This is no more convincing than when e.g. Hannity disclaims (some of) > the actions of Bush and claiming that he was a vigorous and vocal > opponent when, in fact, he was --- as anyone without partisan > rose-coloured glasses on knows --- one of the head cheerleaders and > apologists. > > BOTH "sides" of this debate are equally guilty of this kind of > ongoing, hypocritical apologia of their preferred brand and, > ironically, of the very thing Moyers is castigating in his lede: the > tendency to focus on attacking the other side and apologizing for the > preferred side, conveniently forgetting or discounting the recent and > ongoing problems being created by the preferred side. I agree. I don't think the Democratic leaning side is nearly so bad overall in many demonstrable ways, however the bias is always there one way or another. And it depends on how you weight things, which is a feedback loop of bias. > > Attack Bush all you want --- I *certainly* did. But to be fair, you > must also place blame where blame is due for e.g. the failure of much > of the recent stimulus, the appalling mountain of debt we've taken on > just this year, the "surprising" rate of unemployment relative to > promises made / actions taken, and so on. > > Do "conservatives" have a poor opinion of government? Well, surely. > Why? Well, maybe because there are so few instances of it working and > so many of it *not* working. Do "progressives" or "liberals" have too > high an opinion? Absolutely; but only because their skepticism and > hatred of stymergic processes --- particularly those called "markets" > --- obscures their ability to see that such things are the worst > alternatives (except for all the other ones.) > > A "low, dishonest" decade? Well, certainly. But Moyers and company > are no less guilty of intellectual dishonesty in the present > circumstances than e.g. the noxious Faux News and radio talking heads > were during the Bush reign of (t)error. No less guilty in A) existence or even B) frequency quite possibly, however I cannot see anything close to C) degree and type. Not to mention likely motivations. > > -- > > I like the bit about opposition to monopoly. That's my beef, too, > with the caveat that a government monopoly in anything is *even more* > noxious (and difficult to undo) than a non-governmental monopoly. There is monopoly and then there are pooled effort or common goods (and some other categories) that are not healthy when commercial. Military, judicial system, government itself... Often, the positive side effects heavily outweigh the direct costs and absence of commercial handling of a particular thing. I recently heard a discussion of the Postal service and how the Founding Fathers specifically wanted delivery of newspapers to be free or nearly so specifically to support free speech and good government. > > Michael later says: > >> Would it be wrong to just let the failures fail? How can you actually >> have a "free market" if there are no consequences to failure? > > Welcome "moral hazard." Who increased total moral hazard more in the last 15 years? It's going to be hard to outweigh deregulation of banks / investment / real estate and indirect costs thereof. Of course, every side was involved in various ways. It would be good for someone to chronicle specifics concisely. > > Re: market failure, Kling recently said: > > http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/01/market_failure_4.html > >> I want to propose a new definition of market failure. For me, market >> failure exists to the extent that innovation is blocked by >> incumbents. If innovators can succeed by out-competing incumbents, >> then the market is working. If incumbents have a self-reinforcing >> system that keeps out innovators, then we have market failure. >> > > Amen, brutha. Have never seen a more concise or accurate statement of > my own principles in such things. Exactly! Don't many types of regulations, such as anti-trust and patents/copyright, speak specifically to this to avoid runaway effects by incumbents? > > Best way to guarantee such a failure? Give monopoly power / authority > / responsibility for something to the government, where it is granted > and maintained *by law* by largely-unaccountable "public servants" --- > and grossly subject to incompetence, inefficiency, and corruption. We need a way to differentiate between things that are validly governmental vs. commercial vs. non-profit vs. pseudo-gov./commercial. Any such definition should be durable over time and circumstance, possibly giving different results given different inputs. For instance, education should have both public and private components. There are few cases where a commercial military works out well, but some perhaps. Police / security... I think that "give monopoly power / authority / responsibility for something to the government" can sometimes be descriptive of government departments and projects, but usually not. There should be some way of clearly differentiating. I don't think we've clearly nailed that at all. More frequently, we want the government to do certain things, but with the people involved having commercial-environment like incentives and feedback. Even military-like feedback would be a step up. Clearly, we are supposed to be able to "fire" someone in charge to get these things fixed, but we have been too lax and allowed protective walls everywhere. > > -- > > Small tangent: > > During offline discussion w/ one of the list members last week, I > apparently surprised by mentioning that I am not, in fact, opposed to > any / all regulation, even in financial markets. Indeed, I am a fan > of regulation that increases transparency and lowers barriers-to-entry > in financial markets. I.e., regulation that has the effect of > unblocking innovation and encouraging true, open, and fair markets. > The largest part of the present debacle in the finance industry was > created by the obscure and opaque trading activity of vast amounts of > certain exotic derivatives over-the-counter. Put them on the books, > get them listed, then require reporting of long-term positions at > least to some central clearing entity. In the various instruments, > assets and markets where that is the norm, things continued to "work" > as well as could be expected event throughout the previous series of > recent failures. It's only where the "market" did not have such > characteristics and mechanisms that the failures really mounted to > create systemic risks. Exactly right! Unfortunately, many crave stability and predictability. Sometimes the definite loser pool (existing shareholders for instance) win out over the potential (and mostly unknown and unidentified) winners. This affects regulation of markets and preference for gov. / commercial choices. This is probably a good balancing force, however it can lead the wrong way and shouldn't rule. > > > jb sdw From sdw at lig.net Tue Jan 19 12:11:27 2010 From: sdw at lig.net (Stephen Williams) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:11:27 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] The World Is Not Flat In-Reply-To: <396754.67160.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <396754.67160.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B5611EF.8020205@lig.net> Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo wrote: > --- On Tue, 1/19/10, Jeff Bone wrote: > >> ... All value flows towards the middle of the >> network... and all the while the dynamic equilibria of >> the network is increasingly undermined, requiring higher and >> higher (potentially unsustainable) "input energy" (i.e., >> economic resources and non-economic forces applied) to >> maintain any appearance of stability. >> >> > > Appealing. That last makes me think there's a relationship between that and the "casino capitalism" that was recently mentioned and the whining I've been doing about related activities of gamblers-not-traders in things like commodities markets and elsewhere. There's a holistic thing going on here that I can't get my head around but I can feel it. Yours is the first articulation I've seen of something that makes it fit somewhere. > > Do you suppose there is a tie-in of these things in the above aspect of Bone's developing Theory of General Relativity as applied to Distribution Networks? > > That is, to the extent that these activities are intermediation points in distribution networks but add little or no value, do they add to the "resistance" implied by the above, similar to, say, resistance to market entry? > > Raises the first question: Are they intermediation points? (I think so, but...) > > Does the theory extend to assigning "resistance values" to intermediation points? E.g. the more value an intermediation point adds, versus its cost, the less "resistance" it adds to the network? E.g. a transporter is physically moving a good from one location to another at a fair market price, thus adding relatively lower resistance. Versus, e.g. a commodity speculator who simply buys and then resells a contract for the same good and peels off some of the available aggregate "margin" while adding little or nothing to the movement of the good from source to sink or to its value and thus adding relatively higher resistance. > Actual distance is a red herring now because of hyper-efficient shipping. Intermediaries in many cases are only there when they are more efficient than the alternatives. Commercial distance is a metric of time and money which is only loosely connected to actual distance. Just a few data points: It cost me 3 times as much to move a container from the East Coast of the US to the West Coast as a couple moving a container from Mountain View, CA to Israel. 5 years ago, from DC via email and a trip to the bank, I paid the factory directly for and drop shipped 30 specialty computers to Honolulu, arriving just 2 days before I assembled and installed them. No customs costs or brokers needed and my client saved about 40% over the US distributor that I ordered samples from. Cheap items are sold on eBay and shipped directly from Taiwan or Hong Kong for a few dollars of postage. Sure, I have an awesome farmer's market in every small town around me a couple days a week. Hard to find that in the winter on the East Coast. For some things, we have it great today compared to the past. Walmart / Target / CostCo have many things impossibly cheap. There are aggregators for Chinese electronics junk/semi-junk that mean you can buy all kinds of gadgets cheap. You can easily buy directly from in-country supply chain aggregators, Where is it worse? I think you have to separate out the commercial equivalent of "all traffic flows through the highways" kind of traffic from true intermediation points. > It seems the former (transport) would be something on the "edge" and the latter (speculation/gambling) would be part of the jam-up in the "middle" that you mention. > > That last statement is probably wrong on two counts in that I'm inferring "jam-up" but you did not state it. And, there is likely no relationship between a resistance metric of an intermediation point and its location on the network. Or is there? > > Which, then, causes me to ask what you mean by "All value flows towards the middle of the network..." ("value" is such a mushy word), or at least why you say that? > > Is this (middle of the network) where the relative difference between value-add [little...lots] versus the quantity of available aggregate margin extracted [little...lots] creates the highest resistance to transit of the network by the good from source to sink? > > By the way, are you still having problems with my paragraphs not wrapping? If so, would a switch (by me) fom Yahoo to Gmail make a difference? Simple enough to do if it will fix it. > Still fine with Thunderbird. > ...ken... > sdw From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Tue Jan 19 12:32:29 2010 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:32:29 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] The World Is Not Flat In-Reply-To: <4B5611EF.8020205@lig.net> References: <396754.67160.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4B5611EF.8020205@lig.net> Message-ID: <722BE292-9AD8-441B-BB34-0CDBF2C8C837@ceruleansystems.com> On Jan 19, 2010, at 12:11 PM, Stephen Williams wrote: > Actual distance is a red herring now because of hyper-efficient shipping. Intermediaries in many cases are only there when they are more efficient than the alternatives. Commercial distance is a metric of time and money which is only loosely connected to actual distance. There are "quant" logistics companies that do not own any shipping assets. They make vast quantities of money by finding and exploiting inefficiencies in the global supply chains operated by "real" logistics companies and reshuffling the assets to (hopefully) create a profit. Bloody speculators... From howell.r at inkworkswell.com Tue Jan 19 12:44:40 2010 From: howell.r at inkworkswell.com (Reese) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 15:44:40 -0500 Subject: [FoRK] Truth (?) about the Google Affair (translated from a Chinese blog) In-Reply-To: <4B54C4E0.2030006@gmail.com> References: <4B54AAD9.3010002@gmail.com> <20100118195658.GA2171@aaron-x31> <4B54C4E0.2030006@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B5619B8.2070207@inkworkswell.com> On 18-Jan-10 15:30, Bill Stoddard wrote: > a CCP cadre (ie, member of the party). Why do the dirty work when you > can pay someone to do the dirty work for you. Wrong formulation. "...when you can afford to pay someone..." Recompile and factor. Reese From sdw at lig.net Tue Jan 19 12:47:12 2010 From: sdw at lig.net (Stephen Williams) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:47:12 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] The World Is Not Flat In-Reply-To: <722BE292-9AD8-441B-BB34-0CDBF2C8C837@ceruleansystems.com> References: <396754.67160.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4B5611EF.8020205@lig.net> <722BE292-9AD8-441B-BB34-0CDBF2C8C837@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: <4B561A50.8090404@lig.net> J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > On Jan 19, 2010, at 12:11 PM, Stephen Williams wrote: > >> Actual distance is a red herring now because of hyper-efficient shipping. Intermediaries in many cases are only there when they are more efficient than the alternatives. Commercial distance is a metric of time and money which is only loosely connected to actual distance. >> > > > There are "quant" logistics companies that do not own any shipping assets. They make vast quantities of money by finding and exploiting inefficiencies in the global supply chains operated by "real" logistics companies and reshuffling the assets to (hopefully) create a profit. Bloody speculators... > And there are other (or the same?) companies that increase efficiency by matching shippers (people needing to ship something) with transporters (those with big rigs, a boat, etc.) so as to make the best use of fuel, location (of a truck for instance), etc. I did a little work for one of those in the backwoods of Ohio long ago. As a result, you can easily find and contract for a pallet on a semi from any 2 points in the US on a day or so notice. Frequently, everyone involved is an independent contractor. And there are multiple alternatives for most jobs, some often drastically cheaper and/or better than others. For instance, DoD contracts with thousands of independent shippers, many just mom and pop operations, just to move service members personal effects and vehicles around the US and the world. Free market like the shipping industry in the 70's and before could never have imagined. The brokers are pretty much like airline travel reservation services, and getting computerized about as much. They compete, but they are scheduling based on market rates asked by available transporters that fluctuate based on season, load on the system, etc. Day to day "box packing" and match making, not much more than craigslist postings or airline reservations in effect, doesn't seem like speculation to me. How do these other "quant" logistics companies operate? What is their leverage? sdw From wgstoddard at gmail.com Tue Jan 19 13:00:02 2010 From: wgstoddard at gmail.com (Bill Stoddard) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:00:02 -0500 Subject: [FoRK] The World Is Not Flat In-Reply-To: <722BE292-9AD8-441B-BB34-0CDBF2C8C837@ceruleansystems.com> References: <396754.67160.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4B5611EF.8020205@lig.net> <722BE292-9AD8-441B-BB34-0CDBF2C8C837@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: <4B561D52.9020300@gmail.com> On 1/19/10 3:32 PM, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > On Jan 19, 2010, at 12:11 PM, Stephen Williams wrote: > >> Actual distance is a red herring now because of hyper-efficient shipping. Intermediaries in many cases are only there when they are more efficient than the alternatives. Commercial distance is a metric of time and money which is only loosely connected to actual distance. >> > > There are "quant" logistics companies that do not own any shipping assets. They make vast quantities of money by finding and exploiting inefficiencies in the global supply chains operated by "real" logistics companies and reshuffling the assets to (hopefully) create a profit. Bloody speculators... > > > That is fascinating. Who are the clients of these 'quant' logistics companies? Were I interested in becoming a client, where would I start? Bill From sean at conman.org Tue Jan 19 13:04:26 2010 From: sean at conman.org (Sean Conner) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:04:26 -0500 Subject: [FoRK] The World Is Not Flat In-Reply-To: <722BE292-9AD8-441B-BB34-0CDBF2C8C837@ceruleansystems.com> References: <396754.67160.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4B5611EF.8020205@lig.net> <722BE292-9AD8-441B-BB34-0CDBF2C8C837@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: <20100119210426.GA9492@brevard.conman.org> It was thus said that the Great J. Andrew Rogers once stated: > > On Jan 19, 2010, at 12:11 PM, Stephen Williams wrote: > > > > Actual distance is a red herring now because of hyper-efficient > > shipping. Intermediaries in many cases are only there when they are > > more efficient than the alternatives. Commercial distance is a metric > > of time and money which is only loosely connected to actual distance. > > There are "quant" logistics companies that do not own any shipping assets. > They make vast quantities of money by finding and exploiting > inefficiencies in the global supply chains operated by "real" logistics > companies and reshuffling the assets to (hopefully) create a profit. > Bloody speculators... I'm failing to see what the problem is here. Maybe related, maybe not. A decade ago I worked at a huge webhosting company called Verio (real name---it's been long enough). Verio owned the data centers, the servers, the network switches, etc. and directly hosted, oh, a million web sites. And as is the case, a disgruntled customer would get mad enough to say "Hey! You guys suck! I'm moving my hosting over to BellSouth.net!" Joke was on the customer though---Verio did the hosting for BellSouth.net (at least, the commercial websites BellSouth.net would "host"). The only difference between Verio hosting and BellSouth.net hosting? Verio was hosted on this group of servers, BellSouth on that group, two rows over in the data center. Tech support? Same group of people even (front line tech support would get a "whisper code" when they picked up the phone, saying which "company" they were "working" for---Verio not only did hosting for BellSouth, but AOL and several other large companies that did "hosting"). So, who's exploiting who here? I mean, besides the final end customer with a site to host? -spc (I now work in a three person web hosting company and even *we* have a few resellers of our work, although the resellers are responsible for their own tech support (and anything they can't handle, they pass on to us)) From ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca Tue Jan 19 13:08:09 2010 From: ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca (Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:08:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [FoRK] anyone read thomas barnett? In-Reply-To: <8092dc771001191122p76f77290lb0455008aa492a3a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <577258.11991.qm@web33004.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 1/19/10, Damien Morton wrote: > > THE FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM: "Al-Qaeda seeks to make Yemen its safe > haven: > A Saudi crackdown has shifted the threat to its lawless > neighbour," by Andrew England and Matthew Green, *Financial Times*, 5 > January 2010. > > The essential dynamics of my > spray-for-roaches-in-one-apartment-and-they-simply-pop-up-in-the-next-apartment-over problem: > > The growth of the al-Qaeda movement in Yemen is a prime example of the > dilemma governments face in confronting global Islamic extremism: one > country's crack down can drive the militants next door. > > ... [snip] ... So let's see if I've got the drift ... we are supposed to believe that shifting control from greedy sociopathic regimes running individual countries to greedy sociopathic regimes running global businesses that are larger than most of these countries is actually going to do something positive? On a side note, could someone help me understand how it is he distinguishes himself from those he calls "primacists"? Seems like both parties have the same blind faith that The American Way is not just the Right Way but the Only Way. When you start there, it seems to me any differences are minor quibbles? The article would have been a little more thought-provoking if he didn't take so much effort to set up and knock down strawmen and delight in using them to denigrate any alternative view. ...ken... __________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com. From sdw at lig.net Tue Jan 19 13:32:10 2010 From: sdw at lig.net (Stephen Williams) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:32:10 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] Beware of Skinny Men with Green Teeth In-Reply-To: <577258.11991.qm@web33004.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <577258.11991.qm@web33004.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B5624DA.6030007@lig.net> Speaking of Yemen, no wonder it is a failed state: > Khat is ... euphoria and excitement. ... pleasuring effect to the same > degree as ecstasy ... may appear to be unrealistic and emotionally > unstable ... can induce manic behaviors and hyperactivity ... state of > drowsy hallucinations ... include mild depression and irritability ... > lethargy, mild depression, nightmares, and slight tremor ... causes > loss of appetite, so most of its users are underweight ... negative > impact on liver function, permanent tooth darkening (of a greenish > tinge), susceptibility to ulcers, and diminished sex drive ... feeling > tired and having difficulty concentrating ... ?an amphetamine-like > substance?, and those who use it are more likely to develop mental > illnesses ... a psychosis can result, resembling a hypomanic state. Good luck with that! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khat > The earliest recorded use of khat medically is believed to be within > the New Testament.[5] > Khat is so popular in Yemen that its cultivation consumes much of the > country's agricultural resources. It is estimated that 40% of the > country's water supply goes towards irrigating it [12], with > production increasing by about 10% to 15% every year. Water > consumption is so high that groundwater levels in the Sanaa basin are > diminishing; because of this, government officials have proposed > relocating large portions of the population of Sanaa to the coast of > the Red Sea.[11] One reason for cultivating khat in Yemen so widely is > the high income it provides for farmers. Some studies done in 2001 > estimated that the income from cultivating khat was about 2.5 million > Yemeni rials per hectare, while it was only 0.57 million rials per > hectare if fruits were cultivated. This is a strong reason farmers > prefer to cultivate khat over coffee and fruits. It is estimated that > between 1970 and 2000, the area on which khat was cultivated grew from > 8,000 hectares to 103,000 hectares.[13] > > In Somalia, the Supreme Islamic Courts Council, which took control of > much of the country in 2006, banned khat during Ramadan, sparking > street protests in Kismayo. In November 2006, Kenya banned all flights > to Somalia, citing security concerns, prompting protests by Kenyan > khat growers. The Kenyan Member of Parliament from Ntonyiri, Meru > North District stated that local land had been specialized in khat > cultivation, that 20 tons worth $800,000 were shipped to Somalia daily > and that a flight ban could devastate the local economy.[14] With the > victory of the Provisional Government backed by Ethiopian forces in > the end of December 2006, khat has returned to the streets of > Mogadishu, though Kenyan traders have noted demand has not yet > returned to pre-ban levels.[15] > Khat consumption induces mild euphoria and excitement. A meta-analysis > in The Lancet has stated that khat creates a pleasuring effect to the > same degree as ecstasy. Individuals become very talkative under the > influence of the drug and may appear to be unrealistic and emotionally > unstable. Khat can induce manic behaviors and hyperactivity. Khat is > an effective anorectic and its use also results in constipation. > Dilated pupils (mydriasis), which are prominent during khat > consumption, reflect the sympathomimetic effects of the drug, which > are also reflected in increased heart rate and blood pressure. A state > of drowsy hallucinations (hypnagogic hallucinations) may result coming > down from khat use as well. Withdrawal symptoms that may follow > occasional use include mild depression and irritability. Withdrawal > symptoms that may follow prolonged khat use include lethargy, mild > depression, nightmares, and slight tremor. The Khat also causes loss > of appetite, so most of its users are underweight. Long-term use can > precipitate the following effects: negative impact on liver function, > permanent tooth darkening (of a greenish tinge), susceptibility to > ulcers, and diminished sex drive. Those who abuse the drug generally > cannot stay without it for more than 4?5 days, feeling tired and > having difficulty concentrating.Some researchers also say that ?an > amphetamine-like substance?, and those who use it are more likely to > develop mental illnesses. Others say that these mental illnesses are > the result of the financial problems and the sleeplessness that the > drug causes. But it is still unclear if the consumption of the Khat > directly affects the mental health of the user or not.[16] > Occasionally a psychosis can result, resembling a hypomanic state in > presentation.[23] sdw From ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca Tue Jan 19 13:54:16 2010 From: ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca (Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:54:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [FoRK] The World Is Not Flat In-Reply-To: <4B5611EF.8020205@lig.net> Message-ID: <877662.16437.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Stephen, I'm afraid I don't get your point. You said: "Actual distance is a red herring now because of hyper-efficient shipping. Intermediaries in many cases are only there when they are more efficient than the alternatives. Commercial distance is a metric of time and money which is only loosely connected to actual distance." I agree. To all three points in that paragraph. But, so what? You call actual distance a red herring as if it's something someone else raised. But yours is the first mention of it as any sort of issue. You also said: "I think you have to separate out the commercial equivalent of "all traffic flows through the highways" kind of traffic from true intermediation points." Sure. But, again, so what? How does any of that relate to any of my comments or questions? Clearly I've missed your point completely. ... Or you've missed mine? because nothing I said depends on real distance or any analogue thereof. I'm talking about "resistance" at the intermediation points due to a host of factors. And even in my single example of transport, the "resistance" would not be measured by distance but, rather, by the ratio of value the transport adds to the good versus its cost. Just as, similarly, you would measure the "resistance" caused by a purely speculative purchase and resale of a contract for that good by the ratio of the value added (if any) by the speculative transactions versus their cost. If there's an analogy in the back of my pea-brain it's more likely the resistances - individual and aggregate - of components in an electronic circuit. I hesistate to mention it except to try to convey what I mean by "resistance" at the intermediation points. There is no other useful information to be drawn from it. In assessing resistance of intermediations, as a metric, I'm suggesting that the factors in assessing the resistance would be something like the ratio of: a) the value added to the good by an intermediation, TO b) the extraction from the available aggregate margin of the good by an intermediation. Yeah, I know that's a silly ratio because the higher the ratio the lower the actual resistance, e.g. the higher the ratio the more beneficial the intermediation. This would apply to direct intermediations, like transport, processing, packaging, storage. To indirect intermediations like speculative trading of contracts for the good, marketing activities. And to doubly indirect intermediations such as Jeff discussed, like regulatory or other barriers to entry/innovation/competition. All will have a real incremental (positive, neutral, negative) impact on the value of the good. All will have a real incremental (positive, neutral, negative) impact on the available aggregate margin of the good. I'm pretty comfortable that none of that has anything to do with distance, so what have I managed to overlook? ...ken... --- On Tue, 1/19/10, Stephen Williams wrote: > From: Stephen Williams > Subject: Re: [FoRK] The World Is Not Flat > To: "Friends of Rohit Khare" > Received: Tuesday, January 19, 2010, 2:11 PM > Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo wrote: > > --- On Tue, 1/19/10, Jeff Bone > wrote: > >??? > >> ...? All value flows towards the middle of > the > >> network...? and all the while the dynamic > equilibria of > >> the network is increasingly undermined, requiring > higher and > >> higher (potentially unsustainable) "input energy" > (i.e., > >> economic resources and non-economic forces > applied) to > >> maintain any appearance of stability. > >> > >>? ??? > > > > Appealing. That last makes me think there's a > relationship between that and the "casino capitalism" that > was recently mentioned and the whining I've been doing about > related activities of gamblers-not-traders in things like > commodities markets and elsewhere. There's a holistic thing > going on here that I can't get my head around but I can feel > it. Yours is the first articulation I've seen of something > that makes it fit somewhere. > > > > Do you suppose there is a tie-in of these things in > the above aspect of Bone's developing Theory of General > Relativity as applied to Distribution Networks? > > > > That is, to the extent that these activities are > intermediation points in distribution networks but add > little or no value, do they add to the "resistance" implied > by the above, similar to, say, resistance to market entry? > > Raises the first question: Are they intermediation > points? (I think so, but...) > > > > Does the theory extend to assigning "resistance > values" to intermediation points? E.g. the more value an > intermediation point adds, versus its cost, the less > "resistance" it adds to the network? E.g. a transporter is > physically moving a good from one location to another at a > fair market price, thus adding relatively lower resistance. > Versus, e.g. a commodity speculator who simply buys and then > resells a contract for the same good and peels off some of > the available aggregate "margin" while adding little or > nothing to the movement of the good from source to sink or > to its value and thus adding relatively higher resistance. > >??? > > Actual distance is a red herring now because of > hyper-efficient shipping.? Intermediaries in many cases > are only there when they are more efficient than the > alternatives.? Commercial distance is a metric of time > and money which is only loosely connected to actual > distance. > > Just a few data points: It cost me 3 times as much to move > a container from the East Coast of the US to the West Coast > as a couple moving a container from Mountain View, CA to > Israel.? 5 years ago, from DC via email and a trip to > the bank, I paid the factory directly for and drop shipped > 30 specialty computers to Honolulu, arriving just 2 days > before I assembled and installed them.? No customs > costs or brokers needed and my client saved about 40% over > the US distributor that I ordered samples from.? Cheap > items are sold on eBay and shipped directly from Taiwan or > Hong Kong for a few dollars of postage. > > Sure, I have an awesome farmer's market in every small town > around me a couple days a week.? Hard to find that in > the winter on the East Coast. > > For some things, we have it great today compared to the > past.? Walmart / Target / CostCo have many things > impossibly cheap.? There are aggregators for Chinese > electronics junk/semi-junk that mean you can buy all kinds > of gadgets cheap.? You can easily buy directly from > in-country supply chain aggregators, > > Where is it worse? > > I think you have to separate out the commercial equivalent > of "all traffic flows through the highways" kind of traffic > from true intermediation points. > > > It seems the former (transport) would be something on > the "edge" and the latter (speculation/gambling) would be > part of the jam-up in the "middle" that you mention. > > > > That last statement is probably wrong on two counts in > that I'm inferring "jam-up" but you did not state it. And, > there is likely no relationship between a resistance metric > of an intermediation point and its location on the network. > Or is there? > > > > Which, then, causes me to ask what you mean by "All > value flows towards the middle of the network..." ("value" > is such a mushy word), or at least why you say that? > > Is this (middle of the network) where the relative > difference between value-add [little...lots] versus the > quantity of available aggregate margin extracted > [little...lots] creates the highest resistance to transit of > the network by the good from source to sink? > > > > By the way, are you still having problems with my > paragraphs not wrapping? If so, would a switch (by me) fom > Yahoo to Gmail make a difference? Simple enough to do if it > will fix it. > >??? > > Still fine with Thunderbird. > >? ? ? ? ? ...ken... > >??? > > sdw > > _______________________________________________ > FoRK mailing list > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork > __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/ From kammeyer at rocketmail.com Tue Jan 19 14:00:40 2010 From: kammeyer at rocketmail.com (David Kammeyer) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 14:00:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [FoRK] The World Is Not Flat In-Reply-To: <0DBD53DE-3110-4D5E-8A2A-ADB4463B890F@place.org> References: <0DBD53DE-3110-4D5E-8A2A-ADB4463B890F@place.org> Message-ID: <825236.90716.qm@web50904.mail.re2.yahoo.com> This is an interesting way to look at things. The systems are definitely statically unstable, and maybe oscliatory over long periods of time. For example, the auto manufacturing supply chain grew up in Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio. When railroads grew up, the southern states realized that they could attract auto manufacturers with right to work laws and financial incentives. Now that auto manufacturing has largely left Michigan, Michigan is falling all over itself to offer incentives for companies to relocate there. Maybe the incentives have to get higher every round though. All of this has happened largely due to cheaper transportation. In surface transportation, we have had numerous improvements to railroads. Internationally, we have had containerization, specialized bulk carriers, and much larger ships. In information, we have had digitization, packetization, and fiber optics. What's on the horizon that would be comparable to one of these? -Dave > From: Jeff Bone > This tendency is strongly encouraged by the corrupt collusion of governments and > national or multi-national corporate entities to create (and strongly guard / > enforce, through the coercive might of government and captive law) such > "beneficial" trade agreements, contracts, and flows of money, value, and > material. It tends to support incumbents, encourage monopolies, block > innovation, and create general systemic fragility / non-resiliency while > aggregating created-value "in the middle" of the economic landscape. All value > flows towards the middle of the network... and all the while the dynamic > equilibria of the network is increasingly undermined, requiring higher and > higher (potentially unsustainable) "input energy" (i.e., economic resources and > non-economic forces applied) to maintain any appearance of stability. > From ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca Tue Jan 19 14:00:43 2010 From: ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca (Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 14:00:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [FoRK] The World Is Not Flat In-Reply-To: <722BE292-9AD8-441B-BB34-0CDBF2C8C837@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: <948334.80712.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 1/19/10, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > > On Jan 19, 2010, at 12:11 PM, Stephen Williams wrote: > > Actual distance is a red herring now because of > hyper-efficient shipping.? Intermediaries in many cases > are only there when they are more efficient than the > alternatives.? Commercial distance is a metric of time > and money which is only loosely connected to actual > distance. > > > There are "quant" logistics companies that do not own any > shipping assets. They make vast quantities of money by > finding and exploiting inefficiencies in the global supply > chains operated by "real" logistics companies and > reshuffling the assets to (hopefully) create a profit. > Bloody speculators... > Some are anlysts or consultants and some are arbitragers. Some analysts and consultants add as much value as they extract. Some are just scoundrels. Arbitragers are all scoundrels. ...ken... __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/ From ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca Tue Jan 19 14:28:28 2010 From: ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca (Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 14:28:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [FoRK] Transportation as a location factor, Was: "The World Is Not Flat" In-Reply-To: <825236.90716.qm@web50904.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <600125.36050.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> What's the sudden fascination with distances and transportation as an offshoot of Jeff's post??? (Comments below...) --- On Tue, 1/19/10, David Kammeyer wrote: > This is an interesting way to look at > things.? The systems are definitely statically > unstable, and maybe oscliatory over long periods of > time.? For example, the auto manufacturing supply chain > grew up in Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio.? When railroads > grew up, the southern states realized that they could > attract auto manufacturers with right to work laws and > financial incentives.? Now that auto manufacturing has > largely left Michigan, Michigan is falling all over itself > to offer incentives for companies to relocate there.? > Maybe the incentives have to get higher every round though. > > All of this has happened largely due to cheaper > transportation. ... > Well, no. Not really. It's generally coming out of tax dollars or artificially reduced wages and other individual and/or collective benefits. It has little, if anything to do with transportation costs; only its availability, e.g. in your example, transportation has to be available or there's no deal to be made. But it doesn't much matter what it costs. It's cost can and will be offset, if necessary, by the other giveaways^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h incentives such as reduced or forgiven taxes, licenses and other fees, free infrastructure, regulations that restrict labour's power to negotiate wages and benefits or absolutely reduce the wages and benefits, and regulations that reduce or remove penalties for transgressions against the commons. ...ken... __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/ From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Tue Jan 19 14:47:39 2010 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 14:47:39 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] The World Is Not Flat In-Reply-To: <948334.80712.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <948334.80712.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0AF52FAF-5D8C-4C43-A157-DBB2D612C493@ceruleansystems.com> On Jan 19, 2010, at 2:00 PM, Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo wrote: > Arbitragers are all scoundrels. These scoundrels reduce logistical costs. If the customers didn't benefit they wouldn't work with the "scoundrels", opting to work with the asset owners instead. These arbitragers are generating value the asset owners left on the table and are delivering that value to customers. From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Tue Jan 19 15:28:25 2010 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 15:28:25 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] The World Is Not Flat In-Reply-To: <4B561D52.9020300@gmail.com> References: <396754.67160.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4B5611EF.8020205@lig.net> <722BE292-9AD8-441B-BB34-0CDBF2C8C837@ceruleansystems.com> <4B561D52.9020300@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jan 19, 2010, at 1:00 PM, Bill Stoddard wrote: > On 1/19/10 3:32 PM, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: >> On Jan 19, 2010, at 12:11 PM, Stephen Williams wrote: >> >>> Actual distance is a red herring now because of hyper-efficient shipping. Intermediaries in many cases are only there when they are more efficient than the alternatives. Commercial distance is a metric of time and money which is only loosely connected to actual distance. >>> >> >> There are "quant" logistics companies that do not own any shipping assets. They make vast quantities of money by finding and exploiting inefficiencies in the global supply chains operated by "real" logistics companies and reshuffling the assets to (hopefully) create a profit. Bloody speculators... >> >> > That is fascinating. Who are the clients of these 'quant' logistics companies? Were I interested in becoming a client, where would I start? Customers choose which companies they want to work with, and many of the bigger logistics firms have groups that play both ends of that game. If the customer's requirements fit very well within the asset inventory of a single supplier, they will likely get a better price than if they go through a middle man. Quant suppliers with smart, adaptive algorithms can create efficiencies in the global asset networks that exceed their overhead as middle men. The quants piece together a net profit from contracts with physical asset providers by using their assets in ways that are locally less efficient and globally more efficient. They take their cut on the cost savings to the customer. There are a lot of markets that are like this, I am intimately familiar with the inner workings of a couple though not logistics. Pricing, availability, and contract obligations are not in a stable equilibrium and the efficient modes of resource allocation may vary wildly in time. It is a terribly complex adaptive optimization problem but even small improvements in efficiency can generate huge profits and cost savings. It is not as though the logistics speculators are just collecting money, they are predicting the future requirements of the market and speculatively shuffle other people's resources around so that they can meet those requirements at the lowest possible cost to themselves. If they guess wrong, someone else wins a contract and they eat the cost. From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Tue Jan 19 15:51:08 2010 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 15:51:08 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] The World Is Not Flat In-Reply-To: <4B561A50.8090404@lig.net> References: <396754.67160.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4B5611EF.8020205@lig.net> <722BE292-9AD8-441B-BB34-0CDBF2C8C837@ceruleansystems.com> <4B561A50.8090404@lig.net> Message-ID: On Jan 19, 2010, at 12:47 PM, Stephen Williams wrote: > > Day to day "box packing" and match making, not much more than craigslist postings or airline reservations in effect, doesn't seem like speculation to me. How do these other "quant" logistics companies operate? What is their leverage? They do much more than spot-price match-making. Anybody can do that. The "quant" logistic companies speculate on *future* needs that have not materialized and position assets over time in such a way as to minimize their cost when that need materializes. They anticipate customer demand in order to lower costs (and thereby maximize profits). Or in many cases, to not leave a customer unserved altogether because the assets are not available even when they could have been given sufficiently clever rearrangement of a set of assets. Maximizing complex network throughput is a Hard Problem. In practice, there isn't a single, simple strategy that works well for all common modes of global supply networks. Predicting and rapidly adapting to mode transitions are essential. From sdw at lig.net Tue Jan 19 15:57:26 2010 From: sdw at lig.net (Stephen Williams) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 15:57:26 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] The World Is Not Flat In-Reply-To: <877662.16437.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <877662.16437.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B5646E6.8090000@lig.net> Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > I'm afraid I don't get your point. > > You said: "Actual distance is a red herring now because of hyper-efficient shipping. Intermediaries in many cases are only there when they are more efficient than the alternatives. Commercial distance is a metric of time and money which is only loosely connected to actual distance." > > I agree. To all three points in that paragraph. But, so what? > > You call actual distance a red herring as if it's something someone else raised. But yours is the first mention of it as any sort of issue. > JB raised a number of issues, explicitly and implicitly. By multiple examples of distance traveled and mentioning boundaries crossed, distance was put on the table as something bad. And you would think that it would be, if it weren't outweighed by specialization for one reason or another. JBone said: > In fact the world is very different; it is characterized by > increasingly-long supply chains with increasing intermediation and > very different characteristics among its edges. E.g., that thing you > ate for dinner last night, if in the US, had components with a mean > distance between original producer and ultimate (literal) consumer of > about 2000 miles and something like 5-6 intermediate hops. That > finished good Joe Consumer buys at Wal-Mart has much fuzzier stats but > in many cases has a supply-chain path that extends order-10,000 miles, > crosses national boundaries 4-5 times and has a dozen intermediaries. > You also said: "I think you have to separate out the commercial equivalent of "all traffic flows through the highways" kind of traffic from true intermediation points." > > Sure. But, again, so what? How does any of that relate to any of my comments or questions? Clearly I've missed your point completely. I was responding to JB's original message on those points. I was actually more agreeing with your resistance metaphor than disagreeing with anything. > ... Or you've missed mine? because nothing I said depends on real distance or any analogue thereof. I'm talking about "resistance" at the intermediation points due to a host of factors. And even in my single example of transport, the "resistance" would not be measured by distance but, rather, by the ratio of value the transport adds to the good versus its cost. Just as, similarly, you would measure the "resistance" caused by a purely speculative purchase and resale of a contract for that good by the ratio of the value added (if any) by the speculative transactions versus their cost. > > If there's an analogy in the back of my pea-brain it's more likely the resistances - individual and aggregate - of components in an electronic circuit. I hesistate to mention it except to try to convey what I mean by "resistance" at the intermediation points. There is no other useful information to be drawn from it. > > In assessing resistance of intermediations, as a metric, I'm suggesting that the factors in assessing the resistance would be something like the ratio of: > > a) the value added to the good by an intermediation, TO > As long as you include as "value added" the savings over alternate paths to the market or saved inefficiencies over less capable local suppliers. An intermediation may not add value, any more than a wire adds current, but it can be the least resistance path between a source and a sink. > b) the extraction from the available aggregate margin of the good by an intermediation. > As long as there is competition, this is the price of an incentive to create a less resistance path. > Yeah, I know that's a silly ratio because the higher the ratio the lower the actual resistance, e.g. the higher the ratio the more beneficial the intermediation. > In other words, the higher the existing costs, the higher the incentive to go into business to lower those costs, benefiting everyone. > This would apply to direct intermediations, like transport, processing, packaging, storage. To indirect intermediations like speculative trading of contracts for the good, marketing activities. And to doubly indirect intermediations such as Jeff discussed, like regulatory or other barriers to entry/innovation/competition. > > All will have a real incremental (positive, neutral, negative) impact on the value of the good. All will have a real incremental (positive, neutral, negative) impact on the available aggregate margin of the good. > > I'm pretty comfortable that none of that has anything to do with distance, so what have I managed to overlook? > > ...ken... > > > > --- On Tue, 1/19/10, Stephen Williams wrote: > > >> From: Stephen Williams >> Subject: Re: [FoRK] The World Is Not Flat >> To: "Friends of Rohit Khare" >> Received: Tuesday, January 19, 2010, 2:11 PM >> Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo wrote: >> >>> --- On Tue, 1/19/10, Jeff Bone >>> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>> ... All value flows towards the middle of >>>> >> the >> >>>> network... and all the while the dynamic >>>> >> equilibria of >> >>>> the network is increasingly undermined, requiring >>>> >> higher and >> >>>> higher (potentially unsustainable) "input energy" >>>> >> (i.e., >> >>>> economic resources and non-economic forces >>>> >> applied) to >> >>>> maintain any appearance of stability. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Appealing. That last makes me think there's a >>> >> relationship between that and the "casino capitalism" that >> was recently mentioned and the whining I've been doing about >> related activities of gamblers-not-traders in things like >> commodities markets and elsewhere. There's a holistic thing >> going on here that I can't get my head around but I can feel >> it. Yours is the first articulation I've seen of something >> that makes it fit somewhere. >> >>> Do you suppose there is a tie-in of these things in >>> >> the above aspect of Bone's developing Theory of General >> Relativity as applied to Distribution Networks? >> >>> That is, to the extent that these activities are >>> >> intermediation points in distribution networks but add >> little or no value, do they add to the "resistance" implied >> by the above, similar to, say, resistance to market entry? >> >>> Raises the first question: Are they intermediation >>> >> points? (I think so, but...) >> >>> Does the theory extend to assigning "resistance >>> >> values" to intermediation points? E.g. the more value an >> intermediation point adds, versus its cost, the less >> "resistance" it adds to the network? E.g. a transporter is >> physically moving a good from one location to another at a >> fair market price, thus adding relatively lower resistance. >> Versus, e.g. a commodity speculator who simply buys and then >> resells a contract for the same good and peels off some of >> the available aggregate "margin" while adding little or >> nothing to the movement of the good from source to sink or >> to its value and thus adding relatively higher resistance. >> >>> >>> >> Actual distance is a red herring now because of >> hyper-efficient shipping. Intermediaries in many cases >> are only there when they are more efficient than the >> alternatives. Commercial distance is a metric of time >> and money which is only loosely connected to actual >> distance. >> >> Just a few data points: It cost me 3 times as much to move >> a container from the East Coast of the US to the West Coast >> as a couple moving a container from Mountain View, CA to >> Israel. 5 years ago, from DC via email and a trip to >> the bank, I paid the factory directly for and drop shipped >> 30 specialty computers to Honolulu, arriving just 2 days >> before I assembled and installed them. No customs >> costs or brokers needed and my client saved about 40% over >> the US distributor that I ordered samples from. Cheap >> items are sold on eBay and shipped directly from Taiwan or >> Hong Kong for a few dollars of postage. >> >> Sure, I have an awesome farmer's market in every small town >> around me a couple days a week. Hard to find that in >> the winter on the East Coast. >> >> For some things, we have it great today compared to the >> past. Walmart / Target / CostCo have many things >> impossibly cheap. There are aggregators for Chinese >> electronics junk/semi-junk that mean you can buy all kinds >> of gadgets cheap. You can easily buy directly from >> in-country supply chain aggregators, >> >> Where is it worse? >> >> I think you have to separate out the commercial equivalent >> of "all traffic flows through the highways" kind of traffic >> from true intermediation points. >> >> >>> It seems the former (transport) would be something on >>> >> the "edge" and the latter (speculation/gambling) would be >> part of the jam-up in the "middle" that you mention. >> >>> That last statement is probably wrong on two counts in >>> >> that I'm inferring "jam-up" but you did not state it. And, >> there is likely no relationship between a resistance metric >> of an intermediation point and its location on the network. >> Or is there? >> >>> Which, then, causes me to ask what you mean by "All >>> >> value flows towards the middle of the network..." ("value" >> is such a mushy word), or at least why you say that? >> >>> Is this (middle of the network) where the relative >>> >> difference between value-add [little...lots] versus the >> quantity of available aggregate margin extracted >> [little...lots] creates the highest resistance to transit of >> the network by the good from source to sink? >> >>> By the way, are you still having problems with my >>> >> paragraphs not wrapping? If so, would a switch (by me) fom >> Yahoo to Gmail make a difference? Simple enough to do if it >> will fix it. >> >>> >>> >> Still fine with Thunderbird. >> >>> ...ken... >>> >>> >> sdw >> >> _______________________________________________ >> FoRK mailing list >> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork >> >> > > > __________________________________________________________________ > Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! > > http://www.flickr.com/gift/ > > _______________________________________________ > FoRK mailing list > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork > From kammeyer at rocketmail.com Tue Jan 19 16:16:45 2010 From: kammeyer at rocketmail.com (David Kammeyer) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:16:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [FoRK] Transportation as a location factor, Was: "The World Is Not Flat" In-Reply-To: <600125.36050.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <600125.36050.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <610038.49228.qm@web50903.mail.re2.yahoo.com> > From: "Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo" > > All of this has happened largely due to cheaper > > transportation. ... > > > > Well, no. Not really. It's generally coming out of tax dollars or artificially > reduced wages and other individual and/or collective benefits. > > It has little, if anything to do with transportation costs; only its > availability, e.g. in your example, transportation has to be available or > there's no deal to be made. But it doesn't much matter what it costs. It's cost > can and will be offset, if necessary, by the other giveaways^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h Your assumption is that such giveaways can be unlimited. Transportation costs represent a large piece of the cost of manufacturing heavy goods like cars. Also, the government's time horizon is only oriented towards the startup of a new business. Once the business is established and has invested capital in a place, the incentive to keep subsidizing is reduced. Therefore, companies will only want to move plants if they percieve that there will be a sustained cost reduction which doesn't directly cost the government anything, such as different labor laws, or lower labor costs for other reasons. Furthermore, that cost reduction has to offset the increased transportation costs of moving. To answer my own question about what could be the next big revolution in transportation that would cause these sorts of uphevals again, maybe it will be practical superconducting cable. If the cost of transporting electricity were to dramatically fall, there might be economies of scale in power generation. For example, we might create a giganic carbon sequestration facility in the powder river basin, create huge coal power plants, and ship the electricity off to the west coast. -Dave From sdw at lig.net Tue Jan 19 16:42:24 2010 From: sdw at lig.net (Stephen Williams) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:42:24 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] The World Is Not Flat In-Reply-To: References: <396754.67160.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4B5611EF.8020205@lig.net> <722BE292-9AD8-441B-BB34-0CDBF2C8C837@ceruleansystems.com> <4B561A50.8090404@lig.net> Message-ID: <4B565170.2010702@lig.net> J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > On Jan 19, 2010, at 12:47 PM, Stephen Williams wrote: > >> Day to day "box packing" and match making, not much more than craigslist postings or airline reservations in effect, doesn't seem like speculation to me. How do these other "quant" logistics companies operate? What is their leverage? >> > > > They do much more than spot-price match-making. Anybody can do that. > > The "quant" logistic companies speculate on *future* needs that have not materialized and position assets over time in such a way as to minimize their cost when that need materializes. They anticipate customer demand in order to lower costs (and thereby maximize profits). Or in many cases, to not leave a customer unserved altogether because the assets are not available even when they could have been given sufficiently clever rearrangement of a set of assets. > > Maximizing complex network throughput is a Hard Problem. In practice, there isn't a single, simple strategy that works well for all common modes of global supply networks. Predicting and rapidly adapting to mode transitions are essential. > So, linear programming, traveling delivery man, convex optimization flow problems, predictive analysis, machine learning and feature extraction based on all inputs (weather, holidays, economy, etc.). Fun. Sounds like they may earn their keep sometimes. sdw From sdw at lig.net Tue Jan 19 16:57:21 2010 From: sdw at lig.net (Stephen Williams) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:57:21 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] The World Is Not Flat In-Reply-To: <825236.90716.qm@web50904.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <0DBD53DE-3110-4D5E-8A2A-ADB4463B890F@place.org> <825236.90716.qm@web50904.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B5654F1.2020207@lig.net> David Kammeyer wrote: > This is an interesting way to look at things. The systems are definitely statically unstable, and maybe oscliatory over long periods of time. For example, the auto manufacturing supply chain grew up in Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio. When railroads grew up, the southern states realized that they could attract auto manufacturers with right to work laws and financial incentives. Now that auto manufacturing has largely left Michigan, Michigan is falling all over itself to offer incentives for companies to relocate there. Maybe the incentives have to get higher every round though. > Ken Ganshirt wrote: > Well, no. Not really. It's generally coming out of tax dollars or artificially reduced wages and other individual and/or collective benefits. > > It has little, if anything to do with transportation costs; only its availability, e.g. in your example, transportation has to be available or there's no deal to be made. But it doesn't much matter what it costs. It's cost can and will be offset, if necessary, by the other giveaways^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h incentives such as reduced or forgiven taxes, licenses and other fees, free infrastructure, regulations that restrict labour's power to negotiate wages and benefits or absolutely reduce the wages and benefits, and regulations that reduce or remove penalties for transgressions against the commons. > > ...ken... > Why the sudden fascination with incentives to lure business? What's wrong with that? To the extent that they clean out the cobwebs of over-taxation / regulation that were more to the benefit of large companies than startups, it is probably good. JB: > This tendency is strongly encouraged by the corrupt collusion of > governments and national or multi-national corporate entities to > create (and strongly guard / enforce, through the coercive might of > government and captive law) such "beneficial" trade agreements, > contracts, and flows of money, value, and material. It tends to > support incumbents, encourage monopolies, block innovation, and create > general systemic fragility / non-resiliency while aggregating > created-value "in the middle" of the economic landscape. All value > flows towards the middle of the network... and all the while the > dynamic equilibria of the network is increasingly undermined, > requiring higher and higher (potentially unsustainable) "input energy" > (i.e., economic resources and non-economic forces applied) to maintain > any appearance of stability. In the cases where the incentives and back room deals "corrupt" reality, i.e. lead to far less efficiency, this is very bad. When they are removing regulation or taxation or when they are recognizing indirect benefit (training a workforce for future opportunities for instance), they may be very good overall. Doesn't the last sentence there undermine the premise? If it takes an increasing amount of energy to "maintain ... stability", isn't this good? When stability is inefficient, don't we want instability? Sounds like a self-correcting situation. Within the US, transportation isn't terribly different than the past in a lot of ways, although it is more efficient and scalable down to a single person now. Internationally with containerization, it has been a huge impact. The cost of shipping around the world is similar or less than the cost of shipping across the country. That makes China / Japan / et al closer than Michigan in some cases. Any discussion lamenting the "inefficiency" of buying from China rather than Michigan has to take that into account. The US needs to get far more efficient in certain industries if we are to compete. Obviously auto manufacture is one of them. In making a list of those areas where there was a lot of inefficiency, auto manufacturing is interesting because the solution is probably to break the auto company as "the middle of the network". Traditional auto companies, at least in the US, have had all of the pricing, profit skimming, product decision, and similar control over the entire supply chain. This even though there is a long, distributed supply chain that is full of innovation and cost savings. Already, we have widespread third party parts, repair, augmentation, etc. Why not build a car company that operates that way more explicitly? Or a whole market? sdw > All of this has happened largely due to cheaper transportation. In surface transportation, we have had numerous improvements to railroads. Internationally, we have had containerization, specialized bulk carriers, and much larger ships. In information, we have had digitization, packetization, and fiber optics. What's on the horizon that would be comparable to one of these? > > -Dave > > > From jbone at place.org Tue Jan 19 17:39:34 2010 From: jbone at place.org (Jeff Bone) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:39:34 -0600 Subject: [FoRK] The Wrecking Crew - A Low, Dishonest Decade In-Reply-To: <49DB22BD-143F-4C09-90B1-E9A9B1809A27@place.org> References: <49DB22BD-143F-4C09-90B1-E9A9B1809A27@place.org> Message-ID: <87F42846-5C30-478F-8B91-8303364938DA@place.org> Too many good comments to reply to many of them individually; I'll just make a couple of points. Reading through them, I notice several instances in which folks are reading what they want to see me say into what I'm actually saying, and in doing so they're revealing a lack of understanding of the existing macro structure and function of various financial markets. Not to pick on Stephen out of spite, but just as an example: Stephen says (quoting me to lead give context)... >> It's only where the "market did not have such characteristics and >> mechanisms that the failures really mounted to create systemic risks. > > Exactly right! Unfortunately, many crave stability and > predictability. Sometimes the definite loser pool (existing > shareholders for instance) win out over the potential (and mostly > unknown and unidentified) winners. This affects regulation of > markets and preference for gov. / commercial choices. This is > probably a good balancing force, however it can lead the wrong way > and shouldn't rule. Unfortunately, Stephen is misunderstanding something very fundamental, which is the relationship between the "characteristics and mechanisms" mentioned, government regulation, and the impact on government regulation on which markets suffered the worst (and why.) I'm glad that Stephen "agrees" with me but unfortunately his next statements make it clear he's not sure what he's agreeing with. ;-) It's not government oversight or regulatory risk limitations that impart predictability and stability; it's a well-organized, well-run, highly credit- and risk-aware market. This may in some cases require regulation to achieve; but in the most obvious real-world case recently, it absolutely did not require (governmental) regulation to achieve that. Let me give you that example in detail. During the Bear and (particularly) Lehman events, one market that I'm intimately familiar with --- the global foreign exchange market --- suffered least of any of the various financial markets on the planet. During those events, not a single foreign exchange transaction (in net) failed to settle. That cannot be said for *any* other financial market that I'm aware of; the ripple effects of those events impacted counterparties and amplified counterparty risk in every other market, causing trade breaks, massive realization of hypothetical risks as netted-out positions no longer netted, and ultimately caused the cascading failures that sent prices reeling and destroyed value throughout the chain. That didn't happen in foreign exchange. The irony is that foreign exchange is *THE LEAST* governmentally- regulated financial environment on the planet. And it's not particularly transparent, open, or any of those other positive qualities that I mentioned. So without the "benevolent oversight" of governmental regulation, how did it weather the storm so well? Well, despite an almost total lack of *governmental* regulation, it's one of the most tightly self-policed and self-regulated environments on the planet. It's one of those dreaded "OTC" (over-the-counter) markets --- however, unlike some of the problematic asset classes (CDS / MBS) it has some appealing characteristics. While the business is OTC, ultimately every transaction is directly between two parties according to previously-negotiated mutual credit. So there's the first pillar of its stability; these credit facilities are negotiated ahead of time and are more or less standardized under a standard template governing such transactions (the ISDA and its supporting documentation.) Throughout the chain you've got excellent pre- and post-trade risk management among all of the participants in a transaction, generally according to the mutually negotiated and actively managed bilateral credit facilities put in place through these ISDA agreements and often mediated by credit intermediaries called "prime brokers" (whose purpose, among other things, is to create third-party visibility to and management of the utilization and administration of such credit, and who in doing so put their own skin in the game --- giving them ample motivation to risk-manage appropriately and effectively, i.e. eliminating a lot of moral hazard.) Most of the business now occurs on exchange-like platforms; while these aren't really exchanges --- the presence of these mutual credit facilities means that everybody on a given ECN sees a different book, and in only a few cases do you actually get to see every update to the overall book, every trade, etc. --- they still function as such for the purpose of price discovery. Unlike the real voice-brokered and highly bespoke MBS and other instruments, the exchange rate between any two currencies at any given time is generally knowable with a high degree of certainty. Finally, and most importantly, the more-central entities in the foreign exchange business voluntarily all participate in a non-profit joint venture called "CLS Bank" --- which is in effect a central clearer for the entire business, and almost all forex transactions ultimately settle within CLS, with CLS (and all its members) having full visibility to all the net changes in positions, netted trades, and credit arrangements between its members. During the events in question, this whole system *worked perfectly.* Without a bit of government intervention, support, oversight, guidance beforehand, etc. Now, those characteristics --- exchange-facilitated price discovery, bilateral / standardized / a priori credit facilities, pervasive credit-aware and valuation-aware risk management, and --- again, most importantly --- a centralized clearing facility with visibility to the whole thing and mutual insurance among the principals --- are all hallmarks of what worked, in comparison to e.g. the highly non- standard, decentralized, and bespoke environment of e.g. MBS. And clearly it doesn't *require* government coercion to make it happen; this all spontaneously self-organized in the foreign exchange market as a way for responsible folks to manage their own risks. (Interestingly, CLS was created primarily just to mitigate a particular kind of settlement risk called Herstatt risk, which occurs when two parties to a transaction "settle" non-atomically due to time zone differences --- yet it has had a much more pervasive risk- mitigation impact.) By comparison the MBS world was the Wild West, and it did *not* so self-organize before seeing its own near-fatal Black Swan materialize. Indeed, it was the ultimate case study in mutually- assured destruction and engineered moral hazard: heads we few alone win, tails everyone else loses --- and the governments won't allow that to happen. THAT kind of behavior is not characteristic of most markets or asset classes, and it is THAT behavior that may legitimately require coercion to corral. My endorsement of regulation is not an endorsement of what Stephen appears to believe regulation should attempt to achieve: in particular, regulation's "affects" [sic] should not be to influence any particular pool of winners and losers, or to prevent losers from suffering the consequences, or to prevent willing participants from engaging in whatever transactions they desire, or to "engineer" any particular outcomes by levies and taxes. Maintaining some level of volume, volatility, price stability, etc. is *not* a legitimate aim of such things, and the uninformed shouldn't play at games they don't understand. Caveat emptor. Instead, my endorsement is really merely one of well-organized markets --- and that doesn't *require* government intervention in all cases, as we see with foreign exchange as a shining existence proof and case study. And indeed, quite often it's the case that politicians --- most of whom have no clue how any of this works --- create more damage than they mitigate through regulating from a position of total ignorance. However, in markets that fail to appropriately self-organize to manage their own systemic risks, legal coercion and enforcement may be required to get the participants to adopt what should be some otherwise quite commonsense and mutually beneficial processes and mechanisms. To figure out what those might be, we need look no further than those markets which *functioned well* through the recent (and, I would argue, ongoing) unpleasantness. If only the policy-makers were smart enough to do so. (And the armchair pundits, really, should STFU until they have a bit better understanding of what actually happened, much less why. IMHO. ;-) $0.02, jb From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Tue Jan 19 17:50:55 2010 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 17:50:55 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] The World Is Not Flat In-Reply-To: <4B565170.2010702@lig.net> References: <396754.67160.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4B5611EF.8020205@lig.net> <722BE292-9AD8-441B-BB34-0CDBF2C8C837@ceruleansystems.com> <4B561A50.8090404@lig.net> <4B565170.2010702@lig.net> Message-ID: On Jan 19, 2010, at 4:42 PM, Stephen Williams wrote: > > So, linear programming, traveling delivery man, convex optimization flow problems, predictive analysis, machine learning and feature extraction based on all inputs (weather, holidays, economy, etc.). Fun. Sounds like they may earn their keep sometimes. In principle, it was my introduction to some of these topics. In practice, it is rarely as sophisticated as all that which is why there is still a lot of opportunity. Not that long ago this was mostly accomplished by gaggles of smart people, not even computers. From jbone at place.org Tue Jan 19 17:53:06 2010 From: jbone at place.org (Jeff Bone) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:53:06 -0600 Subject: [FoRK] The World Is Not Flat In-Reply-To: <0DBD53DE-3110-4D5E-8A2A-ADB4463B890F@place.org> References: <0DBD53DE-3110-4D5E-8A2A-ADB4463B890F@place.org> Message-ID: Again, too many excellent comments to respond to individually. I should clarify one thing, though; I think I undermined clarity in one of the problems I'm attempting to sketch out by mentioning actual geographic distances in supply chains. It's not actually the physical distance that's a problem per se, nor is the transport between hops a value-subtracting proposition necessarily. The problem I have is when the "finish" process (from raw material to consumer good) is artificially factored into a larger-than-necessary number of hops in order to optimize costs in an artificially-distorted landscape. This should be intuitive to a lot of folks: your shoes get "assembled" in China because, basically, labor is essentially free there. This underwrites and justifies the logistical costs involved, but it's not necessarily any kind of desirable optimum; there's actually value being "stolen" along the way from the laborers involved. Really, it's not the miles, it's the hop count metric that matters, and whether that hop count makes sense, and the "distance" (in cost) between them. The network self-organizes in a distorted space not to optimize for minimum cost-add between the inputs and outputs, but rather for exploitation of local characteristics for maximum value extraction at each hop. One quick response to Dave, who asks what kinds of things might technologically "flatten" this sort of network out further, as e.g. packet-switched networks did for information. Two possible suggestions: Robust, general purpose, and local fabrication facilities --- think RepRap 10.0, on steroids --- and a thriving market for useful design templates for same, including open source templates. You don't need nano-assemblers to get some of the benefits of local assembly, necessarily. jb From jbone at place.org Tue Jan 19 18:10:41 2010 From: jbone at place.org (Jeff Bone) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:10:41 -0600 Subject: [FoRK] The World Is Not Flat In-Reply-To: References: <0DBD53DE-3110-4D5E-8A2A-ADB4463B890F@place.org> Message-ID: <539F417D-7EAA-4335-8BB5-A5F67A970C99@place.org> For further clarity... On Jan 19, 2010, at 7:53 PM, Jeff Bone wrote: > Really, it's not the miles, it's the hop count metric that matters, > and whether that hop count makes sense, and the "distance" (in cost) > between them. The network self-organizes in a distorted space not > to optimize for minimum cost-add between the inputs and outputs, ...which, note, is what standard if idealized theories of beneficial globalization might suppose... > but rather for exploitation of local characteristics for maximum > value extraction at each hop. Such local characteristics, as mentioned, deriving from various forms of monopoly power, coercion, and engineered inefficiencies at all levels of scale throughout the network. The market overall optimizes according to *those.* Without taking those into account, any theory of globalization is going to be inherently flawed. At least, that was the conjecture I was advancing. jb From sdw at lig.net Tue Jan 19 18:29:21 2010 From: sdw at lig.net (Stephen Williams) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 18:29:21 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] The Wrecking Crew - A Low, Dishonest Decade In-Reply-To: <87F42846-5C30-478F-8B91-8303364938DA@place.org> References: <49DB22BD-143F-4C09-90B1-E9A9B1809A27@place.org> <87F42846-5C30-478F-8B91-8303364938DA@place.org> Message-ID: <4B566A81.4040304@lig.net> Jeff Bone wrote: > > Too many good comments to reply to many of them individually; I'll > just make a couple of points. Reading through them, I notice several > instances in which folks are reading what they want to see me say into > what I'm actually saying, and in doing so they're revealing a lack of > understanding of the existing macro structure and function of various > financial markets. Not to pick on Stephen out of spite, but just as > an example: > > Stephen says (quoting me to lead give context)... > >>> It's only where the "market did not have such characteristics and >>> mechanisms that the failures really mounted to create systemic risks. >> >> Exactly right! Unfortunately, many crave stability and >> predictability. Sometimes the definite loser pool (existing >> shareholders for instance) win out over the potential (and mostly >> unknown and unidentified) winners. This affects regulation of markets >> and preference for gov. / commercial choices. This is probably a good >> balancing force, however it can lead the wrong way and shouldn't rule. > > Unfortunately, Stephen is misunderstanding something very fundamental, > which is the relationship between the "characteristics and mechanisms" > mentioned, government regulation, and the impact on government > regulation on which markets suffered the worst (and why.) > > I'm glad that Stephen "agrees" with me but unfortunately his next > statements make it clear he's not sure what he's agreeing with. ;-) > > It's not government oversight or regulatory risk limitations that > impart predictability and stability; it's a well-organized, well-run, > highly credit- and risk-aware market. > > ... > My endorsement of regulation is not an endorsement of what Stephen > appears to believe regulation should attempt to achieve: in > particular, regulation's "affects" [sic] should not be to influence > any particular pool of winners and losers, or to prevent losers from > suffering the consequences, or to prevent willing participants from > engaging in whatever transactions they desire, or to "engineer" any > particular outcomes by levies and taxes. Maintaining some level of > volume, volatility, price stability, etc. is *not* a legitimate aim of > such things, and the uninformed shouldn't play at games they don't > understand. Caveat emptor. Perhaps my bias is preventing me from understanding how your bias results in that reading. However I think you have completely misinterpreted what I said. Apparently I should have been more clear. I agreed, then prefaced everything else I said with "unfortunately" to signal a summarization of some of what takes markets in another direction than what we were agreeing to. You further indicate that you are parsing this in a way not intended since you mark "affects" as somehow wrong, even though it has exactly the meaning I meant: Existing shareholders, craving stability to protect their investment, affect the type and degree of regulation of markets / preferences. The legislatures effect said regulation to appease those shareholders since the potential challengers of the status quo have little ability to have a competing affect. I am not endorsing that as a valid goal, but expressing a view of why it (unfortunately) happens. And I reasonably end with a hedge that counterbalancing forces are often a net good, even if they can "lead the wrong way and shouldn't rule". The gist was that they should be a minor countervailing force. Thanks for the education on forex markets, interesting. > > Instead, my endorsement is really merely one of well-organized markets > --- and that doesn't *require* government intervention in all cases, > as we see with foreign exchange as a shining existence proof and case > study. And indeed, quite often it's the case that politicians --- > most of whom have no clue how any of this works --- create more damage > than they mitigate through regulating from a position of total ignorance. If we had to have government intervention in every aspect of living and working to get people to do the right thing, we'd never get anything done. It is only for when people refuse to or are unable to make the right choices consistently that we need such help. On the other hand, some operate on the principle that anything that isn't explicitly forbidden (in a way that you could get caught easily) is allowed. > > However, in markets that fail to appropriately self-organize to manage > their own systemic risks, legal coercion and enforcement may be > required to get the participants to adopt what should be some > otherwise quite commonsense and mutually beneficial processes and > mechanisms. To figure out what those might be, we need look no > further than those markets which *functioned well* through the recent > (and, I would argue, ongoing) unpleasantness. "Self-organize or we'll do it for you" is not a bad principle. Conversely, "self-organize better and we'll stop doing it for you" ought to be possible. I'm sure that's the sell for deregulation, however it has to have a metric or it is just a gateway to devolution. > > If only the policy-makers were smart enough to do so. (And the > armchair pundits, really, should STFU until they have a bit better > understanding of what actually happened, much less why. IMHO. ;-) > > $0.02, > > > > jb sdw From jbone at place.org Tue Jan 19 18:45:43 2010 From: jbone at place.org (Jeff Bone) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:45:43 -0600 Subject: [FoRK] The Wrecking Crew - A Low, Dishonest Decade In-Reply-To: <87F42846-5C30-478F-8B91-8303364938DA@place.org> References: <49DB22BD-143F-4C09-90B1-E9A9B1809A27@place.org> <87F42846-5C30-478F-8B91-8303364938DA@place.org> Message-ID: <34988BCC-FEA7-4311-93D2-DB6508EAD605@place.org> To summarize the previous and underscore / expand on some of the points a bit... One standard tack / trope these days, particularly among the anti- market "progressive" crowd, is to point at all the recent financial troubles and say "see, if left to their own devices all markets, merely due to the self-interested nature of its participants, will self-organize to magnify systemic risks and pass them along to unwitting third parties. Therefore, we have to use the coercive force of government to ensure that these (implication: bad) actors do not so self-organize." Case in point, that's clearly not true; the market that functioned best during the recent events is actually one with a very high degree of self-organization and the lowest degree of coercive influence through government regulation. The progressives over-generalize, and those who reiterate the above --- be they politicians, talking heads, or those drawn with a very fine camelhair brush ;-) --- are showing their ignorance of the specifics of recent events while simultaneously disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously. Now, just as clearly, those on the other side of the argument who simply cannot acknowledge that such buck-passing can be (and often, is) a problem are equally disconnected from reality. But it's important for everyone who wants to take an informed position in this debate to realize the following: that the engineered "mutually assured destruction" and web of risks in which originated all the recent trouble, in fact, was predicated on one particular assumption, one of moral hazard: that somebody else, in particular some government entity or entities, would step in to avoid the doomsday scenario, should it come to pass. Without that moral hazard, none of this would have occurred. And guess what happened... ;-) So, final conclusions: *government* regulation and moral hazard are two sides of the same coin, and that has to be managed very carefully by policy makers and would-be regulators. There's a role for the government regulation, but beware the possible moral hazards that usually go along with it (and other unintended consequences as well.) And --- self-regulation via social norms, peer pressure, clearly articulated ethics and practices, and self-interest *can* (but do not always, or even necessarily usually) accomplish the same desired goals that progressives might seek (but often fail to achieve) through greater, coercive government regulation; cf. the FX market as existence proof. jb From ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca Tue Jan 19 19:04:35 2010 From: ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca (Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:04:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [FoRK] The World Is Not Flat In-Reply-To: <4B5646E6.8090000@lig.net> Message-ID: <828739.54567.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 1/19/10, Stephen Williams wrote: > > > > ... How does any of that relate to any of my comments or questions? > > Clearly I've missed your point completely. > > I was responding to JB's original message on those > points.? I was actually more agreeing with your > resistance metaphor than disagreeing with anything. > I see that now. Thanks for clarifying. > > > > In assessing resistance of intermediations, as a > metric, I'm suggesting that the factors in assessing the > resistance would be something like the ratio of: > > > > a) the value added to the good by an intermediation, ... > >??? > > As long as you include as "value added" the savings over > alternate paths to the market or saved inefficiencies over > less capable local suppliers.? Certainly. > > ... TO > > b) the extraction from the available aggregate margin > > of the good by an intermediation. > >??? > > As long as there is competition, this is the price of an > incentive to create a less resistance path. > Yes. > > In other words, the higher the existing costs, the higher > the incentive to go into business to lower those costs, > benefiting everyone. > And he brings it right back to one of Jeff's thorniest of thorns. Good work. And, Yes. ...ken... __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/ From jbone at place.org Tue Jan 19 19:38:17 2010 From: jbone at place.org (Jeff Bone) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:38:17 -0600 Subject: [FoRK] Apologies to Stephen... Message-ID: <9980EEE4-3368-478A-B34D-42CFED401756@place.org> sdw says: > Perhaps my bias is preventing me from understanding how your bias > results in that reading. I could simply refer to the Signature Moves. (Now which one was that.... ah yes, something like a rather roughly-executed Slight-of- Hand Strawman / Jane-You-Ignorant-Slut combo. ;-) But that wouldn't be genuine. My apologies if I misread your statements. Frankly I read the whole slew of followups today in one fell swoop earlier and let it simmer for a bit before responding, and may have carelessly assigned some things to you that should have been assigned elsewhere; the actual quoted followup doesn't necessarily imply any lack of understanding on your part that I might have ascribed to it. My real issue is with those that take the position I describe, generally out of ignorance and a gross overestimation of their own understanding of what happened (and what is happening even now). That's not necessarily your position, and that's my bad... :-) jb From ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca Tue Jan 19 19:44:52 2010 From: ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca (Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:44:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [FoRK] Transportation as a location factor, Was: "The World Is Not Flat" In-Reply-To: <610038.49228.qm@web50903.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <540780.73856.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 1/19/10, David Kammeyer wrote: > > From: "Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo" > > > All of this has happened largely due to cheaper > > > transportation. ... > > > > > > > Well, no. Not really. It's generally coming out of tax > > dollars or artificially reduced wages and other individual and/or > > collective benefits. > > > > It has little, if anything to do with transportation costs; only its > > availability, e.g. in your example, transportation has to be available or > > there's no deal to be made. But it doesn't much matter what it costs. > > It's cost can and will be offset, if necessary, by the other > > giveaways^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h > > Your assumption is that such giveaways can be > unlimited.?... Nope. I said "it doesn't *much* matter". There are always limits. It would be silly to assume otherwise. Low transportation costs would be useful but not required if the various levels of gummitup decide they want to indulge in some job creation activity. Either proactively or because some corporation or industry has put forward a tempting "business case". > ... Also, the government's time horizon is only > oriented towards the startup of a new business.? Once > the business is established and has invested capital in a > place, the incentive to keep subsidizing is reduced.? Not really. Well, their attention can wander, certainly. But I can point to the continued subsidization of the automobile industry in southern Ontario (that's up here in Canada, you know) as proof that any large heavily-subsidized business or industry worth their giveaways can easily continue to ransom the jobs of their local employees, indefinitely, to the various levels of government any time they need a little shot in the arm. There's nothing like the threat of large job losses to get the legislators working overtime, either to get some more money or create/modify some offensive piece of legislation that's inhibiting the "competitiveness" of the business/industry in question. Both of our governments just recently proved their readiness to continue this behaviour with the recent massive bailout of GM and, yet again, Chrysler. Again, just the simple threat of job loss was enough to do the trick. Worse. This time there was still guaranteed job loss, just a hope that it might not be quite as bad as if no help was provided. > Therefore, companies will only want to move plants if they > percieve that there will be a sustained cost reduction ... Yes. > ... which doesn't directly cost the government anything, such as > different labor laws, or lower labor costs for other > reasons. Disagree. Chrysler, GM, Wal-Mart, Cabelas and many more all prove, regularly and frequently that they don't care how the cost reductions come about. [1][2] If it's regulatory, thus difficult to rescind down the road, so much the better. [2] ...ken... [1] "Free Lunch" by David Cay Johnston, [2] "The Ecology of Commerce" by Paul Hawken. __________________________________________________________________ Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on Options in Mail and switch to New Mail today or register for free at http://mail.yahoo.ca From jbone at place.org Tue Jan 19 20:03:20 2010 From: jbone at place.org (Jeff Bone) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 22:03:20 -0600 Subject: [FoRK] The World Is Not Flat In-Reply-To: <539F417D-7EAA-4335-8BB5-A5F67A970C99@place.org> References: <0DBD53DE-3110-4D5E-8A2A-ADB4463B890F@place.org> <539F417D-7EAA-4335-8BB5-A5F67A970C99@place.org> Message-ID: Ken, responding to Stephen: >> In other words, the higher the existing costs, the higher the >> incentive to go into business to lower those costs, benefiting >> everyone. > And he brings it right back to one of Jeff's thorniest of thorns. > Good work. And, Yes. Can you elaborate? At this point, I can't really tell whether you're agreeing or disagreeing (or to what...) ;-) Actually, I think Stephen's making a good point that's consistent with (one of) the problem(s) I'm describing. In an ideal environment, the dynamics Stephen describes apply. It's when you have coercive influences that inhibit and create effectively-impossible (i.e., costs cannot be offset by the profit opportunity for such dis- or re- intermediation, or in some cases it's simply legally or otherwise prohibited) barriers to such competition that you get into trouble. I.e., Kling-style market failure. And such influences are --- this should be clear --- pervasive in the non-ideal environment of the real world's economic networks and ecosystem. And in many cases, it's *engineered.* Right? jb From ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca Tue Jan 19 20:19:31 2010 From: ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca (Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:19:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [FoRK] The World Is Not Flat In-Reply-To: <4B5654F1.2020207@lig.net> Message-ID: <301756.98372.qm@web33007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 1/19/10, Stephen Williams wrote: > >??? > Ken Ganshirt wrote: > > Well, no. Not really. It's generally coming out of tax > dollars or artificially reduced wages and other individual > and/or collective benefits. > > It has little, if anything to do with transportation > costs; only its availability, e.g. in your example, > transportation has to be available or there's no deal to be > made. But it doesn't much matter what it costs. It's cost > can and will be offset, if necessary, by the other > giveaways^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h incentives such as reduced or > forgiven taxes, licenses and other fees, free > infrastructure, regulations that restrict labour's power to > negotiate wages and benefits or absolutely reduce the wages > and benefits, and regulations that reduce or remove > penalties for transgressions against the commons. > > > >? ? ? ? ...ken... > >??? > > Why the sudden fascination with incentives to lure > business?? What's wrong with that?? To the extent > that they clean out the cobwebs of over-taxation / > regulation that were more to the benefit of large companies > than startups, it is probably good. > I can say with confidence, on my own behalf, that this "fascination" is far from sudden. I have long been annoyed at the waste of my tax dollars, the perversion of the regulatory process to favour specific corporations or industries and the damage done by this competition between jurisdictions (cities, provinces, countries) for these fictitious "job creation opportunities". To they extent that they genuinely "clean out the cobwebs", it would be a boon. It usually is nothing more nor less than crass corporate welfare. ...ken... __________________________________________________________________ The new Internet Explorer? 8 - Faster, safer, easier. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/ From ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca Tue Jan 19 21:21:24 2010 From: ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca (Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:21:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [FoRK] The World Is Not Flat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <11867.17645.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 1/19/10, Jeff Bone wrote: > > Ken, responding to Stephen: > Stephen:> In other words, the higher the existing costs, the > higher the incentive to go into business to lower those > costs, benefiting everyone. Ken: > And he brings it right back to one of Jeff's thorniest > of thorns. Good work. And, Yes. > Jeff: > Can you elaborate?? At this point, I can't really tell > whether you're agreeing or disagreeing (or to what...) ;-) > As to what he was "bringing it back to", it was to yet another iteration, in your original post in the thread, of your incessant harping on barriers to entry. (I agree with your irritation, FWIW, and have no quarrel with your keeping it in view.) So, please read it literally. I meant exactly "Good work [for bringing it right back to a point that is very important to Jeff]. And, Yes [I agree with you (and Jeff) on that point]." > Actually, I think Stephen's making a good point that's > consistent with (one of) the problem(s) I'm > describing.?... So do I. > > And such influences are --- this should be clear --- > pervasive in the non-ideal environment of the real world's > economic networks and ecosystem.? And in many cases, > it's *engineered.* > > Right? > Absolutely. Does that help? ....ken... __________________________________________________________________ Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet Explorer? 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/ From eugen at leitl.org Wed Jan 20 01:16:35 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:16:35 +0100 Subject: [FoRK] The World Is Not Flat In-Reply-To: <722BE292-9AD8-441B-BB34-0CDBF2C8C837@ceruleansystems.com> References: <396754.67160.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4B5611EF.8020205@lig.net> <722BE292-9AD8-441B-BB34-0CDBF2C8C837@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: <20100120091635.GI17686@leitl.org> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:32:29PM -0800, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > > On Jan 19, 2010, at 12:11 PM, Stephen Williams wrote: > > Actual distance is a red herring now because of hyper-efficient shipping. You need energy to ship, so if energy/fuel prices go up the distances start to matter. Depending in fuel availability you might get a shift to electrified rail or EVs. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From wgstoddard at gmail.com Wed Jan 20 04:46:12 2010 From: wgstoddard at gmail.com (Bill Stoddard) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 07:46:12 -0500 Subject: [FoRK] A comment on Avatar In-Reply-To: <4B338FAF.9010501@gmail.com> References: <4B316E42.3010308@boxbe.com> <4B327330.80309@rawbw.com> <33423B63-D5AA-418D-8D7A-BB3E7B48C031@gmail.com> <0BBEB24F-14DF-49DD-93D1-1BA974129891@mac.com> <4B338FAF.9010501@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B56FB14.9000202@gmail.com> On 12/24/09 10:58 AM, Bill Stoddard wrote: > On 12/24/09 2:03 AM, Bill Humphries wrote: >> On Dec 23, 2009, at 2:13 PM, Bill Kearney wrote: >> >>> Oy, yet another idjit. >> Annalee will just laugh at that, she's heard worse. Like the >> right-winger who was screaming at her about how feminism destroyed >> Japan. >> >> People who think that "Avatar" is problematic, and I'm one of them, >> don't think that liking "Avatar" makes you racist. Avatar is, by all >> accounts a visually amazing film, I get that people like it. >> >> However, "Avatar", "Dance With Wolves," and "The Last Samurai" have a >> common story: damaged white guy encounters The Other who heals them >> through their noble (yet savage/backward/alien) ways, and he rallies >> to lead them. > > Over-analyzed into meaninglessness. To offer a different, equally > valid (and equally meaningless) interpretation... it's common > knowledge the Chinese will rule the world 100 years in the future ergo > the CEO, BoD, major stake holders and brains behind of the company > funding the Avatar adventure are, ummm, not white people. The white > guys are just grunts in the field doing the dirty work. For those who > insist on reading meaning into the film (which is a mistake, imo), > perhaps Chinese capitalist activity in Africa is a better example? > Calling this a white guy guilt movie is trite and boring. > > Bill This is so absurd that I wonder if it's a joke. Off by a continent but general idea is intact. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1143894.html -//- China announced on Wednesday that the government has ordered theaters nationwide to stop screening the blockbuster film Avatar only 2 weeks after it premiered in the country. Avatar, which recently won the Golden Globe awards for Best film, has grossed more than $1.62 billion world wide and $73.2 million in China. The film's financial success concerned the Chinese government, according to a report in Hong Kong's Daily Apple newspaper, which said the government feared the blockbuaster would stifle the local film industry. The report said the government feared the revolt by the indigenous Na'vi population shown in the film would ignite the Chinese people's imagination to instigate a similar popular revolt. Movie studio 20th century Fox confirmed that the 2D version of the film will be banned in more than 1,600 theaters and will be replaced by a Chinese biographical production about Confucius. The 3D version is expected to continue showing in more than 900 cinemas until February 28. Chinese commentators have also pointed out the similarity between the film's story of the Na'vis' battle to protect their land and culture with Chinese citizens fighting to protect their property from the government and developers. "Foreigners think this kind of brutal interference is beyond imagination, that it can only happen on a different planet or in China," Chinese blogger and commentator Huang Hung wrote. Tickets for the blockbuster, selling at an all-time high of $11 per ticket, and up to $40 in the black market for the 3D version, were sold out in China weeks before the film premiered, according to the Hollywood Reporter. Yet despite the film's box office success, official Chinese policy placed limitations on the screening of Hollywood films in the country to 20 a year, in order to support the local film industry. During the promotion tour for his film, Avatar director James Cameron urged the Chinese government to lift the limitation on foreign films, and said that the encouragement to visit the cinema would only stimulate the local film industry to build more cinemas. In 2008 the Chinese government banned blockbuster The Dark Knight, due to "cultural sensitivity" that could offend the Chinese people. From jbone at place.org Wed Jan 20 05:31:02 2010 From: jbone at place.org (Jeff Bone) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 07:31:02 -0600 Subject: [FoRK] Speaking of barriers to entry... In-Reply-To: References: <0DBD53DE-3110-4D5E-8A2A-ADB4463B890F@place.org> <539F417D-7EAA-4335-8BB5-A5F67A970C99@place.org> Message-ID: Ken clarifies: > Does that help? Yup, thanks. Clears that right up. ;-) Speaking of barriers to entry, this goes onto the "ultra-cool stuff" heap: http://www.taranfx.com/open-source-gsm jb From jbone at place.org Wed Jan 20 05:43:57 2010 From: jbone at place.org (Jeff Bone) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 07:43:57 -0600 Subject: [FoRK] The form factor is the application, part N (tablets, keyboards, couches, etc...) Message-ID: I've said for ages that "the form factor is the application" --- and apropos tablets, while I have been a big cheerleader for years on that front I've also been skeptical that they'll replace e.g. laptops and other keyboarded devices. I've said they'll generally be read-mostly devices, as you can't get away from the efficiencies of keyboards for text entry-intensive applications. (Nb., convertibles and devices that can be used w/ external keyboards get around this, of course.) Here's an input-UI innovation that might render that point-of-view re: text entry and tablets incorrect: http://www.i4u.com/article30088.html Basically, the corner-anchored radial virtual keyboard design allows for thumb-typing ala texting w/o requiring stabilizing the tablet by putting it down. Given how fast some folks can learn to enter text on tiny smartphone keyboards, this might well allow the larger devices to be practical for real text entry. I doubt it'll suffice for e.g. development purposes, but it might work well enough for e.g. e-mail and document creation purposes. We'll see... (Seeing this brought back some vague recollection of seeing this kind of thing in some Apple patent application... anybody have similar recollection / pointer to same? Obviously, these guys were unaware of any such IP. Back to barriers to entry... ;-) Similarly, this next gizmo, while clearly being a piece-o-crap, suggests some intriguing possibilities for the use of on-screen display of applications on large, fixed screens at some distance --- e.g., the living room setting: http://www.usbgeek.com/prod_detail.php?prod_id=1219 Cool stuff. jb PS - despite being an iPhone user since the initial launch, I still can't type well enough on its virtual keyboard (in either landscape or portrait) to make it tolerable for anything but the most trivial text entry. So much so that I nearly traded it for a G-1 when they came out, but application lock-in prevented the transition. My kingdom for an iPhone with a slide-out physical keyboard.... From eugen at leitl.org Wed Jan 20 05:52:43 2010 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:52:43 +0100 Subject: [FoRK] Speaking of barriers to entry... In-Reply-To: References: <0DBD53DE-3110-4D5E-8A2A-ADB4463B890F@place.org> <539F417D-7EAA-4335-8BB5-A5F67A970C99@place.org> Message-ID: <20100120135242.GN17686@leitl.org> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 07:31:02AM -0600, Jeff Bone wrote: > http://www.taranfx.com/open-source-gsm Anyone knows if 4G can be hacked to work with a low LEO constellation without phased-array beamforming or active antenna tracking? -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From jbone at place.org Wed Jan 20 06:03:10 2010 From: jbone at place.org (Jeff Bone) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 08:03:10 -0600 Subject: [FoRK] A Little Bright Spot in the Dark Message-ID: <3A3EB0B4-568C-466C-93DD-C0E9124B4C27@place.org> Or, how the Woot Bag of Crap saves a life... -- http://www.woot.com/Blog/ViewEntry.aspx?Id=11068 A Little Bright Spot In The Dark MISCELLANEAby Scott Lydon on January 19, 2010 at 5:15 PM From: Bryan Meyers Subject: Woot saved my life Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 5:23 PM My name is Bryan Meyers. I have just been evacuated from the Haiti earthquake. One of the things I had with me when the quake started was my cell phone; stuck to its back was the Lumpod LED flashlight that I had received some time ago in a Woot Bag of Crap. I had to walk through the dark streets of Port-au-Prince six miles to get to a secure place. I walked over rubble, bodies (dead and injured), downed wires, back alleys. The flashlight lit my way very reliably. As I said in my journal, THANK YOU, BAG OF CRAP! If you?re interested, you can read my journal and view some pictures at www.bmeyers.net/haiti or athaiti.bmeyers.net. -- From: Matt J. Rutledge Subject: Woot saved my life Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 9:01 AM Bryan, Thank you so much for sending this. I have shared this with all of our employees and I expect they will all be as deeply moved as I am by it. We don?t deserve credit for anything of course, but I appreciate your feelings and the mention. I have no way to relate your experience directly but I?m sure it must be life changing. Against the grim picture of what?s taking place there, it is very inspiring. We have been brainstorming on further ways for Woot and the Woot community to help with a donation program. I believe your story ? even magically involving the BOC - really brings things home to the IT/ Internet community and I?m pretty sure we would like to incorporate it as a Woot blog mention and newsletter item announcing a donation program. Best wishes to you and your family from everyone at Woot. Matt Rutledge Founder, CEO Woot Inc. From sdw at lig.net Wed Jan 20 10:12:38 2010 From: sdw at lig.net (Stephen Williams) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:12:38 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] Speaking of barriers to entry... In-Reply-To: <20100120135242.GN17686@leitl.org> References: <0DBD53DE-3110-4D5E-8A2A-ADB4463B890F@place.org> <539F417D-7EAA-4335-8BB5-A5F67A970C99@place.org> <20100120135242.GN17686@leitl.org> Message-ID: <4B574796.8030805@lig.net> Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 07:31:02AM -0600, Jeff Bone wrote: > > >> http://www.taranfx.com/open-source-gsm >> > > Anyone knows if 4G can be hacked to work with a low LEO constellation > without phased-array beamforming or active antenna tracking? > > Probably, do you have one? (A low LEO constellation?) Of course, you'll get a lot more bandwidth if you do phased-array beamforming with a phased-array receive antenna. Heck, you could build this into a phone if you wanted: http://www.cnet.com/4520-10602_1-5619060-1.html?tag=txt I would really like to use a RaySat with a satellite Internet link to do this: http://voiceontheweb.biz/2009/09/burning-man-gets-its-own-country-code-almost/ http://www.geeked.info/burning-man-and-communication-cell-phones-on-the-playa/ http://gnuradio.org/redmine/wiki/gnuradio/OpenBTS This is probably more work than I will have time or money for: > Is this legal? Yes. We have an experimental license, WD9XSP, and a > consent letter from Verizon authorizing us to operate in their KNKN224 > block A cellular spectrum. I'll probably just settle for web/email/Skype, or nothing. sdw From michael at i-magery.com Wed Jan 20 10:34:06 2010 From: michael at i-magery.com (Michael Cummins) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:34:06 -0500 Subject: [FoRK] Speaking of barriers to entry... In-Reply-To: <4B574796.8030805@lig.net> References: <0DBD53DE-3110-4D5E-8A2A-ADB4463B890F@place.org> <539F417D-7EAA-4335-8BB5-A5F67A970C99@place.org> <20100120135242.GN17686@leitl.org> <4B574796.8030805@lig.net> Message-ID: <01f501ca99ff$2603e4a0$720bade0$@com> sdw: > Heck, you could build this into a phone if you wanted: > http://www.cnet.com/4520-10602_1-5619060-1.html?tag=txt Heh. Someone I know is selling these things now: http://www.zipphaser.com/ Looks like the exact same thing :) MEC From sdw at lig.net Wed Jan 20 10:40:50 2010 From: sdw at lig.net (Stephen Williams) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:40:50 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] The form factor is the application, part N (tablets, keyboards, couches, etc...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B574E32.6020307@lig.net> Jeff Bone wrote: > > I've said for ages that "the form factor is the application" --- and > apropos tablets, while I have been a big cheerleader for years on that > front I've also been skeptical that they'll replace e.g. laptops and > other keyboarded devices. I've said they'll generally be read-mostly > devices, as you can't get away from the efficiencies of keyboards for > text entry-intensive applications. (Nb., convertibles and devices > that can be used w/ external keyboards get around this, of course.) > > Here's an input-UI innovation that might render that point-of-view > re: text entry and tablets incorrect: > > http://www.i4u.com/article30088.html > > Basically, the corner-anchored radial virtual keyboard design allows > for thumb-typing ala texting w/o requiring stabilizing the tablet by > putting it down. Given how fast some folks can learn to enter text on > tiny smartphone keyboards, this might well allow the larger devices to > be practical for real text entry. I doubt it'll suffice for e.g. > development purposes, but it might work well enough for e.g. e-mail > and document creation purposes. We'll see... Perhaps, have to use it for a while. It is hard to get away from a keyboard. Palm/Blackberry style keypads are really not bad. Most people think they would be terrible before using them, however you just have to get it by using them. Touch screens just don't have the tactile feel (no keys), although the tactile feedback (on keypress) from the HTC Hero Android phone is very nice and helps. It seems like, at least in one mode, that this would be a great application for voice. English words should be fairly easy, while there should be a separate mode that supports geek-speak for any character: dot bang left brace right bracket carret star hash pipe... I'd like a combo mode: type or speak words (privacy vs. hands free), speak special characters so I don't have to go find them in a layered interface. > > (Seeing this brought back some vague recollection of seeing this kind > of thing in some Apple patent application... anybody have similar > recollection / pointer to same? Obviously, these guys were unaware of > any such IP. Back to barriers to entry... ;-) > > Similarly, this next gizmo, while clearly being a piece-o-crap, > suggests some intriguing possibilities for the use of on-screen > display of applications on large, fixed screens at some distance --- > e.g., the living room setting: > > http://www.usbgeek.com/prod_detail.php?prod_id=1219 App for your smartphone (i.e. a real one with a keyboard) for a buck. Bonus: 3D mouse, web cam, microphone. > > > Cool stuff. > > > jb > > > PS - despite being an iPhone user since the initial launch, I still > can't type well enough on its virtual keyboard (in either landscape or > portrait) to make it tolerable for anything but the most trivial text > entry. So much so that I nearly traded it for a G-1 when they came > out, but application lock-in prevented the transition. My kingdom for > an iPhone with a slide-out physical keyboard.... > While using a upc (micro pc) a few years ago, I researched and tried a couple Bluetooth foldout keyboards. I have an uber-geeky belt pack (Civilian Labs, Gear Harness) where I can hold a PC, bluetooth keyboard, spare battery, charger, and WWAN USB dongle in a pack about 6"x4.5"x3". And it has a leg strap so I could even run with it if necessary. The keyboard I liked best was a Think Outside Stowaway Seirra Bluetooth Keyboard. I see there is (or rather was) a slimmer version without function keys. Not ideal, however it allowed handheld / full desktop mode switching pretty well. I traveled, programmed, wrote, and took notes at a few W3C meetings with it. Stephen From sdw at lig.net Wed Jan 20 10:46:13 2010 From: sdw at lig.net (Stephen Williams) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:46:13 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] Speaking of barriers to entry... In-Reply-To: <01f501ca99ff$2603e4a0$720bade0$@com> References: <0DBD53DE-3110-4D5E-8A2A-ADB4463B890F@place.org> <539F417D-7EAA-4335-8BB5-A5F67A970C99@place.org> <20100120135242.GN17686@leitl.org> <4B574796.8030805@lig.net> <01f501ca99ff$2603e4a0$720bade0$@com> Message-ID: <4B574F75.1030109@lig.net> Michael Cummins wrote: > sdw: > > >> Heck, you could build this into a phone if you wanted: >> http://www.cnet.com/4520-10602_1-5619060-1.html?tag=txt >> > > Heh. Someone I know is selling these things now: > > http://www.zipphaser.com/ > > Looks like the exact same thing :) > > MEC > "Re-brand RaySat ... antennas" http://www.raysat.com/partnership_programs Always go to the source or become the reseller, if you can. That's what I do anyway. Unless I can weasel a better discount from the distributor/dealer. Nice how the ZipPhaser people talked about how they "developed" the technology... Smooth. sdw From aaron at bavariati.org Wed Jan 20 11:05:43 2010 From: aaron at bavariati.org (Aaron Burt) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:05:43 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] The Wrecking Crew - A Low, Dishonest Decade In-Reply-To: <34988BCC-FEA7-4311-93D2-DB6508EAD605@place.org> References: <49DB22BD-143F-4C09-90B1-E9A9B1809A27@place.org> <87F42846-5C30-478F-8B91-8303364938DA@place.org> <34988BCC-FEA7-4311-93D2-DB6508EAD605@place.org> Message-ID: <20100120190543.GC10694@aaron-x31> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 08:45:43PM -0600, Jeff Bone wrote: > anti-market "progressive" crowd Jeff - are you: a. trolling, b. beating a straw-man, c. arguing with parties who actually exist but are not on this list, d. in an alternate reality, e. angling for a spot on Fox News? ...because Fox don't read this list, and [Pp]rogressives aren't Communists. Thx, Aaron From aaron at bavariati.org Wed Jan 20 11:19:07 2010 From: aaron at bavariati.org (Aaron Burt) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:19:07 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] The World Is Not Flat In-Reply-To: References: <396754.67160.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4B5611EF.8020205@lig.net> <722BE292-9AD8-441B-BB34-0CDBF2C8C837@ceruleansystems.com> <4B561A50.8090404@lig.net> <4B565170.2010702@lig.net> Message-ID: <20100120191907.GD10694@aaron-x31> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 05:50:55PM -0800, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > > On Jan 19, 2010, at 4:42 PM, Stephen Williams wrote: > > > > So, linear programming, traveling delivery man, convex optimization > > flow problems, predictive analysis, machine learning and feature > > extraction based on all inputs (weather, holidays, economy, etc.). > > Fun. Sounds like they may earn their keep sometimes. Yah, power dispatchers at electrical utilites do similar things. The poor logistics guys also get to deal with the madness that is the US/CA rail network, as well as the funsies of Customs clearance, and all the graft that greases the skids and keeps the trucks rolling. > In principle, it was my introduction to some of these topics. In > practice, it is rarely as sophisticated as all that which is why there is > still a lot of opportunity. Not that long ago this was mostly > accomplished by gaggles of smart people, not even computers. I still believe there is a significant opportunity for someone with the right knowlege and contacts in the rail networks to offer fractional- container shipping to compete with LTL shipping at the slow/cheap end of the market. (Mind, most folks just ship UPS freight anyway instead of using LTL, even.) My wife manages a warehouse with an unused rail spur, Aaron From wgstoddard at gmail.com Wed Jan 20 12:01:54 2010 From: wgstoddard at gmail.com (Bill Stoddard) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:01:54 -0500 Subject: [FoRK] The Wrecking Crew - A Low, Dishonest Decade In-Reply-To: <34988BCC-FEA7-4311-93D2-DB6508EAD605@place.org> References: <49DB22BD-143F-4C09-90B1-E9A9B1809A27@place.org> <87F42846-5C30-478F-8B91-8303364938DA@place.org> <34988BCC-FEA7-4311-93D2-DB6508EAD605@place.org> Message-ID: <4B576132.3030608@gmail.com> On 1/19/10 9:45 PM, Jeff Bone wrote: > > So, final conclusions: *government* regulation and moral hazard are > two sides of the same coin, and that has to be managed very carefully > by policy makers and would-be regulators. There's a role for the > government regulation, but beware the possible moral hazards that > usually go along with it (and other unintended consequences as well.) > And --- self-regulation via social norms, peer pressure, clearly > articulated ethics and practices, and self-interest *can* (but do not > always, or even necessarily usually) accomplish the same desired goals > that progressives might seek (but often fail to achieve) through > greater, coercive government regulation; cf. the FX market as > existence proof. > Correct, but completely useless, conclusion. Government regulation is a simple fact of life. We can work to reduce it but it will always exist and pretending otherwise is just pie in the sky idealism. One of the recent problems is that wall street was willfully ignorant (maybe willfully negligent) in managing the obvious risk presented by cheap/free credit underwritten by the Fed. The free money party HAD to end (and in predictable ways) and the risk management wonks in the ibanker shops clearly understood this. Those risk managers were ignored. Twisted analogy... if i leave my front door unlocked, is it my fault if a crook comes in, terrorizes my family and takes everything I own? The Fed 'left the door unlocked', foolishly imho, yet that does not justify the equally foolish (greedy?) decisions of the real perps. moral hazard... LTCM set the stage for the meltdown. LTCM blew up because some smart Nobel prize winners miscalculated how interconnected worldwide markets are. I don't recall whether specific government regulation contributed to the LTCM debacle, but I do know political interests were endangered by the blowup, so LTCM (or their creditors) were bailed out, creating the mother of all moral hazards... at least up until now. Wishing away all government regulation is just as senseless as 'from each according to his ability to each according to his need'. Same crack pipe, different day and all that... One point where we probably agree... the backlash regulation will probably hurt more than help. In fact, I'd wager a bet that MOST regulation that exists today has been so influenced by lobbiests that it actually benefits the interests with the deepest pockets. THAT's the real danger of regulation.. that it doesn't serve a just & common cause. Any regulation that arises from the current meltdown is likely to contain, by design, easily game-able aspects. Watch and see. Bill > > jb > > _______________________________________________ > FoRK mailing list > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork > From sdw at lig.net Wed Jan 20 12:03:33 2010 From: sdw at lig.net (Stephen Williams) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:03:33 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] The World Is Not Flat In-Reply-To: <20100120191907.GD10694@aaron-x31> References: <396754.67160.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4B5611EF.8020205@lig.net> <722BE292-9AD8-441B-BB34-0CDBF2C8C837@ceruleansystems.com> <4B561A50.8090404@lig.net> <4B565170.2010702@lig.net> <20100120191907.GD10694@aaron-x31> Message-ID: <4B576195.6010506@lig.net> Aaron Burt wrote: > ... > I still believe there is a significant opportunity for someone with the > right knowlege and contacts in the rail networks to offer fractional- > container shipping to compete with LTL shipping at the slow/cheap end of > the market. (Mind, most folks just ship UPS freight anyway instead of > using LTL, even.) > What are probably needed are technologies to make loading and offloading fast, automated, and nearly free energy wise. For instance, imagine a train / trucking transfer point where the train never stops or even slows down much. Using modular containers with NASA-inspired auto lockdown/release points on a flatbed, an automated robotic platform / arm picks and places containerlets on and off as the train passes by. Or the flatbed ejects a load out while accepting a load in, from the same or other side using belts or omni rollers. Mini versions could be used for smaller outposts, decelerating and accelerating loads on and off. Handling failures would be interesting, but not necessarily that difficult. > My wife manages a warehouse with an unused rail spur, > Aaron > Do you have good trucking depot docks? Highways nearby? sdw From wgstoddard at gmail.com Wed Jan 20 12:34:03 2010 From: wgstoddard at gmail.com (Bill Stoddard) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:34:03 -0500 Subject: [FoRK] The Wrecking Crew - A Low, Dishonest Decade In-Reply-To: <4B576132.3030608@gmail.com> References: <49DB22BD-143F-4C09-90B1-E9A9B1809A27@place.org> <87F42846-5C30-478F-8B91-8303364938DA@place.org> <34988BCC-FEA7-4311-93D2-DB6508EAD605@place.org> <4B576132.3030608@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B5768BB.2010102@gmail.com> On 1/20/10 3:01 PM, Bill Stoddard wrote: > On 1/19/10 9:45 PM, Jeff Bone wrote: >> >> So, final conclusions: *government* regulation and moral hazard are >> two sides of the same coin, and that has to be managed very carefully >> by policy makers and would-be regulators. There's a role for the >> government regulation, but beware the possible moral hazards that >> usually go along with it (and other unintended consequences as >> well.) And --- self-regulation via social norms, peer pressure, >> clearly articulated ethics and practices, and self-interest *can* >> (but do not always, or even necessarily usually) accomplish the same >> desired goals that progressives might seek (but often fail to >> achieve) through greater, coercive government regulation; cf. the >> FX market as existence proof. >> > Correct, but completely useless, conclusion. > Government regulation is a simple fact of life. So how do you feel about regulation to limit the amount of leverage a bank can utilize to, maybe 10x? Leverage is the money machine for financial firms so I would expect the ibanks to kick and scream. If a bunch of noble prize winning smart guys can't get it right, thwn putting a low limit on leverage seems to be most prudent. You agree? Just out of curiosity, Jeff, what do you think about cap-n-trade? Good idea or no? (my opinion, it needs to be shot on site. REALLLLLY bad idea.) Bill From ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca Wed Jan 20 12:46:20 2010 From: ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca (Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:46:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [FoRK] The Wrecking Crew - A Low, Dishonest Decade In-Reply-To: <4B576132.3030608@gmail.com> Message-ID: <735671.72851.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Wed, 1/20/10, Bill Stoddard wrote: > > Correct, but completely useless, conclusion.? > Government regulation is a simple fact of life.? We can > work to reduce it but it will always exist and pretending > otherwise is just pie in the sky idealism.? One of the > recent problems is that wall street was willfully ignorant > (maybe willfully negligent) in managing the obvious risk > presented by cheap/free credit underwritten by the > Fed.? > I'm sorry .... what risk? > The free money party HAD to end (and in > predictable ways) and the risk management wonks in the > ibanker shops clearly understood this.? Those risk > managers were ignored.? There was no risk. That's why the risk analysis wonks were ignored. If their fancy models picked up on it in the first place. > Twisted analogy... if i leave > my front door unlocked, is it my fault if a crook comes in, > terrorizes my family and takes everything I own?? The > Fed 'left the door unlocked', foolishly imho, yet that does > not justify the equally foolish (greedy?) decisions of the > real perps. > Why not? It wasn't actually illegal? ... Please note that, although I'm being literal I'm also being cynical. I agree with you in principle. But there are huge numbers who actually put this forward as a justification for the behaviour: if it's not actually illegal it must be okay. How the hell do you argue with that? My prefered reference source for such discussions: http://www.omurtlak.com/resim.php?resim=http%3A//www.downloadmunkey.net/images5/shepa-02.jpg > > One point where we probably agree... the backlash > regulation will probably hurt more than help. In fact, I'd > wager a bet that MOST regulation that exists today has been > so influenced by lobbiests that it actually benefits the > interests with the deepest pockets. THAT's the real danger > of regulation.. that it doesn't serve a just & common > cause.? Any regulation that arises from the current > meltdown is likely to contain, by design, easily game-able > aspects.? Watch and see. > Can you say, "No-brainer"? The truly sad thing is that there are many otherwise smart people who won't see it coming, won't recognize it when it happens and will deny it after the fact. Or blame it on the law of unintended consequences. There is not nearly enough cynicism in the world. Too damn many cheerleaders and biblethumpers, e.g. "Everything will be okay if we just [keep a positive attitude/trust in God/Pick One]". ...ken... (Sorry. My back is killing me today and Robaxacet doesn't work on human flesh like it works on those wooden dummies in the commercials (Whoda thunkit??). Perhaps some Scotch, applied internally...) ...ken... __________________________________________________________________ Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet Explorer? 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/ From ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca Wed Jan 20 12:51:49 2010 From: ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca (Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:51:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [FoRK] The World Is Not Flat In-Reply-To: <4B576195.6010506@lig.net> Message-ID: <776406.50912.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Wed, 1/20/10, Stephen Williams wrote: > Aaron Burt wrote: > > ... > > I still believe there is a significant opportunity for someone with the > > right knowlege and contacts in the rail networks to offer fractional- > > container shipping to compete with LTL shipping at the slow/cheap end of > > the market.? > > What are probably needed are technologies to make loading > and offloading fast, automated, and nearly free energy > wise.? For instance, imagine a train / trucking > transfer point where the train never stops or even slows > down much.? I seen that stuff in the Westerns when I was a kid back in the 50's. Train would just blow through town and grab the sack of outbound mail off a pole and toss out the inbound one without slowing down at all. It never did catch on. Maybe it was a little ahead of its time? ;-) ...ken... __________________________________________________________________ Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet Explorer? 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/ From michael at i-magery.com Wed Jan 20 12:54:53 2010 From: michael at i-magery.com (Michael Cummins) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:54:53 -0500 Subject: [FoRK] NASA's Puffin Message-ID: <021d01ca9a12$d0bd34b0$72379e10$@com> This is an interesting concept vehicle: http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-01/nasas-puffin-aircraft-steal thy-one-man-vtol-aircraft MEC From wgstoddard at gmail.com Wed Jan 20 13:43:45 2010 From: wgstoddard at gmail.com (Bill Stoddard) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:43:45 -0500 Subject: [FoRK] The Wrecking Crew - A Low, Dishonest Decade In-Reply-To: <735671.72851.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <735671.72851.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B577911.7000609@gmail.com> On 1/20/10 3:46 PM, Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo wrote: > --- On Wed, 1/20/10, Bill Stoddard wrote: > >> Correct, but completely useless, conclusion. >> Government regulation is a simple fact of life. We can >> work to reduce it but it will always exist and pretending >> otherwise is just pie in the sky idealism. One of the >> recent problems is that wall street was willfully ignorant >> (maybe willfully negligent) in managing the obvious risk >> presented by cheap/free credit underwritten by the >> Fed. >> >> > > I'm sorry .... what risk? > My reply to Jeff was a rambling rant; I used his post to get on my soapbox. My apologies Jeff... I actually don't disagree with what your saying. The 'risk' was the loans made to people who, upon a moments reflection, clearly could not afford to pay them off. The iBankers gladly bought up these loans, sliced 'um into pieces, conjured away the risk (or so they claimed) then repackaged the glob and sold it to god knows who and pocketed some nice coin off the transaction. Wash, rince, repeat. As long as the music played, had to keep on dancing. The ibankers that claim they 'just didn't know' about the risk are liars, quite simply. They are hiding behind academic fud. While it may be impossible to 'prove' in a court of law, that these jokers were criminals certainly passes my sniff test. See Celente for some great rants. In the past, iiuc, banks would not have been permitted to participate in 'investment' activities. Were this reg not repealed by Clinton, iirc, the fallout might have been limited (emphasis on 'might') to ibanks. Some famous person whose name I can't recall said something like 'never let a good crisis go to waste'. I am wondering if we missed an opportunity to clean house.. what would have happened if the goverment just let the house of cards fall; no bailouts, no stimulus, nothing. (and then maybe stepped in to directly repair some of the damage to individuals 'stable values funds' with an upper limit of, say, 200K per account)? It would have been (and still would be) horrific for sure, but it would have purged enough systemic rot in our free market capitalist system to last us another 200 years. I am less hopeful now that this experiment with democracy will actually survive another 100 years on current course and direction. Bill From ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca Wed Jan 20 14:03:01 2010 From: ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca (Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:03:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [FoRK] The Wrecking Crew - A Low, Dishonest Decade In-Reply-To: <4B577911.7000609@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9356.94925.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Wed, 1/20/10, Bill Stoddard wrote: > > On 1/20/10 3:46 PM, Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo wrote: > >> --- On Wed, 1/20/10, Bill Stoddard wrote: > >? ? > >> Correct, but completely useless, conclusion. > >> Government regulation is a simple fact of life.? We can > >> work to reduce it but it will always exist and pretending > >> otherwise is just pie in the sky idealism.? One of the > >> recent problems is that wall street was willfully ignorant > >> (maybe willfully negligent) in managing the obvious risk > >> presented by cheap/free credit underwritten by the > >> Fed. > >> > >>? ? ? > > > > I'm sorry .... what risk? > >? ? > My reply to Jeff was a rambling rant; I used his post to > get on my soapbox.? My apologies Jeff... I actually > don't disagree with what your saying. > Yep, I got that. I was just riffing, cynically, on your rant. Sorry I didn't make that clearer. Great rant, by the way. > The 'risk' was the loans made to people who, upon a moments > reflection, clearly could not afford to pay them off.? > The iBankers gladly bought up these loans, sliced 'um into > pieces, conjured away the risk (or so they claimed) then > repackaged the glob and sold it to god knows who and > pocketed some nice coin off the transaction.? Wash, > rince, repeat. Yep, that's what I was getting at. Within days or hours or minutes after the mortgage transaction they no longer had any risk. > The ibankers that claim they 'just didn't > know' about the risk are liars, quite simply.? Yes. > > ... 'never let a good crisis go to waste'.? I am > wondering if we missed an opportunity to clean house.. Yes. The pain of going that route could have been largely offset by transferring the wealth back to Main St. instead of to Wall St. (Is this [bailout+stimulus] the biggest single-event wealth transfer ever, do you think?) ...ken... __________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com. From sdw at lig.net Wed Jan 20 14:08:33 2010 From: sdw at lig.net (Stephen Williams) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:08:33 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] The World Is Not Flat In-Reply-To: <776406.50912.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <776406.50912.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B577EE1.6060902@lig.net> Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo wrote: > --- On Wed, 1/20/10, Stephen Williams wrote: > >> Aaron Burt wrote: >> >>> ... >>> I still believe there is a significant opportunity for someone with the >>> right knowlege and contacts in the rail networks to offer fractional- >>> container shipping to compete with LTL shipping at the slow/cheap end of >>> the market. >>> >> What are probably needed are technologies to make loading >> and offloading fast, automated, and nearly free energy >> wise. For instance, imagine a train / trucking >> transfer point where the train never stops or even slows >> down much. >> > > I seen that stuff in the Westerns when I was a kid back in the 50's. Train would just blow through town and grab the sack of outbound mail off a pole and toss out the inbound one without slowing down at all. It never did catch on. Maybe it was a little ahead of its time? ;-) > > ...ken... > > Apparently it was used in the UK for a long time. http://postalheritage.org.uk/history/downloads/BPMA_Info_Sheet_TravellingPostOffice_web.pdf After a manual catch and drop start, it was in use from 1838 until 1971. I suppose that qualifies as catching on there. An even more interesting example was the Skyhook: http://www.junkworthknowing.com/technology/fulton_skyhook > Modeled after the way British trains picked up mailbags from the side > of the track, Fulton designed a method for airplanes to pick up people > on the ground without ever landing. > The Skyhook was in operation for until 1996 and even with its risky > nature only one fatality was ever reported. However, with advances in > helicopter ranges and the ability for mid air-refuels, the Skyhook > became obsolete. Skyhook did have it's place in popular culture, > appearing in several movies including the James bond flick, > Thunderball, and the more recent film, The Dark Knight. Robert E. > Fulton Jr. died in 2004 at the age of 95. Or even from space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-air_retrieval > The first successful mission use of mid-air recovery was on 1960-08-19 > when a C-119 recovered film from the Corona mission code-named > Discoverer 14. This was the first successful recovery of film from an > orbiting satellite and the first aerial recovery of an object > returning from Earth orbit.[1] There's some good material about it in the Hiller Aviation Museum in San Carlos, CA. However, none of that is continuous motion based, which is what I was suggesting: the platform should be moving at the same speed as the train so that the cargo on the car is stationary to the load/unload dock and mechanism. "Continuous motion" is a term of art in manufacturing systems: everything keeps moving smoothly rather than start/stop stations. sdw From ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca Wed Jan 20 14:23:53 2010 From: ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca (Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:23:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [FoRK] Speaking of barriers to entry... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <359350.75591.qm@web33007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Wed, 1/20/10, Jeff Bone wrote: > > Speaking of barriers to entry, this goes onto the > "ultra-cool stuff" heap: > > > ? http://www.taranfx.com/open-source-gsm > I sent the link to a friend of mine. CV: telco engineer for thirty-five years plus over 15 years as a project manager in international telecommunications projects, e.g. redesigned and project managed installation of the communication and power systems in the Chunnel, project managed the major cellular phone system in the Phillipines, undersea cable from New Zealand to the Oregon coast, new cellular company in Kenya, etc. Here's his response when I asked him if this was as interesting as it at first appears: "Probably not. The base station electronics for a radio site are a small part of the cost. Site acquisition, towers, power, etc make the cost sky rocket. Government license auctions can make the initial license fee as much if not more than the total capital cost. This fellow seems to think that the software is a major component. Unfortunately whether the software is ?free? support is still required. Almost all administrations charge annual fees for the radio spectrum as well." Me again... So, this does nothing to deal with the real barriers to entry: the spectrum license fees and cap-ex for the site infrastructure. Y'er welcome. ...ken... __________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com. From ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca Wed Jan 20 14:30:49 2010 From: ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca (Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:30:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [FoRK] The World Is Not Flat In-Reply-To: <4B577EE1.6060902@lig.net> Message-ID: <209428.11985.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Wed, 1/20/10, Stephen Williams wrote > > However, none of that is continuous motion based, which is > what I was suggesting: the platform should be moving at the > same speed as the train so that the cargo on the car is > stationary to the load/unload dock and mechanism.? > "Continuous motion" is a term of art in manufacturing > systems: everything keeps moving smoothly rather than > start/stop stations. > Interesting stuff. Thanks. Re: Above. What happens to the trains? Do they also run constantly? What about refueling? (Ooops. Of course. One of the items on the platform could easily be for refueling.) They have to turn around sometime .. how/where/when? (Questions/curiousity, not criticism.) ...ken... __________________________________________________________________ Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com From sdw at lig.net Wed Jan 20 15:09:57 2010 From: sdw at lig.net (Stephen Williams) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:09:57 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] Speaking of barriers to entry... In-Reply-To: <359350.75591.qm@web33007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <359350.75591.qm@web33007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B578D45.8050409@lig.net> Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo wrote: > --- On Wed, 1/20/10, Jeff Bone wrote: > >> Speaking of barriers to entry, this goes onto the >> "ultra-cool stuff" heap: >> >> >> http://www.taranfx.com/open-source-gsm >> >> > > I sent the link to a friend of mine. CV: telco engineer for thirty-five years plus over 15 years as a project manager in international telecommunications projects, e.g. redesigned and project managed installation of the communication and power systems in the Chunnel, project managed the major cellular phone system in the Phillipines, undersea cable from New Zealand to the Oregon coast, new cellular company in Kenya, etc. > > Here's his response when I asked him if this was as interesting as it at first appears: > > "Probably not. The base station electronics for a radio site are a small part of the cost. Site acquisition, towers, power, etc make the cost sky rocket. Government license auctions can make the initial license fee as much if not more than the total capital cost. This fellow seems to think that the software is a major component. Unfortunately whether the software is ?free? support is still required. Almost all administrations charge annual fees for the radio spectrum as well." > > Me again... So, this does nothing to deal with the real barriers to entry: the spectrum license fees and cap-ex for the site infrastructure. > http://www.ipaccess.com/ If you have unlicensed picocell/femtocells everywhere, and if you have smartphones that can also operate on WiFi and Bluetooth, plus cellular networks, it could get interesting. Few new towers will probably be built, existing ones will go into capex pay off mode, and everything should get much more competitive. This kind of thing would work well: broadband or WiMax/4G -> picocells / Wifi http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/news/article.php/3668706 I don't know if anyone else noticed, however Sprint's 4G WiMax service is truly unlimited. 3G was unlimited to begin with, plus having an unlimited Canada rider you could add, but was changed to a 5GB / 300MB cap. Now, smart phones can use 3G unlimited, and 4G is unlimited regardless of use. Interesting for the other direction: GSM-> SIP phones. http://www.voip-info.org/tiki-index.php?page=How+to+connect+VoIP+GSM+gateway+to+Asterisk+PBX sdw > Y'er welcome. > > ...ken... > From sdw at lig.net Wed Jan 20 15:19:54 2010 From: sdw at lig.net (Stephen Williams) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:19:54 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] The World Is Not Flat In-Reply-To: <209428.11985.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <209428.11985.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B578F9A.1010605@lig.net> Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo wrote: > --- On Wed, 1/20/10, Stephen Williams wrote > > >> However, none of that is continuous motion based, which is >> what I was suggesting: the platform should be moving at the >> same speed as the train so that the cargo on the car is >> stationary to the load/unload dock and mechanism. >> "Continuous motion" is a term of art in manufacturing >> systems: everything keeps moving smoothly rather than >> start/stop stations. >> >> > > Interesting stuff. Thanks. > > Re: Above. What happens to the trains? Do they also run constantly? What about refueling? (Ooops. Of course. One of the items on the platform could easily be for refueling.) They have to turn around sometime .. how/where/when? (Questions/curiousity, not criticism.) > > ...ken... > I suspect it still makes sense to stop at major yards, to refuel, reverse, change crews / passengers, etc. It could all be made continuous, using loops, etc., but not necessary. I was just thinking that reducing cross-country stops from dozens to a couple might have a big payback while allowing many more exchange points. This is related to my years-old rush hour dream of a drive on/drive off continuous motion car train. I just obtained a book that includes a section on how "hump yards" work, kind of interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_yard Interesting, I wonder if that's where we get "marshalling" of data from? And this is kind of funny: > It is believed that the suggestiveness of the phrase "hump yard" has > caused many, particularly from socioeconomically disadvantaged > backgrounds, to incorrectly associate its meaning with locations where > sexual activity occurs such as bedrooms, dorm rooms, and car seats. sdw From jbone at place.org Wed Jan 20 15:50:32 2010 From: jbone at place.org (Jeff Bone) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 17:50:32 -0600 Subject: [FoRK] Programming language windmill-tilting; interesting? and funny... Message-ID: <7A222A89-3A8B-4BBE-B7CC-971ACDF0437B@place.org> Interesting visualization that's confirming previously-expressed intuition; Javascript is managing to find some local hilltop-optimum of conciseness vs. performance, in some of its newer, server-focused implementations. This visualization is really pretty scant, but interesting nonetheless. (Nb., conciseness by itself isn't necessarily a goal; I'd take 20% greater LoC in e.g. Python vs. Javascript if that were the only concern, as a reasonable tradeoff for readability. That's not, of course, the only concern... and in any case, in the sample set of benchmarks used, Python wins slightly on conciseness anyway --- however at a cost of perhaps 10x performance vs. JS V8. WTF?!) http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/code-used-time-used-shapes.php -- There's been a lot of "how programmers from language X view programmers from other languages" stuff floating around lately. Yesterday, there was this; how Common Lisp programmers view programmers from other languages... I wouldn't have deemed it post- worthy; there are several funny picks but only about as funny as any of the other entries in this genre lately. However --- the image they picked for Ruby programmers has continued to crack me the fuck up (seriously!) every time I've thought about it for over a day, so maybe you'll get the same chuckle out of it. (Nb., cf. P.S. ;-) http://kvardek-du.kerno.org/2010/01/how-common-lisp-programmer-views-users.html jb P.S. - I don't get the Factor pick, here. What are they attempting to say? Anyone? Bueller? From jbone at place.org Wed Jan 20 15:50:36 2010 From: jbone at place.org (Jeff Bone) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 17:50:36 -0600 Subject: [FoRK] Various and sundry In-Reply-To: <34988BCC-FEA7-4311-93D2-DB6508EAD605@place.org> References: <49DB22BD-143F-4C09-90B1-E9A9B1809A27@place.org> <87F42846-5C30-478F-8B91-8303364938DA@place.org> <34988BCC-FEA7-4311-93D2-DB6508EAD605@place.org> Message-ID: <8F7476BB-B79B-4296-9D6D-539D6D05AA8D@place.org> Too many good points to argue, but I'll pick a few cherries. -- Aaron, none of the above. Homework: figure out what I *am* doing... ;-) Aside: this cracks me up, seriously: http://xkcd.com/635/ (Be sure to check the mouseover.) (For the record, I am laboring under no such delusions of grandeur...) -- Bill, #1: not attempting to wish away regulation, I'm attempting to add a little color and context to the consideration of what might work vs. not work. Bill, #2: re: limiting leverage, I realize you're probably riffing off the recent CFTC stuff that's making the rounds this week. Understand, I'm not talking about the retail market. Honestly, that part of the overall market is so insignificant in size that if it disappeared tomorrow the pros probably wouldn't even notice. But any attempt by any national-scale regulator to impose these kinds of things unilaterally on a national level is futile anyway, as it only shifts the business to some other locality. (Such is the global nature of a fragmented market in the ultimate fungible form of value --- money itself.) Rest offline... Bill, #3: no apologies necessary. FoRK is a no-tears environment. Well, except for that pussy, Stephen. :-P ;-) (Kidding, sdw! Hey, I had to pick SOME name in order to make the joke work... don't sit in the front row, it's your own damn fault. These are the jokes, folks. Can't all be jewels. I'll be playing here all week... ;-) -- Ken, re: the telecom thing: clearly understood re: the capex issues involved domestically. However, I suspect that we're going to see a lot more cheap, open spectrum and rapidly falling costs on hardware, particularly as the hardware gets more general and more functionality moves into the software. Tower space is cheap in rural, poorly- connected areas. And again, the biggest opportunities here are not domestic, but third-world. The ultra-cool part of this is that the software, for once, is getting ahead of the rest of the game. For a good example of how a little open source software can remake an entire industry, look at what Asterisk has done to those markets: it's already got HUGE market share, coming out of nowhere in less than a decade. -- sdw, re: keyboards etc. / "real" smart phone, app, etc.: yeah, understood and agreed. Apps beat devices, take N: http://vator.tv/news/show/2010-01-11-the-160-lesson-apps-beat-devices Unf., my present phone solution doesn't have a physical keyboard (dammit, Apple!) so that aforementioned piece of crap is slightly appealing in some ways, for the couch scenario at least. Ugh. And FWIW, the trade-off in terms of functionality gained by giving up that keyboard (i.e., sticking with the iPhone) is the availability of some commercial solutions (home security and automation control, etc.) that I'd have to gen up on my own anywhere else, so it's been a reasonable tradeoff in time savings so far --- for me, YMMV. As for your geek belt --- you are a complete dork. (I want one! ;-) Hey --- I've got a whole box of used surplus wearable gear --- no HUD, but a couple of belt comps, some touchscreen stuff and other stuff --- anybody interested in buying the whole grab-bag? I can make a list of the gear if anyone is interested. Just taking up space at present after some experimentation. -- 'Nuf for now. jb From wgstoddard at gmail.com Wed Jan 20 18:31:26 2010 From: wgstoddard at gmail.com (Bill Stoddard) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:31:26 -0500 Subject: [FoRK] Programming language windmill-tilting; interesting? and funny... In-Reply-To: <7A222A89-3A8B-4BBE-B7CC-971ACDF0437B@place.org> References: <7A222A89-3A8B-4BBE-B7CC-971ACDF0437B@place.org> Message-ID: <4B57BC7E.2040401@gmail.com> --- the image they picked for Ruby programmers has continued to crack me the fuck up (seriously!) every time I've thought about it for over a day, so maybe you'll get the same chuckle out of it. (Nb., cf. P.S. ;-) erlang lolipop guild Ha! From sdw at lig.net Wed Jan 20 18:49:23 2010 From: sdw at lig.net (Stephen Williams) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 18:49:23 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] Various and sundry In-Reply-To: <8F7476BB-B79B-4296-9D6D-539D6D05AA8D@place.org> References: <49DB22BD-143F-4C09-90B1-E9A9B1809A27@place.org> <87F42846-5C30-478F-8B91-8303364938DA@place.org> <34988BCC-FEA7-4311-93D2-DB6508EAD605@place.org> <8F7476BB-B79B-4296-9D6D-539D6D05AA8D@place.org> Message-ID: <4B57C0B3.8010109@lig.net> Jeff Bone wrote: > > ... > > Aside: this cracks me up, seriously: > > http://xkcd.com/635/ This has absolutely crossed my mind. Not that it is possible, but that it would never work in actuality. But it seemed so cool in the Ender series. Now, a cabal of experts who are always right as a group, that might be something. Not as a leader per se, but with some influence nonetheless. > > (Be sure to check the mouseover.) Heh. > > (For the record, I am laboring under no such delusions of grandeur...) World Domination: Step 1: Disavow any intent at world domination. ... Step T-1: No no, you don't want me, I'm just a helpful servant of the people. ;-) > ... > Bill, #3: no apologies necessary. FoRK is a no-tears environment. > Well, except for that pussy, Stephen. :-P ;-) (Kidding, sdw! Hey, I > had to pick SOME name in order to make the joke work... don't sit in > the front row, it's your own damn fault. These are the jokes, folks. > Can't all be jewels. I'll be playing here all week... ;-) You just know that I can take it! ;-) > ... > As for your geek belt --- you are a complete dork. (I want one! ;-) > Hey --- I've got a whole box of used surplus wearable gear --- no HUD, That's Mr. Dork, thank you very much. Um, and I do have a HUD (glasses) some where around here, unless someone lifted them. They disappeared a while back, probably into some box or another. > but a couple of belt comps, some touchscreen stuff and other stuff --- > anybody interested in buying the whole grab-bag? I can make a list of > the gear if anyone is interested. Just taking up space at present > after some experimentation. [Must ... not ... buy ... more ... junk!!!] Whew, see, I'm cured. Now, where do I put all of these books?? > ... > jb sdw From ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca Wed Jan 20 20:06:44 2010 From: ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca (Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 20:06:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [FoRK] Various and sundry In-Reply-To: <8F7476BB-B79B-4296-9D6D-539D6D05AA8D@place.org> Message-ID: <609193.44195.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Wed, 1/20/10, Jeff Bone wrote: > -- > > Ken, re: the telecom thing: clearly understood re: > the capex issues involved domestically. ... > ... And again, the biggest > opportunities here are not domestic, but third-world. > Perhaps you missed the part in my friend's cv where I pointed out that his experience with cellular is building networks in the Phillipines and Kenya? The issues are the same as domestic only moreso. These countries have learned all about how easy it is to make a big buck from selling spectrum licenses so they charge similarly usurious fees as in the developed world. The site infrastructure isn't cheaper. And some of the issues are more complicated. To illustrate: The last landline phone system they built in e.g. Tanzania it was necessary to use steel poles because wooden poles were promptly removed and used for firewood. The lines had to be steel because copper was so valuable as salvage that each new segment strung would disappear overnight. And they had to guard the spools in storage like Ft Knox. Similar issues exist with cellular site infrastructure to be dealt with. Nothing cheaper about doing this stuff in the third world. Even labour isn't actually cheaper. Oh, the wages for grunt labour are lower, for sure. But for skilled work you either spend competitive money to get the skilled workers in from outside the country or you spend time and money on training local talent. There is another issue in the developing world related to the unavailability of skilled workers: ongoing network health. If you build the network for, and turn it over to, the locals to operate and maintain themselves, the won't. They'll use it until there are major problems then they'll hire a foreign company to come back in and fix it. Typically that will involve periodically rebuilding major portions of the network. I know that sounds condescending but it is experience. The telco I worked for for nearly thirty years has an international consulting division providing engineering and project management talent all over the world. We worked in Tanzania for years on the project I mentioned above and others (not me, personally, but personal friends and coworkers). We also did the cellular network and a fibre optic network in the Phillipines that my engineer friend was the project manager and lead engineer on. The stories of neglect from so many of these places are enough to make you cry when you think about the waste and wasted opportunities. ...ken... __________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com. From jbone at place.org Thu Jan 21 10:05:20 2010 From: jbone at place.org (Jeff Bone) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:05:20 -0600 Subject: [FoRK] Megan McArdle advocates 376,537.65% marginal tax rate Message-ID: This is what happens when you let people that, um, weren't exactly in the AP math classes play tax-policy wonk. Via: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/01/mcardle_advocat.html# http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2010/01/killing_off_the_insurers_the_c.php David Henderson's commentary: Here's what Megan McArdle advocated today: "eliminate the tax-deductibiity of health insurance benefits for people making more than $150K a year in household income, $100K for singles." So now imagine that you're a married person with a family and you're making exactly $150K a year. Your employer pays $10K toward your health insurance. Of course, it's not subject to federal income tax, state income tax, or Social Security or HI tax. You and your spouse make a total of $150K, split roughly evenly, so both of you pay the marginal payroll tax rate of 7.65%. You also pay a marginal income tax rate of 25% and a state income tax rate of 5%. So your total marginal tax rate is 25 + 5 + 7.65 = 37.65%. Now you earn one more dollar. What happens? That whole $10K employer contribution becomes taxable and so you pay tax on it at 37.65% or $3,765. You made an extra buck and you paid $3,765 extra in taxes. Oh, yes, plus $0.3765. So you paid $3,765.3765 in taxes. Your marginal tax rate on that dollar: 376,537.65%. HT to Tyler Cowen. -- I think the election of Scott Brown has driven some folks completely insane. ;-) jb From beberg at mithral.com Thu Jan 21 12:05:36 2010 From: beberg at mithral.com (Adam L Beberg) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:05:36 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] Megan McArdle advocates 376,537.65% marginal tax rate In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B58B390.6040904@mithral.com> Jeff Bone wrote on 1/21/2010 10:05 AM: > Now you earn one more dollar. What happens? That whole $10K employer > contribution becomes taxable and so you pay tax on it at 37.65% or > $3,765. You made an extra buck and you paid $3,765 extra in taxes. Oh, > yes, plus $0.3765. So you paid $3,765.3765 in taxes. Your marginal tax > rate on that dollar: 376,537.65%. The poor are no strangers to benefit "cliffs" if they make more money. It's well known that unless you can make something like 40K as a family of four, you're much better off making zero. We're always happy to pay poor people to do nothing so long as they keep quit and away from the rich. So putting a tax cliff up in rich-people land seems like fun :) -- Adam L. Beberg http://www.mithral.com/~beberg/ From kammeyer at rocketmail.com Thu Jan 21 12:10:35 2010 From: kammeyer at rocketmail.com (David Kammeyer) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:10:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [FoRK] Megan McArdle advocates 376,537.65% marginal tax rate In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <483976.23474.qm@web50908.mail.re2.yahoo.com> This is borderline pedantry. Of course, like every other tax deduction that has an income cap, there would be a phaseout so that earning more gross income doesn't cause your net income to go down. ----- Original Message ---- > From: Jeff Bone > > Now you earn one more dollar. What happens? That whole $10K employer > contribution becomes taxable and so you pay tax on it at 37.65% or $3,765. You > made an extra buck and you paid $3,765 extra in taxes. Oh, yes, plus $0.3765. So > you paid $3,765.3765 in taxes. Your marginal tax rate on that dollar: > 376,537.65%. > From sdw at lig.net Thu Jan 21 12:24:27 2010 From: sdw at lig.net (Stephen Williams) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:24:27 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] Megan McArdle advocates 376,537.65% marginal tax rate In-Reply-To: <483976.23474.qm@web50908.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <483976.23474.qm@web50908.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B58B7FB.70905@lig.net> David Kammeyer wrote: > This is borderline pedantry. Of course, like every other tax deduction that has an income cap, there would be a phaseout so that earning more gross income doesn't cause your net income to go down. > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > >> From: Jeff Bone >> >> Now you earn one more dollar. What happens? That whole $10K employer >> contribution becomes taxable and so you pay tax on it at 37.65% or $3,765. You >> made an extra buck and you paid $3,765 extra in taxes. Oh, yes, plus $0.3765. So >> you paid $3,765.3765 in taxes. Your marginal tax rate on that dollar: >> 376,537.65%. >> >> Many people think there are taxation cliffs for everyone now. I have had to explain how progressive income tax works to too many people. I remember people thinking the wrong thing even when I was very young. Adam Beberg writes: > > The poor are no strangers to benefit "cliffs" if they make more money. > It's well known that unless you can make something like 40K as a > family of four, you're much better off making zero. We're always happy > to pay poor people to do nothing so long as they keep quit and away > from the rich. Those have been somewhat softened I think, but a lot of work is still needed. And healthcare reform is actually a big part of that. In many areas, healthcare is free or nearly so if you are "poor" and has a huge step function if you don't qualify. If you do hike up to enough income that you are no longer "poor", you usually cannot afford insurance so you are at high risk of unnegotiated healthcare costs which will slam you back down to poor in a decisive way. And even if you get insurance, you need quite an income to pay all of the copays, etc. I've pointed out before that this alone is probably keeping a large percentage of people poor. sdw > > So putting a tax cliff up in rich-people land seems like fun :) > > -- > Adam L. Beberg From sdw at lig.net Thu Jan 21 13:11:13 2010 From: sdw at lig.net (Stephen Williams) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 13:11:13 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] Scott Brown == insanity? was: Re: Megan McArdle advocates 376, 537.65% marginal tax rate In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B58C2F1.2050305@lig.net> Jeff Bone wrote: > ... > > I think the election of Scott Brown has driven some folks completely > insane. Ho hum. Sounds like she wasn't the candidate for anyone. It's nothing like Obama / Congress wailing from last season. That's still going strong. I'm afraid that the GOP has created a monster with the Tea Partiers / Baggers, not to mention Michael Steele, Palin, etc. Still, a refreshing break from religio-pandering. It will be interesting to see it fester and heal. Hopefully we'll leave the insanity to Hannity et al. If we could just have the party of newly-centrist JB! > > > ;-) ;-) sdw > > > jb From sdw at lig.net Thu Jan 21 18:03:21 2010 From: sdw at lig.net (Stephen Williams) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:03:21 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] I'm SOO interested in paying for this@. Message-ID: <4B590769.6060705@lig.net> Until it's in UTF, forget it. On the other hand, we can immediately start using the 2 character version that I just "invented"@. From Boldtype from flavorpill: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/6995354/Sarcasm-punctuation-mark-aims-to-put-an-end-to-email-confusion.html > > Sarcasm punctuation mark aims to put an end to email confusion > Expressing sarcasm in the written word can be a dangerous business, as > anyone forced to apologise for sending a tongue-in-cheek email will > confirm. > > > By Matthew Moore > Published: 11:45AM GMT 15 Jan 2010 > The SarcMark costs $1.99 to download > > Now a US firm has come up with an ingenious solution to this very real > problem ? a new item of punctuation. > > The SarcMark, as it has been named, is designed to be used in the same > way as an exclamation or question mark. > > Related Articles > > * > Sarcasm punctuation mark? Who needs it ;-) > * > Email smears by Gordon Brown's aide Damian McBride 'a serious > breach of rules' > * > Valentine's Day: Technology 'is killing romance' > * > Rick Maybury: Houston, we have a problem... > * > Letters: Disestablishing the Church would disunite England > * > Dear Jessica: Couple?s battle for extra ?1,042 after car written off > > Anyone concerned that the irony of their email or text message might > not be appreciated by its recipient can use the symbol to close their > sentence, thereby avoiding awkward misunderstandings. > > The symbol ? a dot inside a single spiral line ? can be installed onto > any PC running Windows 7, XP or Vista, as well as Macs and Blackberry > mobile devices. > > It can then be used in Word documents, instant messenger > conversations, Outlook email and other programmes, just by pressing > Ctrl and the full stop button. > > The Michigan company behind the SarcMark have applied for a patent to > protection their invention. > > They have even published a sample list of sentences that would benefit > from a SarcMark, including the words of British woman who was awarded > only half of her National Lottery jackpot by a court after the winning > ticket fell from her pocket and was claimed by someone else. > > It appears that the irony of her statement ? "It's jolly decent of > them to let me have a half share of my win" ? was lost on some readers. > > Paul Sak of the firm said that the new punctuation mark was not a > gimmick and had serious potential applications, such as allowing deaf > people to pick up sarcasm in subtitles. > > The symbol currently costs $1.99 to download ? a price that many may > think deserves a SarcMark of its own. From owen at permafrost.net Thu Jan 21 19:03:39 2010 From: owen at permafrost.net (owen at permafrost.net) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 03:03:39 +0000 Subject: [FoRK] I'm SOO interested in paying for this@. In-Reply-To: <4B590769.6060705@lig.net> References: <4B590769.6060705@lig.net> Message-ID: <20100122030339.GA22595@permafrost.net> It's a Michigan company. I think if you arrived in Detroit with an idea to sell sunbeams to extra-terrestrials, as long as it created a double digit number of jobs, you'd have PR companies lining up to give you pro-bono work (as well as patent lawyers), newspapers would offer free full page ads, the government would promise you a 200 year tax holiday, and real estate agents would have office space available for $.0002 per foot. Owen On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 06:03:21PM -0800, Stephen Williams wrote: > Until it's in UTF, forget it. > On the other hand, we can immediately start using the 2 character > version that I just "invented"@. > > From Boldtype from flavorpill: > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/6995354/Sarcasm-punctuation-mark-aims-to-put-an-end-to-email-confusion.html >> >> Sarcasm punctuation mark aims to put an end to email confusion >> Expressing sarcasm in the written word can be a dangerous business, as >> anyone forced to apologise for sending a tongue-in-cheek email will >> confirm. >> >> >> By Matthew Moore >> Published: 11:45AM GMT 15 Jan 2010 >> The SarcMark costs $1.99 to download >> >> Now a US firm has come up with an ingenious solution to this very real >> problem ? a new item of punctuation. >> >> The SarcMark, as it has been named, is designed to be used in the same >> way as an exclamation or question mark. >> Related Articles >> >> * >> Sarcasm punctuation mark? Who needs it ;-) >> * >> Email smears by Gordon Brown's aide Damian McBride 'a serious >> breach of rules' >> * >> Valentine's Day: Technology 'is killing romance' >> * >> Rick Maybury: Houston, we have a problem... >> * >> Letters: Disestablishing the Church would disunite England >> * >> Dear Jessica: Couple?s battle for extra ?1,042 after car written off >> >> Anyone concerned that the irony of their email or text message might >> not be appreciated by its recipient can use the symbol to close their >> sentence, thereby avoiding awkward misunderstandings. >> >> The symbol ? a dot inside a single spiral line ? can be installed onto >> any PC running Windows 7, XP or Vista, as well as Macs and Blackberry >> mobile devices. >> >> It can then be used in Word documents, instant messenger >> conversations, Outlook email and other programmes, just by pressing >> Ctrl and the full stop button. >> >> The Michigan company behind the SarcMark have applied for a patent to >> protection their invention. >> >> They have even published a sample list of sentences that would benefit >> from a SarcMark, including the words of British woman who was awarded >> only half of her National Lottery jackpot by a court after the winning >> ticket fell from her pocket and was claimed by someone else. >> >> It appears that the irony of her statement ? "It's jolly decent of >> them to let me have a half share of my win" ? was lost on some readers. >> >> Paul Sak of the firm said that the new punctuation mark was not a >> gimmick and had serious potential applications, such as allowing deaf >> people to pick up sarcasm in subtitles. >> >> The symbol currently costs $1.99 to download ? a price that many may >> think deserves a SarcMark of its own. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > FoRK mailing list > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork From nornagon at gmail.com Thu Jan 21 19:18:58 2010 From: nornagon at gmail.com (Jeremy Apthorp) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:18:58 +1300 Subject: [FoRK] I'm SOO interested in paying for this@. In-Reply-To: <20100122030339.GA22595@permafrost.net> References: <4B590769.6060705@lig.net> <20100122030339.GA22595@permafrost.net> Message-ID: <14d615331001211918v35645a0esaa6c80ed84bf7e67@mail.gmail.com> ... a patent?! seriously? who thought this was a good business model? Can we remove them from the gene pool? j 2010/1/22 : > It's a Michigan company. I think if you arrived in Detroit with an idea to sell > sunbeams to extra-terrestrials, as long as it created a double digit number of jobs, > you'd have PR companies lining up to give you pro-bono work (as well as patent lawyers), > ?newspapers would offer free full page ads, the government would promise you a 200 year > ?tax holiday, and real estate agents would have office space available for $.0002 per foot. > > Owen > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 06:03:21PM -0800, Stephen Williams wrote: >> Until it's in UTF, forget it. >> On the other hand, we can immediately start using the 2 character >> version that I just "invented"@. >> >> From Boldtype from flavorpill: >> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/6995354/Sarcasm-punctuation-mark-aims-to-put-an-end-to-email-confusion.html >>> >>> Sarcasm punctuation mark aims to put an end to email confusion >>> Expressing sarcasm in the written word can be a dangerous business, as >>> anyone forced to apologise for sending a tongue-in-cheek email will >>> confirm. >>> >>> >>> By Matthew Moore >>> Published: 11:45AM GMT 15 Jan 2010 >>> The SarcMark costs $1.99 to download >>> >>> Now a US firm has come up with an ingenious solution to this very real >>> problem ? a new item of punctuation. >>> >>> The SarcMark, as it has been named, is designed to be used in the same >>> way as an exclamation or question mark. >>> ?Related Articles >>> >>> ? ? * >>> ? ? ? Sarcasm punctuation mark? Who needs it ;-) >>> ? ? * >>> ? ? ? Email smears by Gordon Brown's aide Damian McBride 'a serious >>> breach of rules' >>> ? ? * >>> ? ? ? Valentine's Day: Technology 'is killing romance' >>> ? ? * >>> ? ? ? Rick Maybury: Houston, we have a problem... >>> ? ? * >>> ? ? ? Letters: Disestablishing the Church would disunite England >>> ? ? * >>> ? ? ? Dear Jessica: Couple?s battle for extra ?1,042 after car written off >>> >>> Anyone concerned that the irony of their email or text message might >>> not be appreciated by its recipient can use the symbol to close their >>> sentence, thereby avoiding awkward misunderstandings. >>> >>> The symbol ? a dot inside a single spiral line ? can be installed onto >>> any PC running Windows 7, XP or Vista, as well as Macs and Blackberry >>> mobile devices. >>> >>> It can then be used in Word documents, instant messenger >>> conversations, Outlook email and other programmes, just by pressing >>> Ctrl and the full stop button. >>> >>> The Michigan company behind the SarcMark have applied for a patent to >>> protection their invention. >>> >>> They have even published a sample list of sentences that would benefit >>> from a SarcMark, including the words of British woman who was awarded >>> only half of her National Lottery jackpot by a court after the winning >>> ticket fell from her pocket and was claimed by someone else. >>> >>> It appears that the irony of her statement ? "It's jolly decent of >>> them to let me have a half share of my win" ? was lost on some readers. >>> >>> Paul Sak of the firm said that the new punctuation mark was not a >>> gimmick and had serious potential applications, such as allowing deaf >>> people to pick up sarcasm in subtitles. >>> >>> The symbol currently costs $1.99 to download ? a price that many may >>> think deserves a SarcMark of its own. >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> FoRK mailing list >> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork > _______________________________________________ > FoRK mailing list > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork > From michael at i-magery.com Thu Jan 21 19:30:42 2010 From: michael at i-magery.com (Michael Cummins) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:30:42 -0500 Subject: [FoRK] Kindle Royalties Message-ID: <001201ca9b13$46e86640$d4b932c0$@com> Good news for authors who want a bigger cut, but what about the big Publishing houses? MEC http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10437897-1.html In what may be a pre-emptive strike against the strong possibility that Apple will reveal a slate-style device on January 27, Amazon has said it will up the royalty for authors and publishers who use the Kindle Digital Text Platform (DTP) to 70 percent of the list price of their e-books. That's a big jump from its current 35 percent royalty rate and not coincidentally, the same number Apple doles out to developers who sell their apps in Apple's App Store. From gojomo at boxbe.com Fri Jan 22 00:02:55 2010 From: gojomo at boxbe.com (Gordon Mohr) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 00:02:55 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] I'm SOO interested in paying for this@. In-Reply-To: <4B590769.6060705@lig.net> References: <4B590769.6060705@lig.net> Message-ID: <4B595BAF.4040705@boxbe.com> Stephen Williams wrote: > Until it's in UTF, forget it. > On the other hand, we can immediately start using the 2 character > version that I just "invented"@. This one's probably close enough: 0x1610 &5648; CANADIAN SYLLABICS CARRIER YE ? - Gordon > From Boldtype from flavorpill: > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/6995354/Sarcasm-punctuation-mark-aims-to-put-an-end-to-email-confusion.html > >> >> Sarcasm punctuation mark aims to put an end to email confusion >> Expressing sarcasm in the written word can be a dangerous business, as >> anyone forced to apologise for sending a tongue-in-cheek email will >> confirm. >> >> >> By Matthew Moore >> Published: 11:45AM GMT 15 Jan 2010 >> The SarcMark costs $1.99 to download >> >> Now a US firm has come up with an ingenious solution to this very real >> problem ? a new item of punctuation. >> >> The SarcMark, as it has been named, is designed to be used in the same >> way as an exclamation or question mark. >> >> Related Articles >> >> * >> Sarcasm punctuation mark? Who needs it ;-) >> * >> Email smears by Gordon Brown's aide Damian McBride 'a serious >> breach of rules' >> * >> Valentine's Day: Technology 'is killing romance' >> * >> Rick Maybury: Houston, we have a problem... >> * >> Letters: Disestablishing the Church would disunite England >> * >> Dear Jessica: Couple?s battle for extra ?1,042 after car written >> off >> >> Anyone concerned that the irony of their email or text message might >> not be appreciated by its recipient can use the symbol to close their >> sentence, thereby avoiding awkward misunderstandings. >> >> The symbol ? a dot inside a single spiral line ? can be installed onto >> any PC running Windows 7, XP or Vista, as well as Macs and Blackberry >> mobile devices. >> >> It can then be used in Word documents, instant messenger >> conversations, Outlook email and other programmes, just by pressing >> Ctrl and the full stop button. >> >> The Michigan company behind the SarcMark have applied for a patent to >> protection their invention. >> >> They have even published a sample list of sentences that would benefit >> from a SarcMark, including the words of British woman who was awarded >> only half of her National Lottery jackpot by a court after the winning >> ticket fell from her pocket and was claimed by someone else. >> >> It appears that the irony of her statement ? "It's jolly decent of >> them to let me have a half share of my win" ? was lost on some readers. >> >> Paul Sak of the firm said that the new punctuation mark was not a >> gimmick and had serious potential applications, such as allowing deaf >> people to pick up sarcasm in subtitles. >> >> The symbol currently costs $1.99 to download ? a price that many may >> think deserves a SarcMark of its own. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > FoRK mailing list > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork From jbone at place.org Fri Jan 22 05:43:39 2010 From: jbone at place.org (Jeff Bone) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:43:39 -0600 Subject: [FoRK] The new middle? Message-ID: <6254812E-6FF0-44EA-A079-D85276E09791@place.org> sdw says: > If we could just have the party of newly-centrist JB! So, lower-left is the new middle? Wait, I've been saying that for years. Well, I've been saying that it's the *real* middle... Just keeping it real. As of today (just took the test to spot-check...) Your political compass Economic Left/Right: 7.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.69 Note: the econ number is *exactly* what it was in 2004, 2003, ... Slight drift down the authoritarian axis, but not too significant, and a good thing anyway IMHO. Draw your own conclusions, things are rock-steady over here. jb From jbone at place.org Fri Jan 22 06:00:58 2010 From: jbone at place.org (Jeff Bone) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:00:58 -0600 Subject: [FoRK] My sentiments exactly... Message-ID: Cf. "So Much Good News" http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/01/so-much-good-news.html In the US, Med Reform is dead and the Supreme Court upholds free speechbig-time. World wide, the modal (log) income, i.e., the most common income level world-wide, has increased by a factor of ten in just 40 years! HT Rob Wiblin. Tagged as: Current Affairs Trackback URL: -- IMHO, the "Med Reform" bit is the best news of all. jb From jbone at place.org Fri Jan 22 06:03:33 2010 From: jbone at place.org (Jeff Bone) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:03:33 -0600 Subject: [FoRK] ASUS chairman: next up, wearables Message-ID: <033F4243-5167-435F-A128-D777B2B86527@place.org> Cf. http://www.silicon.com/technology/hardware/2010/01/21/asus-what-will-be-the-next-netbook-39745351/print/ -- This reminds me that I need to post my predictions roundup: 10 Trends for the '10s. -- l8r, <-- (free, open-source, backwards-compatible glyphs. Get yours today!) --> ;-) jb From jbone at place.org Fri Jan 22 07:04:48 2010 From: jbone at place.org (Jeff Bone) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 09:04:48 -0600 Subject: [FoRK] Words, words, words... Message-ID: <64EF14E1-0094-48B1-AA19-8AB1626B7CDD@place.org> David K. says: > This is borderline pedantry Inigo Montoya, OTOH, says: "...that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." I seriously doubt David Henderson's attempting to teach e.g. arithmetic with his little digression. Perhaps "demagoguery" would have been a better choice... but perhaps not that either, it's slightly unsatisfying. OTOOH, perhaps Henderson's intent is *indeed* pedantic. Which makes Kammeyer's construction recursively ironic... and this post, mutually so. ;-) jb From jbone at place.org Fri Jan 22 08:02:10 2010 From: jbone at place.org (Jeff Bone) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:02:10 -0600 Subject: [FoRK] The quantum-logical theory of truth and irony Message-ID: Ponderously pondering Dave K's possible anti-(meta-)-anti-irony has induced a complete theory of truth, truthiness, irony, universal semantics, trans-universal epistemology, and human (or other) speech acts to spring forth fully-formed from the Platonic void that is my (your) head. The theory includes a well-formed calculus of truth(iness) based on the intrinsics, mechanics and dynamics of fundamental particles of meaning called "trusons" that have as essential parts of their quantum-logical state properties of spin or "twist" (with twist quanta of 2/3, just like regular QM spin) but also intentionality, extensionality (or meta-ness) and so on. There is a full-blown algebra of ironic-logical operators that apply to these to define possible transformations of quantum-logical semantic state, with certain "tangles" (exotic operational sequences) giving rise to a kind of uncertainty principle. There's also a Pauli Exclusion Principle-like thingamajig that, among other things, gives rise to a conjecture about universal semantic equivalence, objective truth, and knowability. And just as a demonstration about its scientific gravitas, the theory gives rise to an interesting impossibility theorem, in this case applicable to epistemology, which basically demonstrates that it's never possible to know anything at all. One small lemma in the theory, worthy of note: anti-anti-irony is not +1 irony, but rather -4/3 irony. Anti-anti-anti-irony = -2 irony. However, anti-anti-meta-anti-irony = +2 irony, yet quasi-meta-anti- meta-anti-meta-anti-irony (or any of its well-formed tangles) = negative infinity +/- 2/3. (Dimensional analysis reveals this number, intriguingly, to be unitless.) I have discovered a truly marvellous proof of this, which this mailing list is too narrow to contain. ;-) jb From ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca Fri Jan 22 08:05:53 2010 From: ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca (Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:05:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [FoRK] My sentiments exactly... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <408887.88093.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> This has me much confused. I chased the links and read the bit about the Supreme Court "upholding" "free speech". This baffles me. How does the right of free speech of citizens of the United States of America have anything whatsoever to do with corporations? Can someone enlighten me please? For the record, if it makes it any easier to respond, I don't buy this bullshit about an entity that cannot be held to the same accountability nor be required to show the same responsibility as a human having the same rights as a human. And what baffles me isn't that the Supreme Court "upheld" anything, or not. What baffles me is how an independent human being can see this as a Good Thing. Can someone help me? Oh yeah, another piece in the backstory: I'm one of those who doesn't believe in Government of the Corporations, by the Corporations, for the Corporations. I'm getting pretty fed up with it. And we don't have it nearly as bad here in the nanny state of Canada as y'all have it. ...ken... --- On Fri, 1/22/10, Jeff Bone wrote: > From: Jeff Bone > Subject: [FoRK] My sentiments exactly... > To: "Friends of Rohit Khare" > Received: Friday, January 22, 2010, 8:00 AM > > Cf.? "So Much Good News" > > ? http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/01/so-much-good-news.html > > In the US, Med Reform is dead and the Supreme Court upholds > free speechbig-time.? World wide, the modal (log) > income, i.e., the most common income level world-wide, has > increased by a factor of ten in just 40 years! > > > > > > HT Rob Wiblin. > > Tagged as: Current Affairs > Trackback URL: > > > -- > > IMHO, the "Med Reform" bit is the best news of all. > > > jb > > _______________________________________________ > FoRK mailing list > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork > __________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com. From mdw at martinwills.com Fri Jan 22 08:40:09 2010 From: mdw at martinwills.com (mdw at martinwills.com) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:40:09 -0600 Subject: [FoRK] My sentiments exactly... In-Reply-To: <408887.88093.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <408887.88093.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0f737d4940547c03901b966090defdc0.squirrel@webmail.martinwills.com> > This has me much confused. I chased the links and read the bit about the > Supreme Court "upholding" "free speech". This baffles me. > > How does the right of free speech of citizens of the United States of > America have anything whatsoever to do with corporations? Can someone > enlighten me please? > Corporations are created, and run by humans. Free speech is guaranteed by the Constitution and upheld for more than 200 years now. NBC/CBS/ABC ad nauseum.. are Corporations. They have a direct impact on Free Speech. > For the record, if it makes it any easier to respond, I don't buy this > bullshit about an entity that cannot be held to the same accountability > nor be required to show the same responsibility as a human having the same > rights as a human. > Corporations are held a little differently than humans. You can sue a corporation similar to humans in the US Court systems. They are subject to the same laws as humans. Unfortunately some laws aren't applicable (e.g. Infecting someone with an STD is crime in my state but, I don't think I could sue a corporation for it etc...) > And what baffles me isn't that the Supreme Court "upheld" anything, or > not. What baffles me is how an independent human being can see this as a > Good Thing. Can someone help me? > The Supreme Courts sole purpose in life is to review cases by the lower courts. When they find a court case in the Appeals Process that has been requested by the lower court for them to review (or they can just pluck it from the lower court if they want to), they look at it. If they review it, and it provides an ability to provide "Stare Decisis" they will hear it and rule. They are not bound to review any case submitted by the lower courts (in fact they refuse more than 90% submitted). Your belief you can appeal your case "all the way to the Supreme Court" is a half-truth. You have the right and the ability but, if the matter of law you are arguing doesn't provide an opportunity for "Stare Decisis" you are probably going to be denied. The Courts don't rule by "Common Sense". The courts are a neutral (de novo) party that is to be influenced by lawyers and their presentation of current laws and how they are applicable for the current case. They are to remain neutral and if there is some sort of conflict (whether be personal etc..) they are to recuse themselves voluntarily to maintain the neutrality of the court. Since they are to remain neutral, a good persuasive lawyer can twist any law they way he wants, and if he can persuade the court because of better skills than the opponent lawyer the court usually rules in his favor. To prevent this from destroying the legal system, the courts are defended in depth (state courts appeal to the State Appellate Courts, Appellate decisions can be appealed to the State Supreme Courts, which can be appealed to the Federal Courts of Appeals, which can be appealed to the Supreme Court) during this process eventually the bad decisions are reversed and new interpretations of the law are created. > Oh yeah, another piece in the backstory: I'm one of those who doesn't > believe in Government of the Corporations, by the Corporations, for the > Corporations. I'm getting pretty fed up with it. And we don't have it > nearly as bad here in the nanny state of Canada as y'all have it. > > ...ken... Corporations pay taxes, they can be sued by individuals, they can advertise on TV and radio, they are subject to criminal law, under the laws of the US they are treated as identities and many laws have been created to control them (e.g. whole volumes of State and Federal laws are on the books to deal with them). They are subject to the criminal/civil laws of the US (where individuals aren't susceptible to the Corporate laws on the books). So in effect they have many more laws than an individual they have to answer to. --Martin-- > > > --- On Fri, 1/22/10, Jeff Bone wrote: > >> From: Jeff Bone >> Subject: [FoRK] My sentiments exactly... >> To: "Friends of Rohit Khare" >> Received: Friday, January 22, 2010, 8:00 AM >> >> Cf.? "So Much Good News" >> >> ? http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/01/so-much-good-news.html >> >> In the US, Med Reform is dead and the Supreme Court upholds >> free speechbig-time.? World wide, the modal (log) >> income, i.e., the most common income level world-wide, has >> increased by a factor of ten in just 40 years! >> >> >> >> >> >> HT Rob Wiblin. >> >> Tagged as: Current Affairs >> Trackback URL: >> >> >> -- >> >> IMHO, the "Med Reform" bit is the best news of all. >> >> >> jb >> >> _______________________________________________ >> FoRK mailing list >> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork >> > > > __________________________________________________________________ > Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your > favourite sites. Download it now > http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com. > > _______________________________________________ > FoRK mailing list > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork > From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Fri Jan 22 08:42:34 2010 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:42:34 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] My sentiments exactly... In-Reply-To: <408887.88093.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <408887.88093.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <02D145E7-2721-466A-AEBE-62B9C321C4C4@ceruleansystems.com> On Jan 22, 2010, at 8:05 AM, Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo wrote: > How does the right of free speech of citizens of the United States of America have anything whatsoever to do with corporations? Can someone enlighten me please? Corporations are not Federal constructs. They are just groups of people organized under the Common Law. In the majority of States corporations have always had the right to political speech. freedom of speech + freedom of association = freedom of group speech Whether it is a good thing or not, the reasoning is not a stretch. > For the record, if it makes it any easier to respond, I don't buy this bullshit about an entity that cannot be held to the same accountability nor be required to show the same responsibility as a human having the same rights as a human. You ascribe far more power and opaqueness to corporations than exist in practice. Corporate decisions must always resolve to natural persons, so restricting the rights of a corporation restricts the rights of the natural person. It is logically problematic to recognize a right for an individual and simultaneously deny it to a group of individuals. From wgstoddard at gmail.com Fri Jan 22 08:56:39 2010 From: wgstoddard at gmail.com (Bill Stoddard) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 11:56:39 -0500 Subject: [FoRK] My sentiments exactly... In-Reply-To: <02D145E7-2721-466A-AEBE-62B9C321C4C4@ceruleansystems.com> References: <408887.88093.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <02D145E7-2721-466A-AEBE-62B9C321C4C4@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: <4B59D8C7.5020301@gmail.com> On 1/22/10 11:42 AM, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > On Jan 22, 2010, at 8:05 AM, Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo wrote: > >> How does the right of free speech of citizens of the United States of America have anything whatsoever to do with corporations? Can someone enlighten me please? >> > > Corporations are not Federal constructs. They are just groups of people organized under the Common Law. In the majority of States corporations have always had the right to political speech. > > freedom of speech + freedom of association = freedom of group speech > > What does 'freedom of association' mean, exactly, in the corporate context? It certainly isn't the same as a bunch of like minded people getting together to lobby the county government to install speed bumps on their neighborhood streets. What prevents a China SOE from setting up HQ in Deleware, bringing on US employees and buying politicians in support of their agenda? What is the difference between Hu Jintao or Wen Jiabao and the CEO of 'Ultra Big Corp'? What happens when corporations determine private ownership of firearms is not in their best interest? This is far from being as innocent as you make it out to be. Bill From jbone at place.org Fri Jan 22 09:00:12 2010 From: jbone at place.org (Jeff Bone) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 11:00:12 -0600 Subject: [FoRK] The quantum-logical theory of truth and irony In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <86911D74-67AA-4812-84E7-B3AF1757A2F7@place.org> On Jan 22, 2010, at 10:02 AM, Jeff Bone wrote: > One small lemma in the theory, worthy of note: anti-anti-irony is > not +1 irony, but rather -4/3 irony. Anti-anti-anti-irony = -2 > irony. However, anti-anti-meta-anti-irony = +2 irony, yet quasi- > meta-anti-meta-anti-meta-anti-irony (or any of its well-formed > tangles) = negative infinity +/- 2/3. (Dimensional analysis reveals > this number, intriguingly, to be unitless.) You're probably confused. I know what you're thinking: "shouldn't anti-anti-anti-irony = +2 irony, not -2 irony?" This tripped me up at first, too. However, recall "Seinfeld's Law": in any linear composition of anti- ironic applications to collapsed quantum-logical products, the sign- twist result of every other application is implicitly reversed. In practice, this means that any odd number of sequential applications of anti- to an unmodified truson with positive intensionality and any whole-number extensionality has negative sign-twist. (Hence, "sign- folding.") However, when the number of such applications has been "lifted" transfinitely via the application of e.g. meta or other operators, the sign becomes unknowable. Only the linear subsequences of such applications have deterministic sign. In practice this is not a problem for most common speech-act applications. The primitive expression of the typed truson calculus using positional operators does, however, permit disambiguation; consider the twist-type signature of the following tangle, for example: (anti-)-(anti)(-anti)-(anti-)-(-anti-) X. I hope this clarifies things and therefore preemptively avoids a shit- storm of confusion and debate on this issue. jb From wgstoddard at gmail.com Fri Jan 22 09:08:20 2010 From: wgstoddard at gmail.com (Bill Stoddard) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:08:20 -0500 Subject: [FoRK] The quantum-logical theory of truth and irony In-Reply-To: <86911D74-67AA-4812-84E7-B3AF1757A2F7@place.org> References: <86911D74-67AA-4812-84E7-B3AF1757A2F7@place.org> Message-ID: <4B59DB84.4030800@gmail.com> On 1/22/10 12:00 PM, Jeff Bone wrote: > > On Jan 22, 2010, at 10:02 AM, Jeff Bone wrote: > >> One small lemma in the theory, worthy of note: anti-anti-irony is >> not +1 irony, but rather -4/3 irony. Anti-anti-anti-irony = -2 >> irony. However, anti-anti-meta-anti-irony = +2 irony, yet >> quasi-meta-anti-meta-anti-meta-anti-irony (or any of its well-formed >> tangles) = negative infinity +/- 2/3. (Dimensional analysis reveals >> this number, intriguingly, to be unitless.) > > You're probably confused. I know what you're thinking: "shouldn't > anti-anti-anti-irony = +2 irony, not -2 irony?" > > This tripped me up at first, too. > > However, recall "Seinfeld's Law": in any linear composition of > anti-ironic applications to collapsed quantum-logical products, the > sign-twist result of every other application is implicitly reversed. > In practice, this means that any odd number of sequential applications > of anti- to an unmodified truson with positive intensionality and any > whole-number extensionality has negative sign-twist. (Hence, > "sign-folding.") However, when the number of such applications has > been "lifted" transfinitely via the application of e.g. meta or other > operators, the sign becomes unknowable. Only the linear subsequences > of such applications have deterministic sign. > > In practice this is not a problem for most common speech-act > applications. The primitive expression of the typed truson calculus > using positional operators does, however, permit disambiguation; > consider the twist-type signature of the following tangle, for > example: (anti-)-(anti)(-anti)-(anti-)-(-anti-) X. > > I hope this clarifies things and therefore preemptively avoids a > shit-storm of confusion and debate on this issue. Russell, You're in Austin, right? Need to go over and talk Jeff down... Bill From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Fri Jan 22 09:13:51 2010 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 09:13:51 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] My sentiments exactly... In-Reply-To: <4B59D8C7.5020301@gmail.com> References: <408887.88093.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <02D145E7-2721-466A-AEBE-62B9C321C4C4@ceruleansystems.com> <4B59D8C7.5020301@gmail.com> Message-ID: <661493FD-FEDA-4554-9949-043750E85568@ceruleansystems.com> On Jan 22, 2010, at 8:56 AM, Bill Stoddard wrote: > What does 'freedom of association' mean, exactly, in the corporate context? It certainly isn't the same as a bunch of like minded people getting together to lobby the county government to install speed bumps on their neighborhood streets. What prevents a China SOE from setting up HQ in Deleware, bringing on US employees and buying politicians in support of their agenda? What is the difference between Hu Jintao or Wen Jiabao and the CEO of 'Ultra Big Corp'? What happens when corporations determine private ownership of firearms is not in their best interest? This is far from being as innocent as you make it out to be. Nothing prevents any of this now in most states, and never has. Disclosure is still required and non-citizens still cannot vote. Little is changed by this decision in practice. Freedom of speech in the United States already applies to non-citizens, so I am not following arguments that seem to assume otherwise. From wgstoddard at gmail.com Fri Jan 22 09:38:44 2010 From: wgstoddard at gmail.com (Bill Stoddard) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:38:44 -0500 Subject: [FoRK] My sentiments exactly... In-Reply-To: <661493FD-FEDA-4554-9949-043750E85568@ceruleansystems.com> References: <408887.88093.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <02D145E7-2721-466A-AEBE-62B9C321C4C4@ceruleansystems.com> <4B59D8C7.5020301@gmail.com> <661493FD-FEDA-4554-9949-043750E85568@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: <4B59E2A4.5020708@gmail.com> On 1/22/10 12:13 PM, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > On Jan 22, 2010, at 8:56 AM, Bill Stoddard wrote: > >> What does 'freedom of association' mean, exactly, in the corporate context? It certainly isn't the same as a bunch of like minded people getting together to lobby the county government to install speed bumps on their neighborhood streets. What prevents a China SOE from setting up HQ in Deleware, bringing on US employees and buying politicians in support of their agenda? What is the difference between Hu Jintao or Wen Jiabao and the CEO of 'Ultra Big Corp'? What happens when corporations determine private ownership of firearms is not in their best interest? This is far from being as innocent as you make it out to be. >> > > Disclosure is still required References: <86911D74-67AA-4812-84E7-B3AF1757A2F7@place.org> <4B59DB84.4030800@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B59E3A3.1020102@lig.net> Bill Stoddard wrote: > On 1/22/10 12:00 PM, Jeff Bone wrote: >> >> On Jan 22, 2010, at 10:02 AM, Jeff Bone wrote: >> >>> One small lemma in the theory, worthy of note: anti-anti-irony is >>> not +1 irony, but rather -4/3 irony. Anti-anti-anti-irony = -2 >>> irony. However, anti-anti-meta-anti-irony = +2 irony, yet >>> quasi-meta-anti-meta-anti-meta-anti-irony (or any of its well-formed >>> tangles) = negative infinity +/- 2/3. (Dimensional analysis reveals >>> this number, intriguingly, to be unitless.) >> >> You're probably confused. I know what you're thinking: "shouldn't >> anti-anti-anti-irony = +2 irony, not -2 irony?" >> >> This tripped me up at first, too. >> >> However, recall "Seinfeld's Law": in any linear composition of >> anti-ironic applications to collapsed quantum-logical products, the >> sign-twist result of every other application is implicitly reversed. >> In practice, this means that any odd number of sequential >> applications of anti- to an unmodified truson with positive >> intensionality and any whole-number extensionality has negative >> sign-twist. (Hence, "sign-folding.") However, when the number of >> such applications has been "lifted" transfinitely via the application >> of e.g. meta or other operators, the sign becomes unknowable. Only >> the linear subsequences of such applications have deterministic sign. >> >> In practice this is not a problem for most common speech-act >> applications. The primitive expression of the typed truson calculus >> using positional operators does, however, permit disambiguation; >> consider the twist-type signature of the following tangle, for >> example: (anti-)-(anti)(-anti)-(anti-)-(-anti-) X. >> >> I hope this clarifies things and therefore preemptively avoids a >> shit-storm of confusion and debate on this issue. > > Russell, > You're in Austin, right? Need to go over and talk Jeff down... No, no, take down notes first. This is great stuff. We need to document this new Bone Calculus. I smell a book. Or at least a web site. Funny thing is that it makes sens to me so far! ;-) And the sign-twistiness reminds me of something I just figured out that kind of blows my mind: circular polarization of light and its uses. Next post. sdw > > Bill From jbone at place.org Fri Jan 22 10:20:42 2010 From: jbone at place.org (Jeff Bone) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:20:42 -0600 Subject: [FoRK] The new middle? In-Reply-To: <6254812E-6FF0-44EA-A079-D85276E09791@place.org> References: <6254812E-6FF0-44EA-A079-D85276E09791@place.org> Message-ID: <0A162F8A-480A-497F-8EBB-1231D062A589@place.org> On Jan 22, 2010, at 7:43 AM, Jeff Bone wrote: > > So, lower-left is the new middle? Doh! Lower-right of course. (Not that any of those "directions" have any real meaning; let's just call it "quadrant IV.") Must be those lexidyscal tendencies. jb From ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca Fri Jan 22 10:24:26 2010 From: ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca (Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:24:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [FoRK] My sentiments exactly... In-Reply-To: <02D145E7-2721-466A-AEBE-62B9C321C4C4@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: <290003.25266.qm@web33007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Fri, 1/22/10, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > > On Jan 22, 2010, at 8:05 AM, Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo wrote: > > How does the right of free speech of citizens of the > United States of America have anything whatsoever to do with > corporations? Can someone enlighten me please? > > > Corporations are not Federal constructs.? They are > just groups of people organized under the Common Law. In the > majority of States corporations have always had the right to > political speech. > > freedom of speech + freedom of association = freedom of > group speech > > Whether it is a good thing or not, the reasoning is not a > stretch. > > > > For the record, if it makes it any easier to respond, > I don't buy this bullshit about an entity that cannot be > held to the same accountability nor be required to show the > same responsibility as a human having the same rights as a > human. > > > You ascribe far more power and opaqueness to corporations > than exist in practice. Corporate decisions must always > resolve to natural persons, so restricting the rights of a > corporation restricts the rights of the natural person. > > It is logically problematic to recognize a right for an > individual and simultaneously deny it to a group of > individuals. > What a pile of steamy smelly crap! Corporate decisions do not always resolve to natural persons. Corporations are not held to the same accountability nor subject to the same consequences as individuals. Your point, and that of others, that the corporation is considered a legal entity unto itself puts the immediate lie to that notion. If a corporation loses a civil suit or is found guilty of criminal acts, it is not necessary, and very rare, that any individual(s) in the corporation will suffer any consequences at all. If it is decided that individuals in the corporation should be held individually accountable for their personal actions, they must be sued or charged independently. Otherwise they get to hide behind the corporation's skirts. There are many consequences that it simply is not possible, nor even relevant, to apply to corporations. One of the most common consequences isn't even possible: You can't take away their freedom (toss their asses in jail) for a specified period of time, for instance. When was the last time you saw a corporation subjected to the three strikes rule? When was the last time you saw a corporation designated as a dangerous offender? When was the last time you saw a corporation subjected to capital punishment in a state that still supports it? Even beyond that gaping hole in your logic there remains an even larger one: corporations are not simply groups of individuals who have agreed to associate voluntarily and speak as one. The war chest of a corporation is controlled by a tiny few at the top. While they may, collectively agree, on the political position they are going to support, not only is it possible that the majority of the individuals who comprise the corporation disagree with that position, it is virtually a certainty that nobody asked their opinion in the first place. So, back to my initial befuddlement. I can understand that this is a corporate lawyer's dream. But I can't understand why a functional reasoning individual humam, like e.g. jb, would see the perpetuation of this nonsense, especially in the context of the right of an individual to freedom of speech, as a good thing. ..... hmmmmmm ..... Perhaps I am in error assuming he is either functional or reasoning.....???? (Where's that "spot check" you mentioned, jb, so I can perhaps see where I rate/rank compared to you????) ...ken... __________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com. From sdw at lig.net Fri Jan 22 10:30:24 2010 From: sdw at lig.net (Stephen Williams) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:30:24 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] The new middle? In-Reply-To: <6254812E-6FF0-44EA-A079-D85276E09791@place.org> References: <6254812E-6FF0-44EA-A079-D85276E09791@place.org> Message-ID: <4B59EEC0.5010406@lig.net> Jeff Bone wrote: > > sdw says: > >> If we could just have the party of newly-centrist JB! > > So, lower-left is the new middle? Wait, I've been saying that for > years. Well, I've been saying that it's the *real* middle... > > Just keeping it real. As of today (just took the test to spot-check...) > > Your political compass > Economic Left/Right: 7.88 > Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.69 Doesn't this put you in lower-right? I know you want to be in the lower-left. ;-) > > Note: the econ number is *exactly* what it was in 2004, 2003, ... > Slight drift down the authoritarian axis, but not too significant, and > a good thing anyway IMHO. > > Draw your own conclusions, things are rock-steady over here. It is the secondary interpretation and nuanced principles where you have evolved, IMHO. The political compass questions are not nuanced enough to capture why you believe in your answer, only what your answer is. It seems that the scoring is making some guess as to your principles. The reasoning is what counts while model-probabilities or simple tradition can greatly skew actual answers on "gray scale" questions. Why doesn't that test have "neutral" as an answer?? No one can see it both ways, as in "it depends"?? For maybe half of those questions, I could have chosen any value based on which circumstance I chose to give the most weight. We should write our own version, or at least fix their version. For instance, if you grew up in an inner-city area and saw "junkies", gangs, and other complete life failures were the typical result of illegal drugs, you might have a completely different view of drug legalization than someone who grew up in, say, California where the majority of users are happy, successful, and carefully (in some sense) moderate their behavior. This is a different model-probability state that affects weighting of basic and derived principles, where some may eventually atrophy or don't even get absorbed. The crazy thing is when people hold views based on opposite principles because the actual or expected or feared model-probability results are so different in each area. Hence, you can have Republican-ish religio evangelists who are freaked out about personal freedom while being totally laissez-faire. (Yesterday, I fought an urge to go deep on this.) So, with all of the flaws in the questions, here is my result: > Your political compass > Economic Left/Right: -1.50 > Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.59 Just libertarian of center. sdw > > jb From sdw at lig.net Fri Jan 22 10:39:58 2010 From: sdw at lig.net (Stephen Williams) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:39:58 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] My sentiments exactly... In-Reply-To: <290003.25266.qm@web33007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <290003.25266.qm@web33007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B59F0FE.106@lig.net> Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo wrote: > .... > Your point, and that of others, that the corporation is considered a legal entity unto itself puts the immediate lie to that notion. > > If a corporation loses a civil suit or is found guilty of criminal acts, it is not necessary, and very rare, that any individual(s) in the corporation will suffer any consequences at all. > > If it is decided that individuals in the corporation should be held individually accountable for their personal actions, they must be sued or charged independently. Otherwise they get to hide behind the corporation's skirts. > Not those that have fiduciary responsibility, at least not for certain classes of things like taxes. They are directly and automatically responsible. > There are many consequences that it simply is not possible, nor even relevant, to apply to corporations. One of the most common consequences isn't even possible: You can't take away their freedom (toss their asses in jail) for a specified period of time, for instance. > > When was the last time you saw a corporation subjected to the three strikes rule? When was the last time you saw a corporation designated as a dangerous offender? When was the last time you saw a corporation subjected to capital punishment in a state that still supports it? > Corporations can suffer existential penalties monetarily, by court order or regulation controlling them, etc. I sued a company out of existence in small claims. (Well, when I appealed and one in Circuit court anyway. That was an interesting pro-se experience.) Racketeering / RICO and similar statutes are essentially a corporate death penalty, confiscating all assets and charging participants. You have to consider what laws apply to corporations and which do not make sense. Perhaps it helps to think of them as little countries or something similar. > Even beyond that gaping hole in your logic there remains an even larger one: corporations are not simply groups of individuals who have agreed to associate voluntarily and speak as one. The war chest of a corporation is controlled by a tiny few at the top. While they may, collectively agree, on the political position they are going to support, not only is it possible that the majority of the individuals who comprise the corporation disagree with that position, it is virtually a certainty that nobody asked their opinion in the first place. > The "corporation" is made of those that own it, not those that merely have personal contracts to work there. Some corporations ARE owned by everyone who works there, often as a matter of principle. > So, back to my initial befuddlement. I can understand that this is a corporate lawyer's dream. But I can't understand why a functional reasoning individual humam, like e.g. jb, would see the perpetuation of this nonsense, especially in the context of the right of an individual to freedom of speech, as a good thing. > I can see it both ways, in general. In some cases, I'm annoyed by it: In Virginia, a corporation always has to be represented independently by an attorney, even if it has a sing shareholder. In that case one case, the requirement is an error. > ..... hmmmmmm ..... Perhaps I am in error assuming he is either functional or reasoning.....???? (Where's that "spot check" you mentioned, jb, so I can perhaps see where I rate/rank compared to you????) > > ...ken... > sdw From jbone at place.org Fri Jan 22 10:46:38 2010 From: jbone at place.org (Jeff Bone) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:46:38 -0600 Subject: [FoRK] My sentiments exactly... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <26AF2D64-569A-4D3D-82D2-56AC90EE21E6@place.org> Ken says, in response to JAR: > Corporate decisions do not always resolve to natural persons. With all due respect to JAR and with full acknowledgement that over time our (JAR's and my) general responses to various such things have converged to the point of almost-complete interchangeability --- I happen to agree with Ken on this one. Cf. "entelechy," "stigmergy," and so on. The actions of a body "corporate" (cf. irony) are often quite distinct from the preferred (or even intentional) actions of any of its human constituent cells. In fact, it is guaranteed by the extrapolated Arrow-constraints of any aggregative decision-making process coupled with asymmetric (and other) internal- and external informational constraints that this must always be the case for any group of would- be decision-makers / actors of greater than size one. (Cf. "social choice theory," "decision theory," etc.) Not that this changes anything significant regarding the overall argument, which aside from the above small nit I think JAR nails rather skillfully. jb From mdw at martinwills.com Fri Jan 22 10:46:52 2010 From: mdw at martinwills.com (mdw at martinwills.com) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:46:52 -0600 Subject: [FoRK] My sentiments exactly... In-Reply-To: <290003.25266.qm@web33007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <290003.25266.qm@web33007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > --- On Fri, 1/22/10, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: >> >> On Jan 22, 2010, at 8:05 AM, Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo wrote: >> > How does the right of free speech of citizens of the >> United States of America have anything whatsoever to do with >> corporations? Can someone enlighten me please? >> >> >> Corporations are not Federal constructs.? They are >> just groups of people organized under the Common Law. In the >> majority of States corporations have always had the right to >> political speech. >> >> freedom of speech + freedom of association = freedom of >> group speech >> >> Whether it is a good thing or not, the reasoning is not a >> stretch. >> >> >> > For the record, if it makes it any easier to respond, >> I don't buy this bullshit about an entity that cannot be >> held to the same accountability nor be required to show the >> same responsibility as a human having the same rights as a >> human. >> >> >> You ascribe far more power and opaqueness to corporations >> than exist in practice. Corporate decisions must always >> resolve to natural persons, so restricting the rights of a >> corporation restricts the rights of the natural person. >> >> It is logically problematic to recognize a right for an >> individual and simultaneously deny it to a group of >> individuals. >> > > What a pile of steamy smelly crap! > > Corporate decisions do not always resolve to natural persons. Corporations > are not held to the same accountability nor subject to the same > consequences as individuals. > > Your point, and that of others, that the corporation is considered a legal > entity unto itself puts the immediate lie to that notion. > > If a corporation loses a civil suit or is found guilty of criminal acts, > it is not necessary, and very rare, that any individual(s) in the > corporation will suffer any consequences at all. > > If it is decided that individuals in the corporation should be held > individually accountable for their personal actions, they must be sued or > charged independently. Otherwise they get to hide behind the corporation's > skirts. > > There are many consequences that it simply is not possible, nor even > relevant, to apply to corporations. One of the most common consequences > isn't even possible: You can't take away their freedom (toss their asses > in jail) for a specified period of time, for instance. > > When was the last time you saw a corporation subjected to the three > strikes rule? When was the last time you saw a corporation designated as a > dangerous offender? When was the last time you saw a corporation subjected > to capital punishment in a state that still supports it? > > Even beyond that gaping hole in your logic there remains an even larger > one: corporations are not simply groups of individuals who have agreed to > associate voluntarily and speak as one. The war chest of a corporation is > controlled by a tiny few at the top. While they may, collectively agree, > on the political position they are going to support, not only is it > possible that the majority of the individuals who comprise the corporation > disagree with that position, it is virtually a certainty that nobody asked > their opinion in the first place. > > So, back to my initial befuddlement. I can understand that this is a > corporate lawyer's dream. But I can't understand why a functional > reasoning individual humam, like e.g. jb, would see the perpetuation of > this nonsense, especially in the context of the right of an individual to > freedom of speech, as a good thing. > > ..... hmmmmmm ..... Perhaps I am in error assuming he is either > functional or reasoning.....???? (Where's that "spot check" you > mentioned, jb, so I can perhaps see where I rate/rank compared to > you????) > > ...ken... > > There is one thing you forget and it is important!!! Corporations can't vote. They can spend a billion dollars on something and still lose. When I worked for Wal-Mart, BofA, and FedEx they all had their PAC's that they wanted us to support and asked their employees to add their votes to their agenda. I would say I voted for fewer than half of their wishes. --Martin-- > __________________________________________________________________ > Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your > favourite sites. Download it now > http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com. > > _______________________________________________ > FoRK mailing list > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork > From aaron at bavariati.org Fri Jan 22 10:50:37 2010 From: aaron at bavariati.org (Aaron Burt) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:50:37 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] The World Is Not Flat In-Reply-To: <4B576195.6010506@lig.net> References: <396754.67160.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4B5611EF.8020205@lig.net> <722BE292-9AD8-441B-BB34-0CDBF2C8C837@ceruleansystems.com> <4B561A50.8090404@lig.net> <4B565170.2010702@lig.net> <20100120191907.GD10694@aaron-x31> <4B576195.6010506@lig.net> Message-ID: <20100122185036.GB6527@aaron-aa1> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:03:33PM -0800, Stephen Williams wrote: > What are probably needed are technologies to make loading and > offloading fast, automated, and nearly free energy wise. For > instance, imagine a train / trucking transfer point where the train > never stops or even slows down much. Using modular containers with > NASA-inspired auto lockdown/release points on a flatbed, an > automated robotic platform / arm picks and places containerlets on > and off as the train passes by. Back in the day, a father of a friend drove a container crane at the Port of Seattle. Transferring containers to/from a stack on a pitching ship deck took some amazing skill. This guy was a very good rally driver, BTW. Doing something similar with a moving train might be easier. It would piss off the United Transportation Union and seriously freak out OSHA, tho. From ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca Fri Jan 22 10:55:05 2010 From: ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca (Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:55:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [FoRK] The new middle? In-Reply-To: <4B59EEC0.5010406@lig.net> Message-ID: <373521.56198.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Fri, 1/22/10, Stephen Williams wrote: > Jeff Bone wrote: > > > > sdw says: > > > >> If we could just have the party of newly-centrist > JB! > > > > So, lower-left is the new middle?? Wait, I've > been saying that for years.? Well, I've been saying > that it's the *real* middle... > > > > Just keeping it real.? As of today (just took the > > test to spot-check...) > > > > Your political compass > > Economic Left/Right: 7.88 > > Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.69 > Doesn't this put you in lower-right?? I know you want > to be in the lower-left.? ;-) > > > It is the secondary interpretation and nuanced principles > where you have evolved, IMHO.? The political compass > questions are not nuanced enough to capture why you believe > in your answer, only what your answer is.? It seems > that the scoring is making some guess as to your > principles.? The reasoning is what counts while > model-probabilities or simple tradition can greatly skew > actual answers on "gray scale" questions.? Why doesn't > that test have "neutral" as an answer??? > ...[snip]... > > So, with all of the flaws in the questions, here is my > result: > > Your political compass > > Economic Left/Right: -1.50 > > Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.59 > Just libertarian of center. > > sdw > (I found it, jb.) I'm with you, Stephen ... I was forced to answer too many questions where my genuine response is "It depends" or "I honestly don't give a damn." Having said that, being prevented from sitting on the fence, and FWIW: Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -4.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.31 Is this nature or nurture, do you suppose? Is it a result of the culture I live in? Or am I simply living in the right culture for me? ...ken... __________________________________________________________________ Get the name you've always wanted @ymail.com or @rocketmail.com! Go to http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/jacko/ From sdw at lig.net Fri Jan 22 11:16:45 2010 From: sdw at lig.net (Stephen Williams) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 11:16:45 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] Circular polarization for Avatar3D and photon spin Message-ID: <4B59F99D.70107@lig.net> I was intrigued by the 3D technology used to show Avatar: The glasses seemed like linear polarized glasses, which I understand well. However if you played with 2 of them you might have noticed that rotating a right and left lens from 2 different glasses didn't produce the gradual blacking out that you would expect. Based on my meager, but I thought somewhat complete physics understanding, I could only think of one solution: Each lens was filtering out the 3 frequencies that the other eye was seeing as RGB. By using 6 different frequencies that were roughly seen the same in sets of 3 by each eye, you could get that effect. Turns out that that exists, "Dolby3D", but it is not what they used. Here is some discussion from a private email exchange. I see light in a whole new way now. ;-) The quarter-wave plate is supposed to only work at certain frequencies. Perhaps visible light is all roughly the same frequency for these purposes. I have a couple photographic circular polarizers, so I suppose I already know it works. I didn't know that photons have spin and can impart different momentum on receptors depending on spin. There is still a lot of confusion over "circular" polarization. It is used to describe several things: * circularly polarized electromagnetic radiation, easy for me to understand with radio waves, strange for me for light (better after below with propagation through crystals) * multi-polarization (i.e. amorphous light, sometimes also called "circularly polarized", but not in the left / right sense as far as I can tell. It also seems to be the same as "unpolarized" light.) * Photon spin components - o http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:TG_eKaXvpaQJ:people.bu.edu/birubio/ch203/pdfs/l12.pdf+clockwise+polarization+filter+rotating+photon&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us * A spinnable linear polarizing glass filter for photography o I didn't know they paired it with a quarter-wave de-polarizer that produces light with "circular polarization"! Required for SLR/DSLRs. And now I know why cameras sometimes don't handle glare properly: the beam splitter for metering / autofocus is a linear polarizer! + http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Polarizer It was still a mystery how the RealID electro-optic right/left polarizing unit and their passive glass right/left filter work. It seems useful for more than 3D movie viewing, probably including for bioluminescent or bioreflective detection. The Wikipedia page on circular polarization mentions that the mantis shrimp sees circularly polarized light. The linked articles indicate that it has a quarter wave converting layer of cells in one part of its eye. There is a beetle that has a body that reflects only left polarized light. This page seems to describe how all of this works to some extent: http://www.polarization.com/beetle/beetle.html It appears that RealID have to use something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_plate Probably with an LCD shutter to change the polarization from horizontal to vertical. How did they create a wave plate that responds to enough frequencies? Most wave plates are only for a single frequency range according to the article. And how do they avoid chromatic aberation? Perhaps with thin wave plates it isn't an issue, or perhaps the receiving wave plate reverses the shift. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration It appears that the receiving glasses probably use a 1/4 wave plate with opposing linear polarizing filters. So the stack is: Unpolarized light projector -> alternating frames -> synchronized electro-active circular polarizer -> screen that necessarily reverses light polarization rotation (not linear, not photon spin) -> in glasses: quarter wave plate -> linear polarizers horizontal / vertical. The projector circular polarizer could be done a number of ways. The original beam could be split, run through a shutter of some kind, then through opposing linear polarizers, then combined and run through a quarter wave plate or through dual quarter wave plates. The result would be left (counter clockwise) and right (clockwise) circular polarized light. So, except for the questions above, I think it works this way: The quarter wave plate has different light propagation speeds depending on axis. When fed linear polarized light, it creates circular polarized light. Not clear exactly how this works, however it seems like it is probably based on crystal excitation where the light pulse echos through the axii to produce the combined waveform. When circularly polarized light travels through a quarter wave plate, the phased light becomes aligned and ends up linearly polarized. I believe that means that non-polarized light into a quarter wave plate would probably cancel somewhat. sdw From beberg at mithral.com Fri Jan 22 11:35:06 2010 From: beberg at mithral.com (Adam L Beberg) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 11:35:06 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] My sentiments exactly... In-Reply-To: <0f737d4940547c03901b966090defdc0.squirrel@webmail.martinwills.com> References: <408887.88093.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <0f737d4940547c03901b966090defdc0.squirrel@webmail.martinwills.com> Message-ID: <4B59FDEA.7050909@mithral.com> mdw at martinwills.com wrote on 1/22/2010 8:40 AM: > Corporations are held a little differently than humans. You can sue a > corporation similar to humans in the US Court systems. They are subject to > the same laws as humans. Unfortunately some laws aren't applicable The laws hold, but there is no risk of any punishment. A corp does something bad like dumps toxic waste, they just dissolve the company and reform a new one, no problem. All oil companies operate that way - in fact each oil rig is a separate corp, if it blows up or spills just shread a couple documents. Borrow lots of money, pay the owners/employees, declare bankruptcy and walk away with the money. That's how banks and hedge funds work. The list goes on, but the cycle of form/scam/dissolve is the rule not the exception. There wouldn't really be any other use for a corporation if it wasn't for this shielding. Oh, and one more - no taxes. If you pay someone directly there are lots of taxes, if you pay them through a corp, and they are paid through stocks and options they pay almost no taxes - none if they have an accountant. So it's a person, but with no punishment and no taxes. Pure awesome. -- Adam L. Beberg http://www.mithral.com/~beberg/ From marty at halvorson.us Fri Jan 22 12:57:32 2010 From: marty at halvorson.us (Marty Halvorson) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:57:32 -0700 Subject: [FoRK] The World Is Not Flat Message-ID: <4B5A113C.5040502@halvorson.us> Aaron Burt wrote: "Transferring containers to/from a stack on a pitching ship deck took some amazing skill." Not to disparage Aaron's friend, when a ship is tied to a dock, it moves very little. While I was serving on an ammunition ship, we regularly rearmed other ships while under way (i.e. in the middle of the ocean and moving). While my ship was a relatively stable platform, it still moved quite a bit. When the other ship was a destroyer (or destroyer escort), the other ship moved a lot, particularly in rough seas where a tin can could roll 10-30 degrees. The way it worked was; we would send a haul wire over to the other ship which was 20-50 feet away and alongside. They ran the haul wire through a pulley and sent the end back. This was then attached to the carrier hook which already had one wire attached. There was one boom for each wire. The carrier hook was attached to the load of new ammunition which could consist of anything from small arms to 8 inch shells. The load was lifted up over the rail, and transferred to the other ship by one man operating two winches (with in and out capability), one for each wire. There was one bosun's mate who never put a load in the water. He was always called on to run the winches when the water was rough. That's saying quite a lot because on a tin can the deck, where the load landed, was very close to the water line. Now that's truly amazing skill. Peace, Marty From mdw at martinwills.com Fri Jan 22 14:32:24 2010 From: mdw at martinwills.com (mdw at martinwills.com) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:32:24 -0600 Subject: [FoRK] My sentiments exactly... In-Reply-To: <4B59FDEA.7050909@mithral.com> References: <408887.88093.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <0f737d4940547c03901b966090defdc0.squirrel@webmail.martinwills.com> <4B59FDEA.7050909@mithral.com> Message-ID: <4389316dfdc07c2821364e2468676258.squirrel@webmail.martinwills.com> > mdw at martinwills.com wrote on 1/22/2010 8:40 AM: >> Corporations are held a little differently than humans. You can sue a >> corporation similar to humans in the US Court systems. They are subject >> to >> the same laws as humans. Unfortunately some laws aren't applicable > > The laws hold, but there is no risk of any punishment. A corp does > something bad like dumps toxic waste, they just dissolve the company and > reform a new one, no problem. All oil companies operate that way - in > fact each oil rig is a separate corp, if it blows up or spills just > shread a couple documents. Borrow lots of money, pay the > owners/employees, declare bankruptcy and walk away with the money. > That's how banks and hedge funds work. The list goes on, but the cycle > of form/scam/dissolve is the rule not the exception. There wouldn't > really be any other use for a corporation if it wasn't for this shielding. > > Oh, and one more - no taxes. If you pay someone directly there are lots > of taxes, if you pay them through a corp, and they are paid through > stocks and options they pay almost no taxes - none if they have an > accountant. > > So it's a person, but with no punishment and no taxes. Pure awesome. > > -- > Adam L. Beberg > http://www.mithral.com/~beberg/ > _______________________________________________ > FoRK mailing list > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork > Not sure I can agree with your last statement... Exxon has paid in excess of 4 Billion Dollars to clean up the Valdez and paying various other fines and civil penalties. My local Wal-Mart paid my city $800,000.00 in sales taxes for the year 2009. I also remember hearing about Arthur Anderson being forced out of business because of the Enron debacle and Enron's seniors officers being put in prison... --Martin-- From ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca Fri Jan 22 14:37:46 2010 From: ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca (Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:37:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [FoRK] My sentiments exactly... In-Reply-To: <290003.25266.qm@web33007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <337728.90721.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Fri, 1/22/10, Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo wrote: > > > Even beyond that gaping hole in your logic there remains an > even larger one: corporations are not simply groups of > individuals who have agreed to associate voluntarily and > speak as one. The war chest of a corporation is controlled > by a tiny few at the top. While they may, collectively > agree, on the political position they are going to support, > not only is it possible that the majority of the individuals > who comprise the corporation disagree with that position, it > is virtually a certainty that nobody asked their opinion in > the first place. > Somewhere in the thread someone responded that the corporation is not the employees but the owners. I've quoted myself to illustrate that I did not point to either employees or owners. I did that intentionally because it wasn't necessary. It applies either way. How it applies to employees is self-evident. How it applies to shareholders should be equally self-evident to anyone who actually gives it a little thought. Do you believe anyone polled the shareholders to get the majority opinion? For those who answer that that's the role of the BoD, that is likely wrong on at least two counts. First it assumes the C-suite went to the board with a price list of the politicians they intended to purchase. I doubt that would be a normal occurence. But let's stipulate for this discussion that it is; that the C-suite assembled their shopping list and took it to the board of directors for approval. My point stands because in this context the BoD does not represent the shareholders. No. It doesn't. It represents the shares. That's a whole different thing. Think about it. The argument is that the corporation is analogous to a group of freely associating individuals who come together to lend weight to their feelings about an issue or agenda by speaking with a single, louder, voice. That analogy sure doesn't hold here. In the analogy of a freely associating group each person's opinion is of equal weight to any other persons. That's not the case with shareholders. In a corporation it's each voting share that has equal weight. So it's the people and organizations with the preponderance of shares who carry the vote. Huge difference. Next, you have to consider that the owners holding the largest blocks of shares aren't individuals either. They are invariably organizations; other corporations, mutual funds, pension funds. None qualified or mandated to submit political decisions on behalf of *their* owners. .......mmmmm..... actually it's worse. Some of the majority owners are state-owned funds who probably *are* mandated to push forward any political and/or religious beliefs of their owners. There is simply no basis to compare a corporation to a freely associating group of individuals, whether you look at it from the employee side or the ownership side. I'm even more befuddled that thoughtful citizens of the Excited States of America would try to rationalize using such a specious argument. The USofA is the most strident nation on the planet when it comes to equality of the individual. You have taken great pains to ensure that one person:one vote and prevent those with more money getting more than their one vote. This nonsense with corporations being able to apply as much money as they want to the political process is just an end run. A way for those with more money to, in effect, get more votes. And I see American citizens supporting it and trying to justify it. ...ken... __________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com. From ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca Fri Jan 22 14:56:08 2010 From: ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca (Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:56:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [FoRK] My sentiments exactly... In-Reply-To: <4389316dfdc07c2821364e2468676258.squirrel@webmail.martinwills.com> Message-ID: <143775.38781.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Fri, 1/22/10, mdw at martinwills.com wrote: > > > > So it's a person, but with no punishment and no taxes. > Pure awesome. > > > > -- > > Adam L. Beberg > > > > > Not sure I can agree with your last statement... Exxon has paid in excess > of 4 Billion Dollars to clean up the Valdez and paying various other > fines and civil penalties.? > But what humans were punished in law or civily for that behaviour? The ship's captain got sacked but he was a scapegoat. > > I also remember hearing > about Arthur Anderson being forced out of business because of the Enron > debacle and Enron's seniors officers being put in prison... > Arthur Anderson were forced out of business .... well, not really; they were forced to rebrand (cf. Accenture) ... because they crapped in their own nest and nobody would hire them until they changed their name. Simply bad optics. I don't know if any individuals from AA were ever charged. I could look but I don't care. Enron's senior officers were charged individually with a variety of things. Too bad this doesn't happen more often. It should be, in my view, the default rather than the exception. I was watching a business report last night in which Warren Buffet was quoted -- regarding situations like GM, Chrysler and the various financial institutions that required bailouts -- as saying that he believes the organizations should fail and the individuals in the C-suite of such failed organizations should be "crushed financially". Brought a smile to my lips. :) ...ken... __________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com. From dmorton at bitfurnace.com Fri Jan 22 15:40:35 2010 From: dmorton at bitfurnace.com (Damien Morton) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:40:35 +1100 Subject: [FoRK] My sentiments exactly... In-Reply-To: <337728.90721.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <290003.25266.qm@web33007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <337728.90721.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8092dc771001221540s2e411733j2a020d6a6070286@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo wrote: > --- On Fri, 1/22/10, Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo wrote: > ... > This nonsense with corporations being able to apply as much money as they > want to the political process is just an end run. A way for those with more > money to, in effect, get more votes. And I see American citizens supporting > it and trying to justify it. > Elections are still decided on a one-man one-vote basis. Money can buy you a lot of persuasive power, but it wont buy you a vote, per se. Not saying this ruling is a good thing - but disparities in persuasive power isnt something that the constitution addresses. The actual ruling is an interesting read. There's one segment in which they speak about trying to distinguish a media corporation, which can spend money pumping out political messages, from a different kind of corporation, which cannot. Id like to see all forms of communication by corporations not be considered a business expense, so that the playing field would be levelled with individuals to a certain extent. From khare at alumni.caltech.edu Fri Jan 22 15:44:41 2010 From: khare at alumni.caltech.edu (Rohit Khare) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:44:41 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] ICEHOTEL: meet rooms of mud, grass, stone, and *salt*! Message-ID: <80EC20A6-CF67-42BA-8472-685C9DAD674E@alumni.caltech.edu> http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/adamroberts/quarters-unrefined-rooms As part of our series on inspiring places to stay, Adam Roberts unearths hotels built of nature?s raw materials and little else ... >From INTELLIGENT LIFE Magazine, Winter 2009 The hotel chains that stretch their tentacles around the globe may succeed in giving their guests reliable standards, but often they display a sameness that seems to defeat the whole point of travelling. Surely a hotel should reflect its surroundings and have a sense of place? Today you are as likely to find Balinese-style interiors in the Caribbean or the Serengeti as you are in Indonesia. Even the exquisitely tasteful and much-imitated Amanresorts group, which does a deft line in cleaned-up versions of vernacular style, is far removed from the real thing. For travellers who prize the authentic above all else, there are some one-off hotels that are built out of local materials to the point where they are literally part of their locations. Here are five that use building materials which have been processed as little as possible. Each is in its element, and also made of it. STONE Le Grotte della Civita Matera, Italy The sassi of Matera, in southern Italy, are prehistoric caves which have been lived in for the past 9,000 years, and where Pasolini filmed his ?Gospel According to St Matthew?. Recently opened, Le Grotte offers the most intense troglodyte experience in town, with rough rock walls and chunky furniture made of reconditioned iron and reclaimed wood. The 18 rooms are lit, in part, by candles, and one is inside a deconsecrated church carved from the rock. There are no televisions or telephones, and it?s all the better for that. Rooms from ?225 per night. VEGETATION Kizingo Lamu, Kenya Hunkered in the sand dunes at the southern tip of Lamu island, the eight rooms at this laid-back hotel are built of local mangrove poles and woven palm leaves, with roofs of palm thatch that let the warm trade winds in under the eaves. Each banda (hut) has a large double bed, shower, loo and verandah with hammock, and is powered by its own solar panel. It?s as Crusoe as you can go while still having sanitation, hot water and lighting. Rooms from $390 per night, full board. SALT Hotel Palacio de Sal Uyuni, Bolivia In the dazzlingly beautiful salt plain more than 3km above sea level in the Bolivian Andes is this quirky hotel which has become a destination for travellers exploring the plateau. Slabs of salt are stacked to make walls, tables, chairs, beds, pillars, everything. It has a sauna, steam room and a pool filled with, yes, salt water. Bring your shades to fend off salt-blindness, and don?t lick the walls: the salt crystals are big and rough. Rooms from $180 per night, half board. MUD Hotel Djenn? Djenno Djenn?, Mali Anyone tired of Timbuktu should head to Djenn?, also in central Mali, to see a town majestically crafted from mud. It rarely rains, otherwise the great mosque, much of the town centre, and this stylish little hotel would soon be washed away. Opened in 2006 by an adventurous Swede, it has interiors decorated with Malian bogolan fabrics?guests can even take a course in this traditional mud painting in the studio next door. Rooms from $55 per night. ICE Icehotel Jukkasj?rvi, Sweden Each year 3,000 tonnes of ice are cut from the frozen Torne river near the Swedish village of Jukkasj?rvi, 200km north of the Arctic Circle. From that, during November and December, the Icehotel is built, with several dozen rooms. An outer layer of snow stops it melting on sunny days. You bed down on a slab of ice draped with reindeer skins, rooms contain ice sculptures and cocktails are served in the cold stuff too (drink fast, wear gloves). Inside the temperature never drops below a balmy -8?C. So it?s just as well you wake to a sauna and hot lingonberry juice. Hurry, though?the hotel melts back into the river each April. Rooms from $540 B&B. (Adam Roberts is news editor of Economist.com, and a former Johannesburg correspondent of the Economist) From wgstoddard at gmail.com Fri Jan 22 15:52:28 2010 From: wgstoddard at gmail.com (Bill Stoddard) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:52:28 -0500 Subject: [FoRK] My sentiments exactly... In-Reply-To: <8092dc771001221540s2e411733j2a020d6a6070286@mail.gmail.com> References: <290003.25266.qm@web33007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <337728.90721.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8092dc771001221540s2e411733j2a020d6a6070286@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B5A3A3C.1050805@gmail.com> On 1/22/10 6:40 PM, Damien Morton wrote: > On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo >> wrote: >> > >> --- On Fri, 1/22/10, Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo wrote: >> >> > ... > > >> This nonsense with corporations being able to apply as much money as they >> want to the political process is just an end run. A way for those with more >> money to, in effect, get more votes. And I see American citizens supporting >> it and trying to justify it. >> >> > Elections are still decided on a one-man one-vote basis. > > Money can buy you a lot of persuasive power, but it wont buy you a vote, per > se. > You underestimate the power of a well run propaganda campaign. Bill From dmorton at bitfurnace.com Fri Jan 22 16:23:51 2010 From: dmorton at bitfurnace.com (Damien Morton) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 11:23:51 +1100 Subject: [FoRK] My sentiments exactly... In-Reply-To: <4B5A3A3C.1050805@gmail.com> References: <290003.25266.qm@web33007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <337728.90721.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8092dc771001221540s2e411733j2a020d6a6070286@mail.gmail.com> <4B5A3A3C.1050805@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8092dc771001221623n54afd33dyfa939266103bc1f8@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Bill Stoddard wrote: > On 1/22/10 6:40 PM, Damien Morton wrote: > >> >>> Elections are still decided on a one-man one-vote basis. >> >> Money can buy you a lot of persuasive power, but it wont buy you a vote, >> per >> se. >> >> > > You underestimate the power of a well run propaganda campaign. No - I dont - it is a reality that money buys persuasion, and persuasion does work. Its not a legally recognised reality though. As in, democracy is one-man:one-vote, not one-man:one-unit-of-persuasion. From drernie at radicalcentrism.org Fri Jan 22 16:28:17 2010 From: drernie at radicalcentrism.org (Dr. Ernie Prabhakar) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:28:17 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] Money and Campaigns Re: My sentiments exactly... In-Reply-To: <4B5A3A3C.1050805@gmail.com> References: <290003.25266.qm@web33007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <337728.90721.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8092dc771001221540s2e411733j2a020d6a6070286@mail.gmail.com> <4B5A3A3C.1050805@gmail.com> Message-ID: <823D8E71-39AF-41B2-8CC2-3ACC00247755@radicalcentrism.org> On Jan 22, 2010, at 3:52 PM, Bill Stoddard wrote: On 1/22/10 6:40 PM, Damien Morton wrote: >> Elections are still decided on a one-man one-vote basis. >> >> Money can buy you a lot of persuasive power, but it wont buy you a vote, per se. > > You underestimate the power of a well run propaganda campaign. Are you sure? The data seems to imply we overestimate it: http://www.mfw.us/freakonomics-money-elections > Here?s the surprise: the amount of money spent by the candidates hardly matters at all. A winning candidate can cut his spending in half and lose only 1 percent of the vote. Meanwhile, a losing candidate who doubles his spending can expect to shift the vote in his favor by only that same 1 percent. What really matters for a political candidate is not how much you spend; what matters is who you are. Has anyone refuted this analysis? Sure, if by "well run propaganda campaign" you mean brilliant and compelling marketing -- not just a lot of ad buys --- then your point may well hold. But in that case the key factor is really the wisdom to use money wisely, which is much harder to "buy". -- Ernie P. From russell.turpin at gmail.com Fri Jan 22 16:47:51 2010 From: russell.turpin at gmail.com (Russell Turpin) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:47:51 -0600 Subject: [FoRK] Money and Campaigns Re: My sentiments exactly... In-Reply-To: <823D8E71-39AF-41B2-8CC2-3ACC00247755@radicalcentrism.org> References: <290003.25266.qm@web33007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <337728.90721.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8092dc771001221540s2e411733j2a020d6a6070286@mail.gmail.com> <4B5A3A3C.1050805@gmail.com> <823D8E71-39AF-41B2-8CC2-3ACC00247755@radicalcentrism.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote: > Here?s the surprise: the amount of money spent by the candidates hardly > matters at all. A winning candidate can cut his spending in half and lose > only 1 percent of the vote. Meanwhile, a losing candidate who doubles > his spending can expect to shift the vote in his favor by only that same > 1 percent. ... In this day of computerized districting and party triangulation, what fraction of elections are won by less than 2 per cent? It might be that the ability to shift 1 per cent of the vote, or even a half-percent, matters quite a bit. Or to put it another way, what happens to the political landscape if a party can shift the vote by, say, 0.25% in all elections? The analysis offered didn't go far enough, and far from showing that money spent on campaigns "hardly matters at all," fails to tell us how much that money matters. My view is that McCain-Feingold was a ham-handed way to address the issue, and likely didn't much, and that the SCOTUS decision overturning it was correct. But neither am I convinced by the referenced analysis that money doesn't matter. From sdw at lig.net Fri Jan 22 17:45:04 2010 From: sdw at lig.net (Stephen Williams) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:45:04 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] Money and Campaigns Re: My sentiments exactly... In-Reply-To: References: <290003.25266.qm@web33007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <337728.90721.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8092dc771001221540s2e411733j2a020d6a6070286@mail.gmail.com> <4B5A3A3C.1050805@gmail.com> <823D8E71-39AF-41B2-8CC2-3ACC00247755@radicalcentrism.org> Message-ID: <4B5A54A0.5070108@lig.net> Russell Turpin wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar > wrote: > >> Here?s the surprise: the amount of money spent by the candidates hardly >> matters at all. A winning candidate can cut his spending in half and lose >> only 1 percent of the vote. Meanwhile, a losing candidate who doubles >> his spending can expect to shift the vote in his favor by only that same >> 1 percent. ... >> > > In this day of computerized districting and party triangulation, what > fraction of elections are won by less than 2 per cent? It might be > that the ability to shift 1 per cent of the vote, or even a > half-percent, matters quite a bit. > > Or to put it another way, what happens to the political landscape if a > party can shift the vote by, say, 0.25% in all elections? > > The analysis offered didn't go far enough, and far from showing that > money spent on campaigns "hardly matters at all," fails to tell us how > much that money matters. My view is that McCain-Feingold was a > ham-handed way to address the issue, and likely didn't much, and that > the SCOTUS decision overturning it was correct. But neither am I > convinced by the referenced analysis that money doesn't matter. > My impression is that turnout is what is mainly affected by extra spending. Differential turnout can be key. sdw From sdw at lig.net Fri Jan 22 18:04:29 2010 From: sdw at lig.net (Stephen Williams) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:04:29 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] My sentiments exactly... In-Reply-To: <143775.38781.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <143775.38781.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B5A592D.3030301@lig.net> Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo wrote: > --- On Fri, 1/22/10, mdw at martinwills.com wrote: > > >>> So it's a person, but with no punishment and no taxes. >>> >> Pure awesome. >> >>> -- >>> Adam L. Beberg >>> >>> >> Not sure I can agree with your last statement... Exxon has paid in excess >> of 4 Billion Dollars to clean up the Valdez and paying various other >> fines and civil penalties. >> >> > > > But what humans were punished in law or civily for that behaviour? The ship's captain got sacked but he was a scapegoat. > The ship's captain, who made the mistake, was a scapegoat? How so? >> I also remember hearing >> about Arthur Anderson being forced out of business because of the Enron >> debacle and Enron's seniors officers being put in prison... >> >> > > > Arthur Anderson were forced out of business .... well, not really; they were forced to rebrand (cf. Accenture) ... because they crapped in their own nest and nobody would hire them until they changed their name. Simply bad optics. I don't know if any individuals from AA were ever charged. I could look but I don't care. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal > The Enron scandal, revealed in October 2001, eventually led to the > bankruptcy of the Enron Corporation, an American energy company based > in Houston, Texas, and the dissolution of Arthur Andersen, which was > one of the five largest audit and accountancy partnerships in the > world. In addition to being the largest bankruptcy reorganization in > American history at that time, Enron undoubtedly is the biggest audit > failure.[1] Arthur Anderson was dissolved, directly or indirectly as a result of begin charged with a felony. The partners that wanted to formed Accenture to go back into business. Everyone who worked at the company suffered from the stigma of having worked at a criminal enterprise with extremely poor auditing practices. But, later the Supreme Court overturned the conviction: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/05/31/DI2005053101070.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/31/AR2005053100491.html > The Supreme Court overturned the 2002 criminal conviction of Enron > Corp.'s accounting firm yesterday, nullifying with a single stroke one > of the government's biggest victories in the corporate scandals that > climaxed the bull market of the 1990s. > > The court ruled unanimously that the Houston jury that found Arthur > Andersen LLP guilty of obstruction of justice was given overly broad > instructions by the federal judge who presided at the trial. ... > The Chicago-based firm has a staff of only 200 left out of the 28,000 > people who once worked there. > Enron's senior officers were charged individually with a variety of things. Too bad this doesn't happen more often. It should be, in my view, the default rather than the exception. > That's what Sarbox is all about. > I was watching a business report last night in which Warren Buffet was quoted -- regarding situations like GM, Chrysler and the various financial institutions that required bailouts -- as saying that he believes the organizations should fail and the individuals in the C-suite of such failed organizations should be "crushed financially". Brought a smile to my lips. :) > > ...ken... > sdw From ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca Fri Jan 22 18:28:35 2010 From: ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca (Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:28:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [FoRK] My sentiments exactly... In-Reply-To: <8092dc771001221623n54afd33dyfa939266103bc1f8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <124905.92713.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Fri, 1/22/10, Damien Morton wrote: > Bill Stoddard wrote: > > > > You underestimate the power of a well run propaganda > campaign. > > > No - I dont - it is a reality that money buys persuasion, > and persuasion does work. > > Its not a legally recognised reality though. As in, > democracy is one-man:one-vote, not one-man:one-unit-of-persuasion. > Well, if you live/die by a dictionary, I suppose that definition will work for you. The reality is that it changes the one-man:one-vote relationship significantly. That's the ENTIRE point of it! They wouldn't spend the money otherwise. What I'm trying to understand, and clearly missing completely, is **What is the benefit?**, direct or indirect, to individual Americans in allowing and even supporting the status of corporations in this particular context: right to freedom of speech to the extent that their spending on political influence cannot be curtailed in any way by the elected representatives of the people? What benefit is there that is sufficiently compelling to cause intelligent and thoughtful individuals to defend it and declaim that the Supreme Court decision is an excellent outcome? That's what I'm trying to figure out. ...ken... __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/ From ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca Fri Jan 22 18:51:59 2010 From: ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca (Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:51:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [FoRK] Money and Campaigns Re: My sentiments exactly... In-Reply-To: <823D8E71-39AF-41B2-8CC2-3ACC00247755@radicalcentrism.org> Message-ID: <420440.60071.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Fri, 1/22/10, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote: > > http://www.mfw.us/freakonomics-money-elections > > > Here?s the surprise: the amount of money spent by > the candidates hardly matters at all. A winning candidate > can cut his spending in half and lose only 1 percent of the > vote. Meanwhile, a losing candidate who doubles his spending > can expect to shift the vote in his favor by only that same > 1 percent. What really matters for a political candidate is > not how much you spend; what matters is who you are. > Misses the much more important point: "Chances are you?ll give the money in one of two situations: a close race, in which you think the money will influence the outcome; or a campaign in which one candidate is a sure winner and you would like to bask in reflected glory or receive some future in-kind consideration. The one candidate you won?t contribute to is a sure loser." The corporate financial influence is directed at one of two situations. One is to help buy votes if that seems possible. That is aimed directly at overcoming the one person:one vote condition. But it's the second item that's more fundamentally scarey. It's to increase the leverage considerably. Having bought the winner - whether the winner spent all the money on the campaign or not - you've just bought 100% of the votes in that constituency, including all those against the winner. I suppose there are a few politicians in any election who honestly don't feel any obligation to those who supported their campaign heavily. But there aren't many. And they won't last long. ...ken... __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/ From ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca Fri Jan 22 19:09:28 2010 From: ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca (Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:09:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [FoRK] My sentiments exactly... In-Reply-To: <4B5A592D.3030301@lig.net> Message-ID: <780949.22406.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Fri, 1/22/10, Stephen Williams wrote: > > > > But what humans were punished in law or civily for > that behaviour? The ship's captain got sacked but he was a > scapegoat. > >??? > > The ship's captain, who made the mistake, was a scapegoat?? How so? > >From the NTSB review of the incident: "Exxon Shipping Company failed to supervise the master and provide a rested and sufficient crew for the Exxon Valdez. (cf. "Practices that related to the EXXON VALDEZ") Upon reflection, "scapegoat" was unwarranted. He deserved to bear responsibility. But he was apparently operating in a manner that was not uncommon nor disapproved within Exxon. ...ken... __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/ From bullwinklemouth at yahoo.ca Fri Jan 22 21:39:29 2010 From: bullwinklemouth at yahoo.ca (John Parsons) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 21:39:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [FoRK] Money and Campaigns Re: My sentiments exactly... In-Reply-To: <420440.60071.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <481981.44557.qm@web112318.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Hello everyone, I am new to posting here, but I've been following the discourse for a while now, and feel some trepidation at attempting, never mind achieving, your standards of rhetoric... If I may respectfully submit the following: Further to Dr Prabhakar's and Ken's points is that we don't have direct democracy, we have representative democracy, in that the voter does not have any say (and usually no knowledge) of their representative's voting choices or legislative impact on many of the mundane, day-to-day appropriations and motions. Realistically, no voter really expects a representative to do *everything* they say (especially when so many of them are "mute" to the representative). ?What this corporate money buys is access (that the majority of voters cannot compete with) to the successful candidate, their contacts, legislative aids, staff, etc... in short, the people who craft the legislation. Sure, special interests may have some impact, but the average voter is usually nowhere to be seen As for the more noticeable legislation, call me a cynic, but I find that issues can be couched so many ways, it is hard to tell what some people actually stand for (e.g. "I'm for health care, just not *this* health care") and besides, their positions are largely dictated by party line/platform. To sum, corporate and special-interest money is *invested* in politicians. The resulting influence is in turn used to craft the transfer of public money back to the special interests/corporations, usually without anyone's attention. If the candidate fails on the investment, they are not re-invested in, and there are very few successful independent representatives. [1] Regardless of the outcome of any election (i.e. independent of the voters), I don't see that changing. Did I mention that I'm a cynic? :-D [1] Free Lunch, by David Cay Johnston Cheers John Parsons --- On Sat, 1/23/10, Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo wrote: --- On Fri, 1/22/10, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote: > > http://www.mfw.us/freakonomics-money-elections > > > Here?s the surprise: the amount of money spent by > the candidates hardly matters at all. A winning candidate > can cut his spending in half and lose only 1 percent of the > vote. Meanwhile, a losing candidate who doubles his spending > can expect to shift the vote in his favor by only that same > 1 percent. What really matters for a political candidate is > not how much you spend; what matters is who you are. > Misses the much more important point: "Chances are you?ll give the money in one of two situations: a close race, in which you think the money will influence the outcome; or a campaign in which one candidate is a sure winner and you would like to bask in reflected glory or receive some future in-kind consideration. The one candidate you won?t contribute to is a sure loser." The corporate financial influence is directed at one of two situations. One is to help buy votes if that seems possible. That is aimed directly at overcoming the one person:one vote condition. But it's the second item that's more fundamentally scarey. It's to increase the leverage considerably. Having bought the winner - whether the winner spent all the money on the campaign or not - you've just bought 100% of the votes in that constituency, including all those against the winner. I suppose there are a few politicians in any election who honestly don't feel any obligation to those who supported their campaign heavily. But there aren't many. And they won't last long. ? ? ? ? ? ...ken... __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/ From sdw at lig.net Sat Jan 23 00:35:05 2010 From: sdw at lig.net (Stephen Williams) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 00:35:05 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] Money and Campaigns Re: My sentiments exactly... In-Reply-To: <481981.44557.qm@web112318.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <481981.44557.qm@web112318.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B5AB4B9.2000301@lig.net> John Parsons wrote: > Hello everyone, I am new to posting here, but I've been following the discourse for a while now, and feel some trepidation at attempting, never mind achieving, your standards of rhetoric... If I may respectfully submit the following: > Welcome to the FoRK'n fray! > Further to Dr Prabhakar's and Ken's points is that we don't have direct democracy, we have representative democracy, in that the voter does not have any say (and usually no knowledge) of their representative's voting choices or legislative impact on many of the mundane, day-to-day appropriations and motions. Realistically, no voter really expects a representative to do *everything* they say (especially when so many of them are "mute" to the representative). > > What this corporate money buys is access (that the majority of voters cannot compete with) to the successful candidate, their contacts, legislative aids, staff, etc... in short, the people who craft the legislation. Sure, special interests may have some impact, but the average voter is usually nowhere to be seen > > The solution to A) voter disengagement, B) representative malfeasance, and C) countering, curbing, or counteracting/counterbalancing corporate influence seems obvious and only a couple hops out: real cyber tracking of issues, rationale, voting, money/poll cause and effects, etc. We have some transparency now, and we'll not get full transparency to the whole process, however we can do far better than we have. Concurrent with A) much better communication and polling about what constituents want and B) fully analyzed tracking of legislator actions, we must also have some kind of dynamic "education" of voters on the concepts, issues, and position rationale, complete with CBO and/or CBO-like analysis of hard facts and actuarials. This system of systems will necessarily have some (emergent?) way of voters to argue out positions and rationale within some shared organizational framework. Individual voters can't track everything, however they can be a lot more educated than they are with trends, new knowledge, splits within their own belief group, etc. And they can express their current thinking as part of more or less constant polling, similar to but more advanced than those 'like/dislike' box knobs used during speeches. This again brings me back to thoughts about problems with and solutions to information representation and interaction. If you think about our current communication of legislative and judiciary knowledge, it is extremely fragmented, piecemeal, and more or less useless for most people. Basically, everyone is keeping everything in their head in a privately organized way with only narrow-targeted prose to bridge the gap. Still extremely primitive. > ... > Regardless of the outcome of any election (i.e. independent of the voters), I don't see that changing. Did I mention that I'm a cynic? :-D > Everything is in place for the dynamic to keep evolving. The only question is the speed. At an earlier point, it might have worried me more that corporations can participate directly. With Internet-based constant social and instant communication, I'm less worried. sdw > [1] Free Lunch, by David Cay Johnston > > Cheers > John Parsons > From jbone at place.org Sat Jan 23 09:58:15 2010 From: jbone at place.org (Jeff Bone) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 11:58:15 -0600 Subject: [FoRK] The quantum-logical theory of truth and irony In-Reply-To: <86911D74-67AA-4812-84E7-B3AF1757A2F7@place.org> References: <86911D74-67AA-4812-84E7-B3AF1757A2F7@place.org> Message-ID: On Jan 22, 2010, at 11:00 AM, Jeff Bone wrote: > On Jan 22, 2010, at 10:02 AM, Jeff Bone wrote: > >> One small lemma in the theory, worthy of note: anti-anti-irony is >> not +1 irony, but rather -4/3 irony. Anti-anti-anti-irony = -2 >> irony. However, anti-anti-meta-anti-irony = +2 irony, yet quasi- >> meta-anti-meta-anti-meta-anti-irony (or any of its well-formed >> tangles) = negative infinity +/- 2/3. (Dimensional analysis >> reveals this number, intriguingly, to be unitless.) > > ... > > However, when the number of such applications has been "lifted" > transfinitely via the application of e.g. meta or other operators, > the sign becomes unknowable. Only the linear subsequences of such > applications have deterministic sign. "Aha!" you say. "Caught you! This is all, obviously, complete bullshit. If, as you say, that applications of meta cause the sign- twist of an anti-modified truson to become unknowable, then your earlier claim: anti-anti-meta-anti-irony = +2 irony ..must CLEARLY be false! You just said the sign of that was unknowable, yet here you are putting a sign on it! You're just making this shit up, it's total nonsense!" -- Well, that's a good catch. Allow me to explain. Using the point-free strict-applicative notation of the so-called "D3" (Dirac, Derrida, Dali) combinator calculus and its universally-understood combinatoric precedence conventions, we've got _' <-- - - ^ - _ Breaking that down, it's clear that this is equal to (-) (-) (` -) _ or, (- -) (` -) _ that is (()()) `()_ Now, applying transubstantiation, we have (- -) _ ~`~ ^^ | __ _ which is to say (by means of translation via i(Z)-elliptical semiotic hyper-encabulation) (- -) _ .. ()()()()((())__(())_(()())) _ (`(())) e ^ i (()()) ^^ | __ pi (N.b., NOTE THE NULLARY SPLICE TERM (`(())) --- IT IS ESSENTIAL!) Here we've got some choices to make in order to realize the implicit psi-terms. We could try (remote) intransitory convolution, but hen we'd have to drag in Dirac's equation and solve for the non-nullary adjoint spinor factors of the previous expression. This generates some notational confusion as we have to distinctly identify the functional fix-points, and is thus somewhat aesthetically unpleasing for hopefully obvious reasons**: ((@?@??@???^^()()).??, ???(+)@-_?@@_>@@@) //, ,$_?@_?@@__?!@_!!? = _i !__ d,,$_ at _@@/d_@@ x ()()()()((())__(())_(()()) _) `` e ^ i (()()) ^^ | __ pi So substitutiary locomotion it must be! Thus: (- -) _ .. (()()) _ (^) (-) e ^ i (()()) ^^ | __ pi N.b., note the +/- negative infinity term. Also, see note below. Since (()()) ^^ | __ = ^^ | __ ...we can drop the minus sign on that. By Seinfeld's Law we know that %.|[-]+| // ((()())(()())) = 0 --> |(()()) _| > 0 At this point, according to standard convention, we have "normalized" by assuming perfectly spherical chickens, and poof! The +/- (negative) infinity disappears as it is merely a linear component of the imaginary part of the complex exponent of the expression whose base is epsilon in real Lorentz-Boole space. The geometric justification of this "normalization" is controversial, but generally it is understood to be a fractional twist-tangle of 2/3-rotation occurring --- *solely* --- in imaginary Lorentz-Boole-space. More simply and formally, all other relevant parts of that subexpression reduce to one as the negation of Euler's identity, leaving us merely with the cardinal scalar. This can therefore leave us with no doubt that | ()()_()()_ `,(()_) | _, --> ((()())(()())) .: anti-anti-meta-anti-irony = +2 irony. QED. Now, had the number of linear applications of meta been even, or had they been nested, or if chickens aren't spherical, we would have another result entirely. As homework for the reader: prove that it is impossible to reduce any such D3-clause of any number of truson- variables > 1 with meta-order > 5 to 1st-order normal form with certain sign-twist. (This is the impossibility theorem I eluded to earlier; its implications should be clear. Hint to the studious: don't bother with the diagonalization hack, that won't work in this case.) Now pedantry, OTOOOH.... jb (No, IANA(Befunge programmer). And no, none of this is serious. It is, obviously, complete bullshit. ;-) That said, it is actually some well-formed and lovingly-crafted complete bullshit, as I actually --- sadly, maybe tragically --- put some real time and thought into the construction of those expressions and their manipulation. No, really. That *is* Dirac's equation, sort of, in some unbearable (but internally more-or-less consistent) notation that I concocted on-the- fly. Ugh. WTF, really. Talk about taking a joke and running it into the ground.) ** For no apparent reason, taking the Hermitian conjugate here with respect to the second-order psi-term, when represented in ASCII, gives us: .+~ :xx++:: :`. - .!!X!~"?!`~!~!. :-:. < .!!!H":.~ ::+!~~!!!~ `%X. ' ~~!M!!>!!X?!!!!!!!!!!...!~. : ' >!~ '!! ! .!XMM8$$$$$@$$$R888HMM!!XXHWX$8$RM$MR5$8MMMMR$$@MMM!!! < ~ ! ' ! ~!! :!:XXHXMMMR$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$8$$$$8$$$MMR$M$$$MMMMMM$$$MMM!!!! ~ !! !Mf x@#"~!t?M~!$$$$$RMMM?Xb@!~`??MS$M at MMM@RMRMMM$$$$$ $RMMMMM!!!! ! '!~ !XMMMMMMMMXMM!!:!MM$MMMBRM$$$$8MMMM~ `?H!M$R>'MMMM?MMM!MM6!X!XM$$$MM$MM$$$$MX$f `MXM$8X MMMMMMM!!MM!!!!XM$$$MM$MM$$$RX@" ~M?$MM !MMMMXM!!MM!!!XMMM$$$8$XM$$RM!` !XMMM !MMMMXX!XM!!!HMMMM$$$$RH$$M!~ 'M?MM `?MMXMM!XM!XMMMMM$$$$$RM$$# `>MMk ~MMHM!XM!XMMM$$$$$$BRM$M" ~`?M. !M?MXM!X$$@M$$$$$$RMM# `!M !!MM!X8$$$RM$$$$MM#` !% `~~~X8$$$$8M$$RR#` !!x:xH$$$$$$$R$R*` ~!?MMMMRRRM at M#` -Sushil- `~???MMM?M"` ``~~ (credit where credit is due: http://www.chris.com/ASCII/art/html/einstein.html ;-) From sdw at lig.net Sat Jan 23 17:36:59 2010 From: sdw at lig.net (Stephen Williams) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:36:59 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] My sentiments exactly... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B5BA43B.3060603@lig.net> Jeff Bone wrote: > > Cf. "So Much Good News" > > http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/01/so-much-good-news.html > > In the US, Med Reform is dead and the Supreme Court upholds free > speechbig-time. ... (Random link from a random mailing list, never noticed "Smirking Chimp" before...) Interesting details against: http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/26282 > I would also like to quote Supreme Court Justice Byron White: > > "The 1st Amendment protects the right to speak, not the right to spend." > > "The Court is most vulnerable and comes nearest to illegitimacy when > it deals with judge-made constitutional law having little or no > cognizable roots in the language or design of the Constitution." > After fighting a revolution > > After fighting a revolution to end the exploitation by English > corporations, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of > corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a > business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to > influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society. > > For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained > tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of > widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few > corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed > corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters > but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated > businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did > not specifically allow. > > Everything begins and ends with the 14th Amendment, which was written > to assure political rights for the newly-freed slaves. The hijacking > and re-interpretation of this amendment, is the loophole corporations > ultimately used to be granted the same rights as US citizens under the > Bill of Rights. > > The First Amendment wasn't extended to include corporations until 1936 > (Grosjean v. American Press Co). > > I think such a massive change in the way we run our country, in the > way our "democracy" works, needs to atleast be very very clearly based > on the Constitution. But it's not. > > Corporate Personhood, the very core of this entire problem, is based > on reinterpretation of amendments, illegitimate precedence (Santa > Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad), loopholes and deals struck > by corporate lawyers (acting as both attorneys and judges). > > When such a massive and fundemental change of society is built on a > history of suspicious legislation and systematic redefinition of our > very constitution, is it not worthy of our scepticism? > > Our rights as citizens are being cancelled out by extending the same > rights to legally immortal superbeings, who can use their obvious > advantages to tweak the system as they see fit. > > That's not democracy. It's a perverse form of theocratic plutocracy, > where power is totally and completely removed from the people. > _______ > > Capitalism has destroyed our belief in any effective power but that of > self interest backed by force. > ~George Bernard Shaw > > Capitalism is the legitimate racket of the ruling class. > ~Al Capone > Submitted by Alabastermaster on January 23, 2010 - 4:42pm. > Why Santa Clara should scareya.... > > ....or...technically...why its legal misinterpretation made law should > at least inconvenience you a little. > > Santa Clara was instrumental in giving corporations all the RIGHTS of > a (natural) person with none of the responsibilities listed in the > Constitution. E.g., despite corporations being state organizations > (chartered by states and granted the state privilege of issuing public > securities), a series of equally corrupt supreme corporate court > decisions ruled that corps did not have to observe freedom of speech, > due process, freedom of religion, etc. This why the government > observes due process when terminating an employee (just cause) while > corporations could fire you for refusing to give the CEO a blowjob. > Thanks to court cases and subsequent anti-discrimination laws > minimally limiting extreme at-will termination abuses, they now must > use a pretext before doing so. > > The post-Civil War empowering of corporations gave them exorbitant > privileges of citizenship and limited liability that shielded them > from government regulators and creditors, thanks to the legislators > and judges they bought. The stank hacks whoring on the Supreme Court > in the post-Civil War era were usually ex-corporate lawyers with a > vast repertoire of experience of whoring the legal profession for > Corporate. Not only were blatantly biased pro-business decisions such > as Santa Clara the product of these corporate flacks posing as > jurists, but so were racist decisions such as the infamous Plessy v > Ferguson, which was the prostituting of constitutional law that > subjected African Americans to a century of Jim Crow. The corporate > Supreme Court decisions from this period are among the worst ever > reached in history, containing some of the most embarrassing and > imbecilic legal reasoning ever put to court reporter paper. Santa > Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, the case where a coterie of > corporate baboons, with one notable exception (Justice Harlan), > awkwardly, ignorantly, ambiguously, and without legal precedent > awarded corporations personage status to frustrate government efforts > to regulate them, is Exhibit A. > > Until 1886 corporations were not considered persons. It was clear what > they were: artificial creations of their owners and the state > legislatures. They were regulated and taxed. They could sue and be > sued. Corporations did not need to be declared a ?natural person? to > sue or be sued, otherwise there would not have been a Supreme Court > case called ?Santa Clara? (because a party in that case, Southern > Pacific Railroad, was a corporation and was sued prior to the Supreme > Court hearing the case, (see Mr. Obvious)). They were subject to all > of the laws of the land as well as any restrictions placed in their > charters. But from 1819 until 1886 the wealthiest business people in > that land sought to use the Federal government, particularly the > courts, to get their corporations out from under the control of the > states and their citizens, exactly as was done in the Reagan/Bush era. > Those 19th Century corporate lackeys subjected African Americans to a > century of Jim Crow discrimination. They made corporations into a > vehicle for the wealthy elite to control the economy and the > government. They vastly increased the power of the Supreme Court > itself over elected government officials in order to increase and > protect the power of their corporate masters. > > So, ?Santa Clara? is easy. All of the constitutional rights afforded > to actual persons, but none of the responsibilities for observance of > basic fundamental rights, and historians will argue which of the > corrupt Supreme Corporate Courts were the most corrupt: those whoring > from the bench in Robber Baron era, or those prostituting the > Constitution during the waning years of yet another failed attempt at > corporate empire. What a racket. Who was the idiot that said crime > doesn't pay? > _______ > > ?It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary > depends on his not understanding it.? -Upton Sinclair > > ?Men of the same trade seldom meet but that it ends in a conspiracy > against the public.? -Adam Smith > Submitted by SnoopDopeyDogg on January 23, 2010 - 3:43pm. sdw > > > jb From marcerickson at gmail.com Sat Jan 23 17:46:54 2010 From: marcerickson at gmail.com (Marc Erickson) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:46:54 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] The Wrecking Crew - A Low, Dishonest Decade In-Reply-To: <735671.72851.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <4B576132.3030608@gmail.com> <735671.72851.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0084B1476FE44BB8AEA850A7A308861F@mobile3> "if we just [keep a positive attitude/trust in God/Pick One]". Is that trademarked? How about calling it by a suitably Polyannaish name? ;-) Marc From marcerickson at gmail.com Sat Jan 23 18:33:50 2010 From: marcerickson at gmail.com (Marc Erickson) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 18:33:50 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] NASA's Puffin In-Reply-To: <021d01ca9a12$d0bd34b0$72379e10$@com> References: <021d01ca9a12$d0bd34b0$72379e10$@com> Message-ID: <6AA624D7DEE347AE862206EDAE2E5D53@mobile3> Oh great. People can't drive now - can you imagine drunks in this thing? Or teenagers and seniors? And they take 3x the space of an automobile to store... I love aircraft - but in the right hands... Marc -----Original Message----- From: fork-bounces at xent.com [mailto:fork-bounces at xent.com] On Behalf Of Michael Cummins Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 12:55 PM To: 'Friends of Rohit Khare' Subject: [FoRK] NASA's Puffin This is an interesting concept vehicle: http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-01/nasas-puffin-aircraft-steal thy-one-man-vtol-aircraft MEC _______________________________________________ FoRK mailing list http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork From marcerickson at gmail.com Sat Jan 23 18:42:39 2010 From: marcerickson at gmail.com (Marc Erickson) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 18:42:39 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] The quantum-logical theory of truth and irony In-Reply-To: References: <86911D74-67AA-4812-84E7-B3AF1757A2F7@place.org> Message-ID: Can someone help me pick up the pieces of my exploded head? ;-) Marc On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Jeff Bone wrote: > > On Jan 22, 2010, at 11:00 AM, Jeff Bone wrote: > > On Jan 22, 2010, at 10:02 AM, Jeff Bone wrote: >> >> One small lemma in the theory, worthy of note: anti-anti-irony is not +1 >>> irony, but rather -4/3 irony. Anti-anti-anti-irony = -2 irony. However, >>> anti-anti-meta-anti-irony = +2 irony, yet >>> quasi-meta-anti-meta-anti-meta-anti-irony (or any of its well-formed >>> tangles) = negative infinity +/- 2/3. (Dimensional analysis reveals this >>> number, intriguingly, to be unitless.) >>> >> >> ... >> >> >> However, when the number of such applications has been "lifted" >> transfinitely via the application of e.g. meta or other operators, the sign >> becomes unknowable. Only the linear subsequences of such applications have >> deterministic sign. >> > > "Aha!" you say. "Caught you! This is all, obviously, complete bullshit. > If, as you say, that applications of meta cause the sign-twist of an > anti-modified truson to become unknowable, then your earlier claim: > > > anti-anti-meta-anti-irony = +2 irony > > ..must CLEARLY be false! You just said the sign of that was unknowable, > yet here you are putting a sign on it! You're just making this shit up, > it's total nonsense!" > > -- > > Well, that's a good catch. Allow me to explain. Using the point-free > strict-applicative notation of the so-called "D3" (Dirac, Derrida, Dali) > combinator calculus and its universally-understood combinatoric precedence > conventions, we've got > > > _' <-- - - ^ - _ > > > Breaking that down, it's clear that this is equal to > > > (-) (-) (` -) _ > > > or, > > > (- -) (` -) _ > > > that is > > > (()()) `()_ > > > Now, applying transubstantiation, we have > > > (- -) _ ~`~ ^^ | __ _ > > > which is to say (by means of translation via i(Z)-elliptical semiotic > hyper-encabulation) > > > (- -) _ .. ()()()()((())__(())_(()())) _ (`(())) e ^ i (()()) ^^ | > __ pi > > > (N.b., NOTE THE NULLARY SPLICE TERM (`(())) --- IT IS ESSENTIAL!) > > Here we've got some choices to make in order to realize the implicit > psi-terms. We could try (remote) intransitory convolution, but hen we'd > have to drag in Dirac's equation and solve for the non-nullary adjoint > spinor factors of the previous expression. This generates some notational > confusion as we have to distinctly identify the functional fix-points, and > is thus somewhat aesthetically unpleasing for hopefully obvious reasons**: > > > ((@?@??@???^^()()).??, > ???(+)@-_?@@_>@@@) > //, ,$_?@_?@@__?!@_!!? > > = > > _i !__ d,,$_ at _@@/d_@@ > x ()()()()((())__(())_(()()) _) > `` e ^ i (()()) ^^ | __ pi > > > So substitutiary locomotion it must be! Thus: > > > (- -) _ .. (()()) _ (^) (-) e ^ i (()()) ^^ | __ pi > > > N.b., note the +/- negative infinity term. Also, see note below. Since > > > (()()) ^^ | __ = ^^ | __ > > > ...we can drop the minus sign on that. By Seinfeld's Law we know that > > > %.|[-]+| // ((()())(()())) = 0 --> |(()()) _| > 0 > > > At this point, according to standard convention, we have "normalized" by > assuming perfectly spherical chickens, and poof! The +/- (negative) > infinity disappears as it is merely a linear component of the imaginary part > of the complex exponent of the expression whose base is epsilon in real > Lorentz-Boole space. The geometric justification of this "normalization" is > controversial, but generally it is understood to be a fractional > twist-tangle of 2/3-rotation occurring --- *solely* --- in imaginary > Lorentz-Boole-space. More simply and formally, all other relevant parts of > that subexpression reduce to one as the negation of Euler's identity, > leaving us merely with the cardinal scalar. This can therefore leave us > with no doubt that > > > | ()()_()()_ `,(()_) | _, --> ((()())(()())) > > > .: anti-anti-meta-anti-irony = +2 irony. QED. > > > Now, had the number of linear applications of meta been even, or had they > been nested, or if chickens aren't spherical, we would have another result > entirely. As homework for the reader: prove that it is impossible to > reduce any such D3-clause of any number of truson-variables > 1 with > meta-order > 5 to 1st-order normal form with certain sign-twist. (This is > the impossibility theorem I eluded to earlier; its implications should be > clear. Hint to the studious: don't bother with the diagonalization hack, > that won't work in this case.) > > > Now pedantry, OTOOOH.... > > > > jb > > > > (No, IANA(Befunge programmer). And no, none of this is serious. It is, > obviously, complete bullshit. ;-) That said, it is actually some > well-formed and lovingly-crafted complete bullshit, as I actually --- sadly, > maybe tragically --- put some real time and thought into the construction of > those expressions and their manipulation. No, really. That *is* Dirac's > equation, sort of, in some unbearable (but internally more-or-less > consistent) notation that I concocted on-the-fly. Ugh. WTF, really. Talk > about taking a joke and running it into the ground.) > > > ** For no apparent reason, taking the Hermitian conjugate here with > respect to the second-order psi-term, when represented in ASCII, gives us: > > .+~ :xx++:: > :`. - .!!X!~"?!`~!~!. :-:. > < .!!!H":.~ ::+!~~!!!~ `%X. > ' ~~!M!!>!!X?!!!!!!!!!!...!~. > <: ` :~ .:<~!!M!XXHM!!!X!XXHtMMHHHX! ~ ~ > ~~~~<' ~!!!:!!!!!XM!!M!!!XHMMMRMSXXX!!!!!!: <` > `< <::!!!!!X!X?M!!M!!XMMMMXXMMMM??!!!!!?!:~< > : '~~~ : ::`~!!!MMMMXXXtMMMMMMMMMMMHX!!!!!!HMMMMMX!!!!!: ~ > '~:~!!!!!MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMXXX!!!M??MMMM!!X!!i: > <~ ~:~~!!!!?MMMMMM at M@RMRRR$@@MMRMRMMMMMMXSX!!!XMMMX :XX .:X! :!?! !?XMMMMM8$$$$8$$$$$$$$$$$$$$BBR$$MMM at MMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!X > ~ :~~~ !:X!XMM8$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$RR$$MMMMR8NMMMMMMMMMMMMM ~: !X!``~~ :~XM?SMM$B$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$BR$$MMM$@R$M$MMMMMM$MMMMX?L > X~. : `!!!MM#$RR$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$R$$$$$R$M$MMRRRM8MMMMMMM$$MMMM!?: > ! ~ <~ !! !!~`` :!!MR$$$$$$$$$$RMM!?!??RR?#R8$M$MMMRM$RMMMM8MM$MMM!M!:> > : ' >!~ '!! ! .!XMM8$$$$$@$$$R888HMM!!XXHWX$8$RM$MR5$8MMMMR$$@MMM!!!< ~ > ! ' ! ~!! :!:XXHXMMMR$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$8$$$$8$$$MMR$M$$$MMMMMM$$$MMM!!!! > ~ !!HMMMMMMMM$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$MMM$M$$MM8MMMR$$MMXX!!!!/:` > ~!!! !!! !XMMMMMMMMMMR$$$$$$$$$$$$R$RRR$$$$$$$MMMM$RM$MM8MM$$$M8MMMX!!!!: > !~ ~ !!~ XMMM%!!!XMMX?M$$$$$$$$B$MMSXXXH?MR$$8MMMM$$@$8$M$B$$$$B$MMMX!!!! > ~! !! 'XMM?~~!!!MMMX!M$$$$$$MRMMM?!%MMMH!R$MMMMMM$$$MM$8$$$$$$MR at M > !!!!! > <> !! !Mf x@#"~!t?M~!$$$$$RMMM?Xb@!~`??MS$M at MMM > @RMRMMM$$$$$$RMMMMM!!!! > ! '!~ $R$BR$MMMMX??!X!! > ! '! !!X!!!?::xH!HM:MM$RM8M$RHMMMX...XMMMMM$RMMRRMMMMMMM8MMMMMMMMX!!X! > ! ~ !!?:::!!!MXMR~!MMMRMM8MMMMMS!!M?XXMMMMM$$M$M$RMMMM8$RMMMMMMMM%X!! > ~ ~ !~~X!!XHMMM?~ XM$MMMMRMMMMMM at MMMMMMMMMM$8 at MMMMMMMMRMMMMM > ?!MMM%HX! > !!!!XSMMXXMM .MMMMMMMM$$$BB8MMM at MMMMMMMR > $RMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMXX!?H!XX > XHXMMMMMMMM!.XMMMMMMMMMR$$$8M$$$$$M at 88MMMMMMMMMMMMMMM > !XMMMXX!!!XM > ~ ' ~HMMMMMMMMM~!MM8 at 8MMM > !MM$$8$$$$$$$$$$$$$$8MMMMMMM!!XMMMM$8MR!MX!MM > 'MMMMMMMMMM'MM$$$$$MMXMXM$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$RMMMMMMM!!MMM$$$$MMMMM 'MMMMMMMMM!'MM$$$$$RMMMMMM$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$MMM!MMMX!!MM$$$$$M$$M$M!M > !MMMMMM$M! !MR$$$RMM8$8MXM8$$$$$$$$$$$$NMMM!MMM!!!?MRR$$RXM$$MR!M > !M?XMM$$M.< !MMMMMMSUSRMXM$8R$$$$$$$$$$#$MM!MMM!X!t8$M$MMMHMRMMX$ > ,-, '!!!MM$RMSMX:.?!XMHRR$RM88$$$8M$$$$$R$$$$8MM!MMXMH!M$$RMMMMRNMMX!$ > -'` '!!!MMMMMMMMMM8$RMM8MBMRRMR8RMMM$$$$8$8$$$MMXMMMMM!MR$MM!M?MMMMMM$ > 'XX!MMMMMMM at RMM$MM@ > $$BM$$$M8MMMMR$$$$@$$$$MM!MMMMXX$MRM!XH!!??XMMM > `!!!M?MHMMM$RMMMR@$$$$MR at MMMM8MMMM > $$$$$$$WMM!MMMM!M$RMM!!.MM!%M?~! > !!!!!!MMMMBMM$$RRMMMR8MMMMMRMMMMM8$$$$$$$MM?MMMM!f#RM~ `~!!!~! > ~!!HX!!~!?MM?MMM??MM?MMMMMMMMMRMMMM$$$$$MMM!MMMM!! > '!!!MX!:`~~`~~!~~!!!!XM!!!?!?MMMM8$$$$$MMMMXMMM!! > !!~M at MX.. !!!?MRMM!:!XHMHMMMMMMMM! X!SMMX$$MM$$$RMXMMM~ > !M!MMMM>!XMMMMMMMMXMM!!:!MM$MMMBRM$$$$8MMMM~ > `?H!M$R>'MMMM?MMM!MM6!X!XM$$$MM$MM$$$$MX$f > `MXM$8X MMMMMMM!!MM!!!!XM$$$MM$MM$$$RX@" > ~M?$MM !MMMMXM!!MM!!!XMMM$$$8$XM$$RM!` > !XMMM !MMMMXX!XM!!!HMMMM$$$$RH$$M!~ > 'M?MM `?MMXMM!XM!XMMMMM$$$$$RM$$# > `>MMk ~MMHM!XM!XMMM$$$$$$BRM$M" > ~`?M. !M?MXM!X$$@M$$$$$$RMM# > `!M !!MM!X8$$$RM$$$$MM#` > !% `~~~X8$$$$8M$$RR#` > !!x:xH$$$$$$$R$R*` > ~!?MMMMRRRM at M#` -Sushil- > `~???MMM?M"` > ``~~ > > (credit where credit is due: > http://www.chris.com/ASCII/art/html/einstein.html ;-) > > > _______________________________________________ > FoRK mailing list > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork > -- Vancouver Computers Examiner http://www.examiner.com/x-34009-Vancouver-Computers-Examiner A Canadian Geek http://www.lockergnome.com/nexus/marcerickson From ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca Sat Jan 23 19:31:47 2010 From: ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca (Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:31:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [FoRK] The quantum-logical theory of truth and irony In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <743430.36807.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The twins keeping you up after your bedtime, Jeff?? A little sleep deprived are we??? ...ken... --- On Sat, 1/23/10, Jeff Bone wrote: > From: Jeff Bone > Subject: Re: [FoRK] The quantum-logical theory of truth and irony > To: "Friends of Rohit Khare" > Received: Saturday, January 23, 2010, 11:58 AM > > On Jan 22, 2010, at 11:00 AM, Jeff Bone wrote: > > > On Jan 22, 2010, at 10:02 AM, Jeff Bone wrote: > > > >> One small lemma in the theory, worthy of > note:? anti-anti-irony is not +1 irony, but rather -4/3 > irony.? Anti-anti-anti-irony = -2 irony.? However, > anti-anti-meta-anti-irony = +2 irony, yet > quasi-meta-anti-meta-anti-meta-anti-irony (or any of its > well-formed tangles) = negative infinity +/- 2/3.? > (Dimensional analysis reveals this number, intriguingly, to > be unitless.) > > > > ... > > > > However, when the number of such applications has been > "lifted" transfinitely via the application of e.g. meta or > other operators, the sign becomes unknowable.? Only the > linear subsequences of such applications have deterministic > sign. > > "Aha!"? you say.? "Caught you!? This is all, > obviously, complete bullshit.? If, as you say, that > applications of meta cause the sign-twist of an > anti-modified truson to become unknowable, then your earlier > claim: > > ??? anti-anti-meta-anti-irony = +2 irony > > ..must CLEARLY be false!? You just said the sign of > that was unknowable, yet here you are putting a sign on > it!? You're just making this shit up, it's total > nonsense!" > > -- > > Well, that's a good catch.? Allow me to explain.? > Using the point-free strict-applicative notation of the > so-called "D3" (Dirac, Derrida, Dali) combinator calculus > and its universally-understood combinatoric precedence > conventions, we've got > > > ??? _' <-- - - ^ - _ > > > Breaking that down, it's clear that this is equal to > > > ??? (-) (-) (` -) _ > > > or, > > > ??? (- -) (` -)? _ > > > that is > > > ??? (()()) `()_ > > > Now, applying transubstantiation, we have > > > ??? (- -) _ ~`~ ^^ | __? _ > > > which is to say (by means of translation via > i(Z)-elliptical semiotic hyper-encabulation) > > > ??? (- -) _ .. ()()()()((())__(())_(()())) _ > (`(())) e ^ i (()()) ^^ | __ pi > > > (N.b., NOTE THE NULLARY SPLICE TERM (`(())) --- IT IS > ESSENTIAL!) > > Here we've got some choices to make in order to realize the > implicit psi-terms.? We could try (remote) intransitory > convolution, but hen we'd have to drag in Dirac's equation > and solve for the non-nullary adjoint spinor factors of the > previous expression.? This generates some notational > confusion as we have to distinctly identify the functional > fix-points, and is thus somewhat aesthetically unpleasing > for hopefully obvious reasons**: > > > ??? ((@?@??@???^^()()).??, > ??? ??? > ???(+)@-_?@@_>@@@) > ??? ??? //,? > ,$_?@_?@@__?!@_!!? > > ??? ??? = > > ??? _i !__ d,,$_ at _@@/d_@@ > ??? ??? x? > ()()()()((())__(())_(()()) _) > ??? ??? `` e ^ i (()()) ^^ | > __ pi > > > So substitutiary locomotion it must be!? Thus: > > > ??? (- -) _ .. (()()) _ (^) (-) e ^ i (()()) > ^^ | __ pi > > > N.b., note the +/- negative infinity term.? Also, see > note below.? Since > > > ??? (()()) ^^ | __ = ^^ | __ > > > ...we can drop the minus sign on that.? By Seinfeld's > Law we know that > > > ??? %.|[-]+| // ((()())(()())) = 0 --> > |(()()) _| > 0 > > > At this point, according to standard convention, we have > "normalized" by assuming perfectly spherical chickens, and > poof!???The +/- (negative) infinity > disappears as it is merely a linear component of the > imaginary part of the complex exponent of the expression > whose base is epsilon in real Lorentz-Boole space.? The > geometric justification of this "normalization" is > controversial, but generally it is understood to be a > fractional twist-tangle of 2/3-rotation occurring --- > *solely* --- in imaginary Lorentz-Boole-space.? More > simply and formally, all other relevant parts of that > subexpression reduce to one as the negation of Euler's > identity, leaving us merely with the cardinal scalar.? > This can therefore leave us with no doubt that > > > ??? | ()()_()()_ `,(()_) | _, --> > ((()())(()())) > > > .:? anti-anti-meta-anti-irony = +2 irony.? QED. > > > Now, had the number of linear applications of meta been > even, or had they been nested, or if chickens aren't > spherical, we would have another result entirely.? As > homework for the reader:? prove that it is impossible > to reduce any such D3-clause of any number of > truson-variables > 1 with meta-order > 5 to 1st-order > normal form with certain sign-twist.? (This is the > impossibility theorem I eluded to earlier;? its > implications should be clear.? Hint to the > studious:? don't bother with the diagonalization hack, > that won't work in this case.) > > > Now pedantry, OTOOOH.... > > > > jb > > > > (No, IANA(Befunge programmer).? And no, none of this > is serious. It is, obviously, complete bullshit.? > ;-)? That said, it is actually some well-formed and > lovingly-crafted complete bullshit, as I actually --- sadly, > maybe tragically --- put some real time and thought into the > construction of those expressions and their > manipulation.? No, really.? That *is* Dirac's > equation, sort of, in some unbearable (but internally > more-or-less consistent) notation that I concocted > on-the-fly.? Ugh.? WTF, really.? Talk about > taking a joke and running it into the ground.) > > > **? For no apparent reason, taking the Hermitian > conjugate here with respect to the second-order psi-term, > when represented in ASCII, gives us: > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ???.+~? ? ? ? ? > ? ? ? :xx++:: > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ???:`. -? ? ? ? ? > .!!X!~"?!`~!~!. :-:. > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? ???.!!!H":.~ ::+!~~!!!~ `%X. > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? '? ? ? ? ? > ???~~!M!!>!!X?!!!!!!!!!!...!~. > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? <: `???:~ > .:<~!!M!XXHM!!!X!XXHtMMHHHX!? ~ ~ > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ~~~~<' ~!!!:!!!!!XM!!M!!!XHMMMRMSXXX!!!!!!:? <` > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? ` <::!!!!!X!X?M!!M!!XMMMMXXMMMM??!!!!!?!:~< > ? ? ? ? ? ? > ???: > '~~~ ? ? ? ? ? ? :? ? > ::`~!!!MMMMXXXtMMMMMMMMMMMHX!!!!!!HMMMMMX!!!!!: ~ > ? ? ? ? ? ? > ???'~:~!!!!!MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMXXX!!!M??MMMM!!X!!i: > ? ? ? ? ? ? > ???<~ ? ? ? ? ? ? > ???~:~~!!!!?MMMMMM at M@RMRRR$@@MMRMRMMMMMMXSX!!!XMMMX ? ? ? ? ? ???:XX > ? ? ? ? ???.:X! > ? ? ? ? ? :!?! > !?XMMMMM8$$$$8$$$$$$$$$$$$$$BBR$$MMM at MMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!X > ? ? ? ? ~ ? ? ? ? :~~~ > !:X!XMM8$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$RR$$MMMMR8NMMMMMMMMMMMMM ? ? > ~: ? > !X!``~~???:~XM?SMM$B$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$BR$$MMM$@R$M$MMMMMM$MMMMX?L > X~.? ? ? : > `!!!MM#$RR$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$R$$$$$R$M$MMRRRM8MMMMMMM$$MMMM!?: > ! ~ <~? !! !!~`` > :!!MR$$$$$$$$$$RMM!?!??RR?#R8$M$MMMRM$RMMMM8MM$MMM!M!:> > : ' >!~ '!!? > !???.!XMM8$$$$$@$$$R888HMM!!XXHWX$8$RM$MR5$8MMMMR$$@MMM!!!< > ~ > !? ' !? ~!! > :!:XXHXMMMR$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$8$$$$8$$$MMR$M$$$MMMMMM$$$MMM!!!! > ~ !!HMMMMMMMM$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$MMM$M$$MM8MMMR$$MMXX!!!!/:` > ? ~!!!? !!! > !XMMMMMMMMMMR$$$$$$$$$$$$R$RRR$$$$$$$MMMM$RM$MM8MM$$$M8MMMX!!!!: > ? !~ ~? !!~ > XMMM%!!!XMMX?M$$$$$$$$B$MMSXXXH?MR$$8MMMM$$@$8$M$B$$$$B$MMMX!!!! > ? ~!? ? !! > 'XMM?~~!!!MMMX!M$$$$$$MRMMM?!%MMMH!R$MMMMMM$$$MM$8$$$$$$MR at M!!!!! > ? <>? ? !!? !Mf > x@#"~!t?M~!$$$$$RMMM?Xb@!~`??MS$M at MMM@RMRMMM$$$$$$RMMMMM!!!! > ? !? ? '!~ > -XXXMMRMBMMM$RMMM@$R$BR$MMMMX??!X!! > ? !? ? '!? > !!X!!!?::xH!HM:MM$RM8M$RHMMMX...XMMMMM$RMMRRMMMMMMM8MMMMMMMMX!!X! > ? !? ???~? > !!?:::!!!MXMR~!MMMRMM8MMMMMS!!M?XXMMMMM$$M$M$RMMMM8$RMMMMMMMM%X!! > ? ~? ???~? !~~X!!XHMMM?~ > XM$MMMMRMMMMMM at MMMMMMMMMM$8 at MMMMMMMMRMMMMM?!MMM%HX! > ? ? ? ? ???!!!!XSMMXXMM > .MMMMMMMM$$$BB8MMM at MMMMMMMR$RMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMXX!?H!XX > ? ? ? ? > ???XHXMMMMMMMM!.XMMMMMMMMMR$$$8M$$$$$M at 88MMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!XMMMXX!!!XM > ? ? ? > ~??? ? ? ? > '???~HMMMMMMMMM~!MM8 at 8MMM!MM$$8$$$$$$$$$$$$$$8MMMMMMM!!XMMMM$8MR!MX!MM > ? ? ? ? ? > 'MMMMMMMMMM'MM$$$$$MMXMXM$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$RMMMMMMM!!MMM$$$$MMMMM ? ? ? ? ? > 'MMMMMMMMM!'MM$$$$$RMMMMMM$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$MMM!MMMX!!MM$$$$$M$$M$M!M > ? ? ? ? ???!MMMMMM$M! > !MR$$$RMM8$8MXM8$$$$$$$$$$$$NMMM!MMM!!!?MRR$$RXM$$MR!M > ? ? ? ? > ???!M?XMM$$M.< > !MMMMMMSUSRMXM$8R$$$$$$$$$$#$MM!MMM!X!t8$M$MMMHMRMMX$ > ? ? > ,-,???'!!!MM$RMSMX:.?!XMHRR$RM88$$$8M$$$$$R$$$$8MM!MMXMH!M$$RMMMMRNMMX!$ > ???-'`? ? > '!!!MMMMMMMMMM8$RMM8MBMRRMR8RMMM$$$$8$8$$$MMXMMMMM!MR$MM!M?MMMMMM$ > ? ? ? ? ? > 'XX!MMMMMMM at RMM$MM@$$BM$$$M8MMMMR$$$$@$$$$MM!MMMMXX$MRM!XH!!??XMMM > ? ? ? ? ? > `!!!M?MHMMM$RMMMR@$$$$MR at MMMM8MMMM$$$$$$$WMM!MMMM!M$RMM!!.MM!%M?~! > ? ? ? ? > ???!!!!!!MMMMBMM$$RRMMMR8MMMMMRMMMMM8$$$$$$$MM?MMMM!f#RM~? > ? `~!!!~! > ? ? ? ? > ???~!!HX!!~!?MM?MMM??MM?MMMMMMMMMRMMMM$$$$$MMM!MMMM!! > ? ? ? ? > ???'!!!MX!:`~~`~~!~~!!!!XM!!!?!?MMMM8$$$$$MMMMXMMM!! > ? ? ? ? ? ? !!~M at MX.. > ? ? ? ? ? ? > !!!?MRMM!:!XHMHMMMMMMMM!? X!SMMX$$MM$$$RMXMMM~ > ? ? ? ? ? > ???!M!MMMM>!XMMMMMMMMXMM!!:!MM$MMMBRM$$$$8MMMM~ > ? ? ? ? ? > ???`?H!M$R>'MMMM?MMM!MM6!X!XM$$$MM$MM$$$$MX$f > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? `MXM$8X > MMMMMMM!!MM!!!!XM$$$MM$MM$$$RX@" > ? ? ? ? ? ? > ???~M?$MM !MMMMXM!!MM!!!XMMM$$$8$XM$$RM!` > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > !XMMM !MMMMXX!XM!!!HMMMM$$$$RH$$M!~ > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > 'M?MM `?MMXMM!XM!XMMMMM$$$$$RM$$# > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ???`>MMk ~MMHM!XM!XMMM$$$$$$BRM$M" > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? ~`?M. !M?MXM!X$$@M$$$$$$RMM# > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? ? `!M? !!MM!X8$$$RM$$$$MM#` > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? ? ? !% `~~~X8$$$$8M$$RR#` > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? ? ???!!x:xH$$$$$$$R$R*` > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? ~!?MMMMRRRM at M#`? ? > ???-Sushil- > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ???`~???MMM?M"` > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > ? ? ? ? ? ???``~~ > > (credit where credit is due:? http://www.chris.com/ASCII/art/html/einstein.html ;-) > > __________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com. From beberg at mithral.com Sat Jan 23 20:47:28 2010 From: beberg at mithral.com (Adam L Beberg) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:47:28 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] My sentiments exactly... In-Reply-To: <4B5A592D.3030301@lig.net> References: <143775.38781.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4B5A592D.3030301@lig.net> Message-ID: <4B5BD0E0.2010303@mithral.com> Stephen Williams wrote on 1/22/2010 6:04 PM: > Arthur Anderson was dissolved, directly or indirectly as a result of > begin charged with a felony. > The partners that wanted to formed Accenture to go back into business. > Everyone who worked at the company suffered from the stigma of having > worked at a criminal enterprise with extremely poor auditing practices. Sounds like no harm done to me. That is a great example. Those responsible withing a corporation face no risks. Again, that is the entire point of a corporation. And Exxon hasn't even close to cleaned up their mess. Fines mean nothing when the entire US military's primary job is security and resource acquisitions for the oil business. That's cost us many trillions. -- Adam L. Beberg http://www.mithral.com/~beberg/ From sdw at lig.net Sat Jan 23 21:39:16 2010 From: sdw at lig.net (Stephen Williams) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:39:16 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] My sentiments exactly... In-Reply-To: <4B5BD0E0.2010303@mithral.com> References: <143775.38781.qm@web33008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4B5A592D.3030301@lig.net> <4B5BD0E0.2010303@mithral.com> Message-ID: <4B5BDD04.1040307@lig.net> Adam L Beberg wrote: > Stephen Williams wrote on 1/22/2010 6:04 PM: >> Arthur Anderson was dissolved, directly or indirectly as a result of >> begin charged with a felony. >> The partners that wanted to formed Accenture to go back into business. >> Everyone who worked at the company suffered from the stigma of having >> worked at a criminal enterprise with extremely poor auditing practices. > > Sounds like no harm done to me. That is a great example. Those > responsible withing a corporation face no risks. Again, that is the > entire point of a corporation. The value of Arthur Anderson went to zero, so every partner lost something, many probably millions. While still not jail time, it is not nothing. Theoretically, you could charge people with negligence probably. > > And Exxon hasn't even close to cleaned up their mess. Fines mean > nothing when the entire US military's primary job is security and > resource acquisitions for the oil business. That's cost us many > trillions. > The government should have insisted that they pay whatever it took. If the government didn't, it isn't Exxon's fault at that point, at least not completely. At some point at least, they agreed to pay to clean it up. If "we" didn't ask enough, shame on "us". It appears that a jury agreed to cut it to $2.5B and Justice David Souter somehow limited it to 507.5M even though, according to this article, the cost of cleanup was $2.5B. http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/exxon-valdez-oil-spill-settlement-exxon-pay-507-5-million This is more accurate and complete: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill > Because Prince William Sound contained many rocky coves where the oil > collected, the decision was made to displace it with high-pressure hot > water. However, this also displaced and destroyed the microbial > populations on the shoreline; many of these organisms (e.g. plankton) > are the basis of the coastal marine food chain, and others (e.g. > certain bacteria and fungi) are capable of facilitating the > biodegradation of oil. At the time, both scientific advice and public > pressure was to clean everything, but since then, a much greater > understanding of natural and facilitated remediation processes has > developed, due somewhat in part to the opportunity presented for study > by the Exxon Valdez spill. > Both the long- and short-term effects of the oil spill have been > studied comprehensively.[12] Thousands of animals died immediately; > the best estimates include 250,000 to as many as 500,000 seabirds, at > least 1,000 sea otters, approximately 12 river otters, 300 harbor > seals, 250 bald eagles, and 22 orcas, as well as the destruction of > billions of salmon and herring eggs.[3][11] The effects of the spill > continue to be felt today. Overall reductions in population have been > seen in various ocean animals, including stunted growth in pink salmon > populations.[13] Sea otters and ducks also showed higher death rates > in following years, partially because they ingested prey from > contaminated soil and from ingestion of oil residues on hair due to > grooming.[14] > Almost 20 years after the spill, a team of scientists at the > University of North Carolina found that the effects are lasting far > longer than expected.[13] The team estimates some shoreline Arctic > habitats may take up to 30 years to recover.[3] Exxon Mobil denies any > concerns over this, stating that they anticipated a remaining fraction > that they assert will not cause any long-term ecological impacts, > according to the conclusions of 350 peer-reviewed studies.[14] > However, a study from scientists from NOAA concluded that this > contamination can produce chronic low-level exposure, discourage > subsistence where the contamination is heavy, and decrease the > "wilderness character" of the area. > In the case of Baker v. Exxon, an Anchorage jury awarded $287 million > for actual damages and $5 billion for punitive damages. The punitive > damages amount was equal to a single year's profit by Exxon at that time. > In a decision issued June 25, 2008, Justice David Souter issued the > judgment of the court, vacating the $2.5 billion award and remanding > the case back to a lower court, finding that the damages were > excessive with respect to maritime common law. Exxon's actions were > deemed "worse than negligent but less than malicious."[17] The > judgment limits punitive damages to the compensatory damages, which > for this case were calculated as $507.5 million. > Exxon spent an estimated $2 billion cleaning up the spill and a > further $1 billion to settle related civil and criminal charges > Exxon recovered a significant portion of clean-up and legal expenses > through insurance claims associated with the grounding of the Exxon > Valdez. So, they hardly got away with nothing. The court and scientists both made mistakes and were operating on incomplete knowledge that could only be learned by addressing this kind of accident. At some point, it comes down to whether a corporation and people involved should somehow always make the world right again or whether society shares some degree of risk. That is a whole other discussion, queued. Some things are inherently risky and we don't necessarily want to completely sock it to the unlucky sop who is the negative case. Medical malpractice being a good example of where this is definitely murky. sdw From bullwinklemouth at yahoo.ca Sun Jan 24 12:18:53 2010 From: bullwinklemouth at yahoo.ca (John Parsons) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 12:18:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [FoRK] Money and Campaigns Re: My sentiments exactly... In-Reply-To: <4B5AB4B9.2000301@lig.net> Message-ID: <458816.96272.qm@web112310.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> The suggestions you outline would indeed be a good thing, at least for the likely small minority that would take advantage of them (i.e. A) may still apply). With distractions like omnibus bills and the like, the answer to C) would continue to remain elusive without direct voter involvement in the formative stages. As to B), the voter still only has a coarse effect on outcomes. Barring very rare cases of recalls, impeachments and the like, the voter only has a limited, periodic chance of directly affecting anything. Still, as you point out, existing technology (some scaling may be required) can definitely improve the situation. It occurs to me that the technology also exists to move towards a more direct form of democracy, up to and possibly eliminating the need for representation as it currently exists.? Your "system of systems" would require only slight modifications to jump to this function, and would in any case, probably be a necessary intermediate step. Representative democracy was the only logical, feasible way to function when our consitution(s) were drafted, and it has changed little since its inception. From a heritage and ceremonial standpoint, this is all well and good, however, the system clearly is under strain from today's societal requirements, as this thread would indicate. Obviously, there are huge vested interests to overcome, but prima facie, direct democracy would seem a desirable outcome. What could be more truly libertarian than having every issue and appropriation open to every voter? I'm posing this for discussion purposes, in that I have not explored all the issues in depth. However, most of the available dissent of direct democracy seems to be premised on an elitist standpoint. Cheers John --- On Sat, 1/23/10, Stephen Williams wrote: The solution to A) voter disengagement, B) representative malfeasance, and C) countering, curbing, or counteracting/counterbalancing corporate influence seems obvious and only a couple hops out: real cyber tracking of issues, rationale, voting, money/poll cause and effects, etc.? We have some transparency now, and we'll not get full transparency to the whole process, however we can do far better than we have.? Concurrent with A) much better communication and polling about what constituents want and B) fully analyzed tracking of legislator actions, we must also have some kind of dynamic "education" of voters on the concepts, issues, and position rationale, complete with CBO and/or CBO-like analysis of hard facts and actuarials.? This system of systems will necessarily have some (emergent?) way of voters to argue out positions and rationale within some shared organizational framework. This again brings me back to thoughts about problems with and solutions to information representation and interaction.? If you think about our current communication of legislative and judiciary knowledge, it is extremely fragmented, piecemeal, and more or less useless for most people. __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/ From sdw at lig.net Sun Jan 24 14:33:09 2010 From: sdw at lig.net (Stephen Williams) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 14:33:09 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] Money and Campaigns Re: My sentiments exactly... In-Reply-To: <458816.96272.qm@web112310.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <458816.96272.qm@web112310.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B5CCAA5.3060808@lig.net> John Parsons wrote: > The suggestions you outline would indeed be a good thing, at least for the likely small minority that would take advantage of them (i.e. A) may still apply). With distractions like omnibus bills and the like, the answer to C) would continue to remain elusive without direct voter involvement in the formative stages. As to B), the voter still only has a coarse effect on outcomes. Barring very rare cases of recalls, impeachments and the like, the voter only has a limited, periodic chance of directly affecting anything. Still, as you point out, existing technology (some scaling may be required) can definitely improve the situation. > There are ways to provide more solid feedback while still not having direct control of votes. For instance, if all current and potential legislators had their positions, rationale, and voting history / would-be history in a real-time and historical database, this could be dynamically scored against an individual's current opinion state. This is done in about the roughest possible way now, which is close to useless. Having seen many people evolve over time, I would want a system that explicitly supports explanation, maturing, and evolving views. Ideally, it should even support several kinds of social, educational, and scientific persuasive communication. > It occurs to me that the technology also exists to move towards a more direct form of democracy, up to and possibly eliminating the need for representation as it currently exists. Your "system of systems" would require only slight modifications to jump to this function, and would in any case, probably be a necessary intermediate step. > More direct is good, actually direct is likely bad and sometimes very bad. The ballot initiative system in California is an interesting experiment. It has produced some interesting progress that legislators probably couldn't have agreed on. The freeze on property tax if you don't sell is a clever, hard to dislodge solution. It has also painted the state into a corner of expense obligations. And it was easily gamed by semi-secret out-of-state money (groups from Utah against selling Prop. 8). > Representative democracy was the only logical, feasible way to function when our consitution(s) were drafted, and it has changed little since its inception. From a heritage and ceremonial standpoint, this is all well and good, however, the system clearly is under strain from today's societal requirements, as this thread would indicate. > > Obviously, there are huge vested interests to overcome, but prima facie, direct democracy would seem a desirable outcome. What could be more truly libertarian than having every issue and appropriation open to every voter? I'm posing this for discussion purposes, in that I have not explored all the issues in depth. However, most of the available dissent of direct democracy seems to be premised on an elitist standpoint. > In some cases it would be better, but not in others. There are many aspects to this, including the fact that the interaction between legislatures creates a high-quality bridge between the summary culture / state / thinking of disparate areas of the country. This is unifying and seems to help hold back at least some balkanization. Additionally, in at least some cases, it is good that a legislator can be persuaded and convinced by a peer and then make an immediate vote when it might take months or years to educate his constituents to come to the same conclusion. He/she could reasonably conclude that an argument is sound, valid, and inevitable and something that he can explain later. Idealistically, this is what we pay and entrust them to do. For those types of reasons, representative democracy can be far more reactive and progressive than direct democracy when needed. Unfortunately, many are not really capable of anything close to that level of thinking. Take your pick of examples. Even highlighting that fact would be valuable. sdw > Cheers > John > > --- On Sat, 1/23/10, Stephen Williams wrote: > The solution to A) voter disengagement, B) representative malfeasance, and C) countering, curbing, or counteracting/counterbalancing corporate influence seems obvious and only a couple hops out: real cyber tracking of issues, rationale, voting, money/poll cause and effects, etc. We have some transparency now, and we'll not get full transparency to the whole process, however we can do far better than we have. Concurrent with A) much better communication and polling about what constituents want and B) fully analyzed tracking of legislator actions, we must also have some kind of dynamic "education" of voters on the concepts, issues, and position rationale, complete with CBO and/or CBO-like analysis of hard facts and actuarials. This system of systems will necessarily have some (emergent?) way of voters to argue out positions and rationale within some shared organizational framework. > > This again brings me back to thoughts about problems with and solutions to information representation and interaction. If you think about our current communication of legislative and judiciary knowledge, it is extremely fragmented, piecemeal, and more or less useless for most people. > > > > __________________________________________________________________ > Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! > > http://www.flickr.com/gift/ > _______________________________________________ > FoRK mailing list > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork > From russell.turpin at gmail.com Sun Jan 24 14:48:20 2010 From: russell.turpin at gmail.com (Russell Turpin) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 16:48:20 -0600 Subject: [FoRK] "What the Supreme Court got right" Message-ID: In my view, Greenwald is one of the better voices on civil liberty issues: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/22/citizens_united/index.html From jbone at place.org Sun Jan 24 18:03:08 2010 From: jbone at place.org (Jeff Bone) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 20:03:08 -0600 Subject: [FoRK] The Decline of P2P and Decentralization Message-ID: Interesting question: "Whatever happened to P2P and Decentralisation...?" http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/decentralization/message/6900 One of my "10 Trends for the 10s" is a resurgence, with a twist. But you'll have to wait for it. ;-) jb From marcerickson at gmail.com Sun Jan 24 18:14:38 2010 From: marcerickson at gmail.com (Marc Erickson) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:14:38 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] Money and Campaigns Re: My sentiments exactly... In-Reply-To: <4B5CCAA5.3060808@lig.net> References: <458816.96272.qm@web112310.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4B5CCAA5.3060808@lig.net> Message-ID: The problem with direct representation is that humans don't always know what's best for society, best in the long run, or will take pain to their interests for the benefit of others. Most humans are selfish (I'm in that group) and won't go against what's best for them very often, if at all. And the fear is of people voting themselves bread and circuses until the bill comes due - and then a collapse. Marc On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Stephen Williams wrote: > John Parsons wrote: > >> The suggestions you outline would indeed be a good thing, at least for the >> likely small minority that would take advantage of them (i.e. A) may still >> apply). With distractions like omnibus bills and the like, the answer to C) >> would continue to remain elusive without direct voter involvement in the >> formative stages. As to B), the voter still only has a coarse effect on >> outcomes. Barring very rare cases of recalls, impeachments and the like, the >> voter only has a limited, periodic chance of directly affecting anything. >> Still, as you point out, existing technology (some scaling may be required) >> can definitely improve the situation. >> >> > > There are ways to provide more solid feedback while still not having direct > control of votes. For instance, if all current and potential legislators > had their positions, rationale, and voting history / would-be history in a > real-time and historical database, this could be dynamically scored against > an individual's current opinion state. This is done in about the roughest > possible way now, which is close to useless. Having seen many people evolve > over time, I would want a system that explicitly supports explanation, > maturing, and evolving views. Ideally, it should even support several kinds > of social, educational, and scientific persuasive communication. > > It occurs to me that the technology also exists to move towards a more >> direct form of democracy, up to and possibly eliminating the need for >> representation as it currently exists. Your "system of systems" would >> require only slight modifications to jump to this function, and would in any >> case, probably be a necessary intermediate step. >> > > More direct is good, actually direct is likely bad and sometimes very bad. > The ballot initiative system in California is an interesting experiment. > It has produced some interesting progress that legislators probably > couldn't have agreed on. The freeze on property tax if you don't sell is a > clever, hard to dislodge solution. It has also painted the state into a > corner of expense obligations. And it was easily gamed by semi-secret > out-of-state money (groups from Utah against selling Prop. 8). > > Representative democracy was the only logical, feasible way to function >> when our consitution(s) were drafted, and it has changed little since its >> inception. From a heritage and ceremonial standpoint, this is all well and >> good, however, the system clearly is under strain from today's societal >> requirements, as this thread would indicate. >> >> Obviously, there are huge vested interests to overcome, but prima facie, >> direct democracy would seem a desirable outcome. What could be more truly >> libertarian than having every issue and appropriation open to every voter? >> I'm posing this for discussion purposes, in that I have not explored all the >> issues in depth. However, most of the available dissent of direct democracy >> seems to be premised on an elitist standpoint. >> >> > > In some cases it would be better, but not in others. There are many > aspects to this, including the fact that the interaction between > legislatures creates a high-quality bridge between the summary culture / > state / thinking of disparate areas of the country. This is unifying and > seems to help hold back at least some balkanization. Additionally, in at > least some cases, it is good that a legislator can be persuaded and > convinced by a peer and then make an immediate vote when it might take > months or years to educate his constituents to come to the same conclusion. > He/she could reasonably conclude that an argument is sound, valid, and > inevitable and something that he can explain later. Idealistically, this is > what we pay and entrust them to do. For those types of reasons, > representative democracy can be far more reactive and progressive than > direct democracy when needed. Unfortunately, many are not really capable of > anything close to that level of thinking. Take your pick of examples. Even > highlighting that fact would be valuable. > > sdw > > Cheers >> John >> >> --- On Sat, 1/23/10, Stephen Williams wrote: >> The solution to A) voter disengagement, B) representative malfeasance, and >> C) countering, curbing, or counteracting/counterbalancing corporate >> influence seems obvious and only a couple hops out: real cyber tracking of >> issues, rationale, voting, money/poll cause and effects, etc. We have some >> transparency now, and we'll not get full transparency to the whole process, >> however we can do far better than we have. Concurrent with A) much better >> communication and polling about what constituents want and B) fully analyzed >> tracking of legislator actions, we must also have some kind of dynamic >> "education" of voters on the concepts, issues, and position rationale, >> complete with CBO and/or CBO-like analysis of hard facts and actuarials. >> This system of systems will necessarily have some (emergent?) way of voters >> to argue out positions and rationale within some shared organizational >> framework. >> >> This again brings me back to thoughts about problems with and solutions to >> information representation and interaction. If you think about our current >> communication of legislative and judiciary knowledge, it is extremely >> fragmented, piecemeal, and more or less useless for most people. >> >> >> __________________________________________________________________ >> Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! >> http://www.flickr.com/gift/ >> _______________________________________________ >> FoRK mailing list >> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > FoRK mailing list > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork > -- Vancouver Computers Examiner http://www.examiner.com/x-34009-Vancouver-Computers-Examiner A Canadian Geek http://www.lockergnome.com/nexus/marcerickson From russell.turpin at gmail.com Sun Jan 24 20:08:21 2010 From: russell.turpin at gmail.com (Russell Turpin) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 22:08:21 -0600 Subject: [FoRK] Money and Campaigns Re: My sentiments exactly... In-Reply-To: References: <458816.96272.qm@web112310.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4B5CCAA5.3060808@lig.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Marc Erickson wrote: > The problem with direct representation is that humans don't always know > what's best for society... Yeah. Well. People is all we got. From marcerickson at gmail.com Sun Jan 24 20:23:47 2010 From: marcerickson at gmail.com (Marc Erickson) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 20:23:47 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] Money and Campaigns Re: My sentiments exactly... In-Reply-To: References: <458816.96272.qm@web112310.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4B5CCAA5.3060808@lig.net> Message-ID: Right! ;-) On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Russell Turpin wrote: > On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Marc Erickson > wrote: > > The problem with direct representation is that humans don't always know > > what's best for society... > > Yeah. Well. People is all we got. > _______________________________________________ > FoRK mailing list > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork > -- Vancouver Computers Examiner http://www.examiner.com/x-34009-Vancouver-Computers-Examiner A Canadian Geek http://www.lockergnome.com/nexus/marcerickson From bullwinklemouth at yahoo.ca Sun Jan 24 22:11:05 2010 From: bullwinklemouth at yahoo.ca (John Parsons) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 22:11:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [FoRK] Money and Campaigns Re: My sentiments exactly... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <795516.84856.qm@web112318.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> The impression I get is that the impediment(s) to direct democracy is (are) social as opposed to technological. This also assumes that there are no paradigms in present or contemplated applications (i.e for instance: social networking) that could reduce, eliminate or compensate for whatever aspects of voter aberration that are contra-indicated. So, if what is left is social, then we (the public) are accepting that the majority of voters (at least in any given situation) are incapable (or can be simply rendered so) of making a rational decision, or, that the collective will of the voter is too variable and situational for the necessary continuity of Progress (however and whatever we deem that to be). We are also accepting that we intrinsically have elitist values (justifiable as they may be), in that our representative's thoughts and will, can and should hold sway over all. I don't expressly mean to make it sound patronizing and paternalistic, but I will suggest (discussion only, I have no agenda) that it at least sounds like an immature model. Just as a child or a new worker can be developed into an autonomous state, does it not hold that a society should be similarly capable (or at least aspire to be)? Cheers John --- On Mon, 1/25/10, Marc Erickson wrote: From: Marc Erickson Subject: Re: [FoRK] Money and Campaigns Re: My sentiments exactly... To: "Friends of Rohit Khare" Received: Monday, January 25, 2010, 2:14 AM The problem with direct representation is that humans don't always know what's best for society, best in the long run, or will take pain to their interests for the benefit of others.? Most humans are selfish (I'm in that group) and won't go against what's best for them very often, if at all.? And the fear is of people voting themselves bread and circuses until the bill comes due - and then a collapse. Marc __________________________________________________________________ Connect with friends from any web browser - no download required. Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger for the Web BETA at http://ca.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php From marcerickson at gmail.com Sun Jan 24 23:01:38 2010 From: marcerickson at gmail.com (Marc Erickson) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:01:38 -0800 Subject: [FoRK] Money and Campaigns Re: My sentiments exactly... In-Reply-To: <795516.84856.qm@web112318.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <795516.84856.qm@web112318.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: As someone said on this list a few days ago, I'm a cynic. I have faith that our monkey natures are able to defeat any intelligent - or not - plains thought up by our civilized brains. :-( Marc On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 10:11 PM, John Parsons wrote: > The impression I get is that the impediment(s) to direct democracy is (are) > social as opposed to technological. This also assumes that there are no > paradigms in present or contemplated applications (i.e for instance: social > networking) that could reduce, eliminate or compensate for whatever aspects > of voter aberration that are contra-indicated. > > So, if what is left is social, then we (the public) are accepting that the > majority of voters (at least in any given situation) are incapable (or can > be simply rendered so) of making a rational decision, or, that the > collective will of the voter is too variable and situational for the > necessary continuity of Progress (however and whatever we deem that to be). > We are also accepting that we intrinsically have elitist values (justifiable > as they may be), in that our representative's thoughts and will, can and > should hold sway over all. > > I don't expressly mean to make it sound patronizing and paternalistic, but > I will suggest (discussion only, I have no agenda) that it at least sounds > like an immature model. Just as a child or a new worker can be developed > into an autonomous state, does it not hold that a society should be > similarly capable (or at least aspire to be)? > > Cheers > John > > > --- On Mon, 1/25/10, Marc Erickson wrote: > > From: Marc Erickson > Subject: Re: [FoRK] Money and Campaigns Re: My sentiments exactly... > To: "Friends of Rohit Khare" > Received: Monday, January 25, 2010, 2:14 AM > > The problem with direct representation is that humans don't always know > what's best for society, best in the long run, or will take pain to their > interests for the benefit of others. Most humans are selfish (I'm in that > group) and won't go against what's best for them very often, if at all. > And > the fear is of people voting themselves bread and circuses until the bill > comes due - and then a collapse. > > > Marc > > > > > __________________________________________________________________ > Connect with friends from any web browser - no download required. Try the > new Yahoo! Canada Messenger for the Web BETA at > http://ca.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php > _______________________________________________ > FoRK mailing list > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork > -- Vancouver Computers Examiner http://www.examiner.com/x-34009-Vancouver-Computers-Examiner A Canadian Geek http://www.lockergnome.com/nexus/marcerickson