When you say "granted", you imply that your listener is about to make an obvious point. It's a very useful way of putting words in someone else's mouth. But it's hardly obvious that you're a "subversive." What is obvious is that you're a sanctimonious ass.
Others have mentioned Vernor Vinge as a candidate, but among living authors how could we forget the individual who has won more Hugos and Nebulas than anyone except Heinlein? I'm talking about Lois McMaster Bujold, who imo is the finest sf writer working today, and deserves a place at the top.
Could you post links to these studies - I'd be very interested to see a study that suggests that paying someone $50,000 won't change their opinions or the way they act. I'd also like to see who paid for the study - remember all those studies, paid for by tobacco companies, that 'showed' that smoking was harmless? Coming from a country where the government weaselling out of $800 of tax is considered front page news, the idea that those kind of contributions aren't going to seriously affect the judgement of these people sounds very very strange to me.
Two things here: first, the studies I mentioned are in professional journals, and hence not webbed. If you have JSTOR access, to American Economic Review or Journal of Political Economy, search for anything by Steve Levitt (from Harvard) or Jeff Milyo (Chicago). In particular, they are NOT arguing that $50,000 would not influence someone's behavior. Rather they are arguing that the $50,000 is given after the fact -- that interest groups do not give large amounts of money to politicians unless they are already fairly certain that the politician will behave in a way they approve of. And, of course, if you could post a study (or give the name and author) showing that money donations systematically influence congressional votes, that would illuminate matters.
Second, it is easy to dismiss studies for being "industry funded." But that objection proves too much. All studies are funded by someone, and that someone always has interests. Does that mean that all studies are inherently flawed or biased? Of course not. The problem with tobacco industry studies was not that they were funded by the tobacco industry. If you don't understand that, then no study will ever persuade you of anything you didn't already accept.
NRA pays however much money, gun control is only paid lip service. This isn't social science - this is Occam's Razor.
FWIW, the NRA is routinely outspent by gun control groups in terms of total expenditure on lobbying and political education. The reason gun control is paid lip service is because most Americans realize gun control is bad policy. Occam's Razor is nice, but it has two edges.
Is there no more obvious problem with the system of government than this? It is obvious that money interests have an unfair and unjust influence over government in practice.
This is often repeated on/. and other forums. But it is equivalent to an article of religious faith. It is invariably offered up without a shred of evidence, or with evidence that has only the barest implications for the issue. But no one questions it. How could it be doubted?
Yet not a single social science study, to my knowledge, has provided conclusive evidence that money contributions influence congressional votes to any large degree. There have been several such studies, taking various innovative approaches, and none have been able to point to statistically significant incidence of influence-peddling. Does this mean there is no influence-peddling in Congress? Of course not. Does it mean that influence peddling is probably not a systemic occurrence? Yes.
The reason is that there is a causation-correlation problem. Contributors tend to donate to people they feel will agree with them (which, in the case of many issues, involves donating to both parties' candidates). That is, the vote causes the donation, not the other way around.
As a libertarian there is nothing I would like to believe more than that elected officials are routinely corrupted and captured by interest groups. It would endorse my worldview in many ways. But the social science just isn't there.
I think that kneejerk cynicism, combined with the desire to appear sophisticated and "in the know", leads people to assume without warrant the routine corruption of our democracy. We are geeks. We know what's really going on, because we are clever and we see through these things. All those rubes who still believe in the basic integrity of most officeholders are just out of it. Who needs evidence when you have Katz editorials? Who needs science when you have the fervor of a zealot?
This is arrant nonsense. Lois McMaster Bujold writes better than Asimov ever dreamed. George R.R. Martin writes epic dark fantasy, and while he pays homage in interviews to Tolkien I think his work is better. Glen Cook's Black Company series is masterful, original, and gripping. Harry Potter is a wonderful meld of all sorts of different elements. I notice that even Heinlein is not on your list of pioneers.
Frankly, anyone who would dismiss the huge canon of worthwhile work in sf since Clarke just hasn't been reading enough, or doesn't want to enjoy it.
I love how Slashdot editors sniff about "for these [evil] companies, perception is more important than reality." That's the case for almost any public venture, not just MS or AOL. If Slashdot were really serious about equating the two, it wouldn't call itself "news for nerds" -- it'd call itself what it is, namely a pro-Linux, anti-IP editorial site.
I've played through Max Payne, am just starting the Hard Boiled level, and I have encountered no bugs whatsoever. I have seen the very occasional graphics glitch but those are rare and non-reproducible (i.e. when I reload to try and see it again, it works properly).
Slashdot Mirror
When you say "granted", you imply that your listener is about to make an obvious point. It's a very useful way of putting words in someone else's mouth. But it's hardly obvious that you're a "subversive." What is obvious is that you're a sanctimonious ass.
Others have mentioned Vernor Vinge as a candidate, but among living authors how could we forget the individual who has won more Hugos and Nebulas than anyone except Heinlein? I'm talking about Lois McMaster Bujold, who imo is the finest sf writer working today, and deserves a place at the top.
Could you post links to these studies - I'd be very interested to see a study that suggests that paying someone $50,000 won't change their opinions or the way they act. I'd also like to see who paid for the study - remember all those studies, paid for by tobacco companies, that 'showed' that smoking was harmless? Coming from a country where the government weaselling out of $800 of tax is considered front page news, the idea that those kind of contributions aren't going to seriously affect the judgement of these people sounds very very strange to me.
Two things here: first, the studies I mentioned are in professional journals, and hence not webbed. If you have JSTOR access, to American Economic Review or Journal of Political Economy, search for anything by Steve Levitt (from Harvard) or Jeff Milyo (Chicago). In particular, they are NOT arguing that $50,000 would not influence someone's behavior. Rather they are arguing that the $50,000 is given after the fact -- that interest groups do not give large amounts of money to politicians unless they are already fairly certain that the politician will behave in a way they approve of. And, of course, if you could post a study (or give the name and author) showing that money donations systematically influence congressional votes, that would illuminate matters.
Second, it is easy to dismiss studies for being "industry funded." But that objection proves too much. All studies are funded by someone, and that someone always has interests. Does that mean that all studies are inherently flawed or biased? Of course not. The problem with tobacco industry studies was not that they were funded by the tobacco industry. If you don't understand that, then no study will ever persuade you of anything you didn't already accept.
NRA pays however much money, gun control is only paid lip service. This isn't social science - this is Occam's Razor.
FWIW, the NRA is routinely outspent by gun control groups in terms of total expenditure on lobbying and political education. The reason gun control is paid lip service is because most Americans realize gun control is bad policy. Occam's Razor is nice, but it has two edges.
It boggles my mind that people can still refer to Bill Gates as "plain evil" when we have seen so recently what plain evil really is.
This is often repeated on /. and other forums. But it is equivalent to an article of religious faith. It is invariably offered up without a shred of evidence, or with evidence that has only the barest implications for the issue. But no one questions it. How could it be doubted?
Yet not a single social science study, to my knowledge, has provided conclusive evidence that money contributions influence congressional votes to any large degree. There have been several such studies, taking various innovative approaches, and none have been able to point to statistically significant incidence of influence-peddling. Does this mean there is no influence-peddling in Congress? Of course not. Does it mean that influence peddling is probably not a systemic occurrence? Yes.
The reason is that there is a causation-correlation problem. Contributors tend to donate to people they feel will agree with them (which, in the case of many issues, involves donating to both parties' candidates). That is, the vote causes the donation, not the other way around.
As a libertarian there is nothing I would like to believe more than that elected officials are routinely corrupted and captured by interest groups. It would endorse my worldview in many ways. But the social science just isn't there.
I think that kneejerk cynicism, combined with the desire to appear sophisticated and "in the know", leads people to assume without warrant the routine corruption of our democracy. We are geeks. We know what's really going on, because we are clever and we see through these things. All those rubes who still believe in the basic integrity of most officeholders are just out of it. Who needs evidence when you have Katz editorials? Who needs science when you have the fervor of a zealot?
This is arrant nonsense. Lois McMaster Bujold writes better than Asimov ever dreamed. George R.R. Martin writes epic dark fantasy, and while he pays homage in interviews to Tolkien I think his work is better. Glen Cook's Black Company series is masterful, original, and gripping. Harry Potter is a wonderful meld of all sorts of different elements. I notice that even Heinlein is not on your list of pioneers.
Frankly, anyone who would dismiss the huge canon of worthwhile work in sf since Clarke just hasn't been reading enough, or doesn't want to enjoy it.
I love how Slashdot editors sniff about "for these [evil] companies, perception is more important than reality." That's the case for almost any public venture, not just MS or AOL. If Slashdot were really serious about equating the two, it wouldn't call itself "news for nerds" -- it'd call itself what it is, namely a pro-Linux, anti-IP editorial site.
I've played through Max Payne, am just starting the Hard Boiled level, and I have encountered no bugs whatsoever. I have seen the very occasional graphics glitch but those are rare and non-reproducible (i.e. when I reload to try and see it again, it works properly).