Even I, generally libertarian-leaning, see something to be said for municipal fiber networks, given the incredible costs and externalities (stopping traffic) of trenching and covering an entire municipality. The truth is that if the muni doesn't do it, they will often give a monopoly franchise to a private corp to do it anyway. Plus trenching fiber involves getting all kinds of government permits for rights-of-way, etc.
Muni wireless is another issue. I'm not so sure that government should go in and create their own wireless monopoly, especially using unlicensed airwaves...it is clear from the cellular experience that multiple private wireless networks can easilly overbuild complete coverage for cities. No so clear you can do the same with fiber.
I personally know people in enough poverty to qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and they just bought a PC...used of course, but a 100 to 300 MHz Pentium still does an OK job of basic Web & email. You can pick these up on Ebay for way under $100, or get one from Freecycle for free.
Uh, so was the supreme leader of Saudi Arabia up for a vote? Nope. Could women vote? Nope. Would even these pitiful local elections have taken place without pressure from the Bush administration? Nope.
Osama bin Laden sent those religious nuts who flew those planes because they all believe in a supernatural being that doesn't exist, and allow unlimited hatred to live in their brains.
Last time I was night sailing (in pre-affordable-GPS-time), I mainly navigated using lighted buoys. They can have powerful strobes that are probably seen as far as any lighthouse beam.
BTW, if you know Python and Zope really well, and are willing to move to Fredericksburg, Virginia, there are several jobs here: http://www.zope.com/Corporate/Careers.html.
Sure, you could bribe some government officials, but they'd laugh all the way to the bank.
The World Bank and IMF have become experts at exactly that...
They call them development loans or grants, which are immediately put into the pockets of contractors connected to developing governments, and the governments then fail to implement free market reforms they promised to implement in return for the loans/grants. Some countries even then default on the loans...and complain they are "highly indebted."
GDP per capita of Zimbabwe is $1900 a year. Meanwhile, let's look at two other countries with native malaria. India has a GDP per capita of $2900 per year, and Singapore has a GDP per capita of $23,700 per year.
Malaria can easilly be wiped out in a country of appropriate wealth. Simple tools like repellant-coated mesh nets can dramatically reduce its spread.
Also, do not underestimate the influence of disease in the US in the time before the advance of medicine.
In the late 1800's, the US had epidemics of Yellow Fever, Influenza, Smallpox, Cholera, Typhus and Typhoid.
In 1916, 7,000 people died in the US from polio. In 1918, 500,000 people died in the US from influenza. Today, nearly 500,000 people have died in the US from AIDS.
In 1850, real per capita GDP in the US was about $2000 / year, higher than Zimbabwe today.
I suggest again that government economic policies trump disease in terms of keeping an economy down.
Disease does have enormous costs, but you have to change government policies to support free markets and private property before you will have any prosperity.
The US became more prosperous than most sub-Saharan African countries are today even when typhus, polio, and other diseases were rampant, not to mention at a time when antibiotics did not exist. That is because the US had effective policies to support free markets and property rights. The same thing applies to many European countries.
Eliminating patent protection for drugs would also mean - no new drugs. How many more people would die?
In truth, there are plenty of cheap generic drugs that could save millions of people from death in developing countries. Unfortunately, the governments of these countries kill their own economy through not respecting property rights and setting up corrupt government monopolies. When a country has a non-functioning economy because of government policies, its people can't even afford the cheap drugs, and die.
US prices for generic drugs (which most of these will be) are less than the prices for generic drugs in most other developed countries because of the highly competitive and relatively less-regulated pharma market in the US.
It is only drugs under patent control that pharma companies sell for more in the US (and they do it because the US is rich, and they can do that with their temporary monopoly, granted by the government).
TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's president called Sunday for an investigation into journalists' allegations they were tortured into confessing to charges such as insulting sacred beliefs and endangering national security after publishing articles critical of conservatives in the government.
About 60 cps, that is only NTSC line 21 (EIA 608) captions. In the digital TV world (ATSC), EIA 708 captions have much more bandwidth. But few people are making 708 captions directly today, generally they are produced from existing 608 captions.
per capita energy production peaked in 1979, since then the world population has been growing faster than world energy production, and so the amount of energy available per person is falling.
Yes, but technological advancement (which comes with growing economies) allows for more efficient use of energy for production.
For example, high-income countries use 225 metric tons of oil for $1 million GDP, while low-income countries use 320.
Third world countries...have been getting poorer for at least the last twenty years
The record is mixed. Sub-Saharan African countries have been getting poorer. However, India and China have had significant positive per capita GDP growth, and 500 million people there have been brought above the $1/day level over the last 20 years.
In 2004, Indian wages rose 11.6%. Chinese wages rose by 8.4%, Philippine wages rose 7.7%.
Economic growth of countries are highly correlated with economic freedom and property rights. That's the fact. There may be specific cultural reasons why African countries have trouble with the concept of property rights, free markets, and non-corrupt governments, but they will continue to be poor until these policies change. Certainly a lot of Western "aid" has been used to prop-up governments that employ bad economic policies in Africa and other parts of the world.
things will really start to bite when total world energy production peaks
I predict oil will become more expensive, and nuclear fission power will become more increasingly used. Fissile material will be bred from incredibly abundant Thorium (and other breeding cycles) when Uranium prices begin to rise. The market will continue to balance supply and demand.
If all the developing countries of the world adopt free market economic policies, wages will rise in those countries until labor is replaced with robotics (the labor in those countries will become information workers). Already the US and Japan have seen large amounts of labor replaced by automation, and this will continue.
I think it would be interesting to see a detailed (and politically honest) financial analysis of the immediate actual costs of fossil fuels versus real potential non-CO2 emitting options.
One has to be careful though - it is not clear to me at all that even if the US were, say, 100% nuclear that we would not still be involved in the Middle East. I doubt oil would lose all its value, and there still would be a situation where oil money mixes with religious nuts under dictatorial governments and terrorist organizations all seeking weapons of mass destruction.
If we see a clear path to fixing a problem that could save millions of lives, shouldn't we do that?
The problem is that tens of millions of people die every year already from poverty. AIDS and Malaria kill 1 million each. Then there are deaths due to bad infrastructure, dysentary, etc. Moving to more expensive energy sources with increase the length that these people stay in poverty.
There are simple political solutions to poverty (as China and India discovered in the 1980's... it is called free market capitalism).
On the other hand, reducing CO2 emissions is much tougher. It would require a global carbon emission tax to push people into using more expensive energy sources. While the US is the greatest emitter today, China is ready to put on so many new coal-burning power plants that they will eclipse Kyoto CO2 emission savings.
I'm not saying that a massive global move to non-carbon emitting energy is absolutely a bad thing, but it has real economic consequences that need to be kept in mind.
Personally, I believe that nuclear power can be quite cheap for base power for advanced economies. However it is unclear if what can be done in France (80% nuclear electricity) can be done in China or India due to lack of internal electrical infrastructure...today anyway.
We know that poverty kills. It is unclear if global warming will kill in the same amounts.
There is evidence that Japanese policies supporting small, inefficient retail stores (rather then Walmart/Target/Kmart) is one of the main reasons for stagnant economic growth in Japan over the last 15 years despite low unemployment rates.
People are always complaining about monopolies. If Microsoft and Walmart are so horrible, why does the US have such high economic growth, high home ownership rates, and low unemployment? I have yet to see an example of a "monopoly" (without government barriers) that does not lead to permanent price lowering to customers (this includes Standard Oil).
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, you could just take a copyrighted work of art, hold it near the Bean, and sue! That's a great concept!
Bingo!
Even I, generally libertarian-leaning, see something to be said for municipal fiber networks, given the incredible costs and externalities (stopping traffic) of trenching and covering an entire municipality. The truth is that if the muni doesn't do it, they will often give a monopoly franchise to a private corp to do it anyway. Plus trenching fiber involves getting all kinds of government permits for rights-of-way, etc.
Muni wireless is another issue. I'm not so sure that government should go in and create their own wireless monopoly, especially using unlicensed airwaves...it is clear from the cellular experience that multiple private wireless networks can easilly overbuild complete coverage for cities. No so clear you can do the same with fiber.
Who can't afford a computer in the US?
I personally know people in enough poverty to qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and they just bought a PC...used of course, but a 100 to 300 MHz Pentium still does an OK job of basic Web & email. You can pick these up on Ebay for way under $100, or get one from Freecycle for free.
Uh, so was the supreme leader of Saudi Arabia up for a vote? Nope. Could women vote? Nope. Would even these pitiful local elections have taken place without pressure from the Bush administration? Nope.
Osama bin Laden sent those religious nuts who flew those planes because they all believe in a supernatural being that doesn't exist, and allow unlimited hatred to live in their brains.
Last time I was night sailing (in pre-affordable-GPS-time), I mainly navigated using lighted buoys. They can have powerful strobes that are probably seen as far as any lighthouse beam.
I think it is a bit unfair to say the social failures of Communism is due to atheism. It was due to economic ignorance and a belief in government.
Atheists can be perfectly capable of not trusting government, and being economically rational. Unfortunately, most aren't.
Why so many atheists are closet socialists is beyond me. Central planning is as dumb as Creationism.
When my Palm rechargable batteries died, I went to a Blackberry. No looking back. I can even IM from it!
BTW, if you know Python and Zope really well, and are willing to move to Fredericksburg, Virginia, there are several jobs here: http://www.zope.com/Corporate/Careers.html.
To date, has any published global warming model predicted accurately global warming in the future?
Scientists have been doing these models for several years, it would be interesting if one actually made an accurate forward-looking prediction.
Sufficiently advanced economies (such as the Netherlands) already have coastal cities that lie below sea level...
I see the entire global warming problem one that is going to pit global economic development versus CO2 emmission.
Sure, you could bribe some government officials, but they'd laugh all the way to the bank.
The World Bank and IMF have become experts at exactly that...
They call them development loans or grants, which are immediately put into the pockets of contractors connected to developing governments, and the governments then fail to implement free market reforms they promised to implement in return for the loans/grants. Some countries even then default on the loans...and complain they are "highly indebted."
GDP per capita of Zimbabwe is $1900 a year. Meanwhile, let's look at two other countries with native malaria. India has a GDP per capita of $2900 per year, and Singapore has a GDP per capita of $23,700 per year.
Malaria can easilly be wiped out in a country of appropriate wealth. Simple tools like repellant-coated mesh nets can dramatically reduce its spread.
Also, do not underestimate the influence of disease in the US in the time before the advance of medicine.
In the late 1800's, the US had epidemics of Yellow Fever, Influenza, Smallpox, Cholera, Typhus and Typhoid.
In 1916, 7,000 people died in the US from polio. In 1918, 500,000 people died in the US from influenza. Today, nearly 500,000 people have died in the US from AIDS.
In 1850, real per capita GDP in the US was about $2000 / year, higher than Zimbabwe today.
I suggest again that government economic policies trump disease in terms of keeping an economy down.
Disease does have enormous costs, but you have to change government policies to support free markets and private property before you will have any prosperity.
The US became more prosperous than most sub-Saharan African countries are today even when typhus, polio, and other diseases were rampant, not to mention at a time when antibiotics did not exist. That is because the US had effective policies to support free markets and property rights. The same thing applies to many European countries.
Eliminating patent protection for drugs would also mean - no new drugs. How many more people would die?
In truth, there are plenty of cheap generic drugs that could save millions of people from death in developing countries. Unfortunately, the governments of these countries kill their own economy through not respecting property rights and setting up corrupt government monopolies. When a country has a non-functioning economy because of government policies, its people can't even afford the cheap drugs, and die.
US prices for generic drugs (which most of these will be) are less than the prices for generic drugs in most other developed countries because of the highly competitive and relatively less-regulated pharma market in the US.
It is only drugs under patent control that pharma companies sell for more in the US (and they do it because the US is rich, and they can do that with their temporary monopoly, granted by the government).
Iranian Blogger Arrested
20 Iranian Bloggers and Journalists Arrested
Iranian President calls for Investigation of Blogger Torture
TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's president called Sunday for an investigation into journalists' allegations they were tortured into confessing to charges such as insulting sacred beliefs and endangering national security after publishing articles critical of conservatives in the government.
About 60 cps, that is only NTSC line 21 (EIA 608) captions. In the digital TV world (ATSC), EIA 708 captions have much more bandwidth. But few people are making 708 captions directly today, generally they are produced from existing 608 captions.
per capita energy production peaked in 1979, since then the world population has been growing faster than world energy production, and so the amount of energy available per person is falling.
Yes, but technological advancement (which comes with growing economies) allows for more efficient use of energy for production.
For example, high-income countries use 225 metric tons of oil for $1 million GDP, while low-income countries use 320.
Third world countries...have been getting poorer for at least the last twenty years
The record is mixed. Sub-Saharan African countries have been getting poorer. However, India and China have had significant positive per capita GDP growth, and 500 million people there have been brought above the $1/day level over the last 20 years.
In 2004, Indian wages rose 11.6%. Chinese wages rose by 8.4%, Philippine wages rose 7.7%.
Economic growth of countries are highly correlated with economic freedom and property rights. That's the fact. There may be specific cultural reasons why African countries have trouble with the concept of property rights, free markets, and non-corrupt governments, but they will continue to be poor until these policies change. Certainly a lot of Western "aid" has been used to prop-up governments that employ bad economic policies in Africa and other parts of the world.
things will really start to bite when total world energy production peaks
I predict oil will become more expensive, and nuclear fission power will become more increasingly used. Fissile material will be bred from incredibly abundant Thorium (and other breeding cycles) when Uranium prices begin to rise. The market will continue to balance supply and demand.
If all the developing countries of the world adopt free market economic policies, wages will rise in those countries until labor is replaced with robotics (the labor in those countries will become information workers). Already the US and Japan have seen large amounts of labor replaced by automation, and this will continue.
I think it would be interesting to see a detailed (and politically honest) financial analysis of the immediate actual costs of fossil fuels versus real potential non-CO2 emitting options.
One has to be careful though - it is not clear to me at all that even if the US were, say, 100% nuclear that we would not still be involved in the Middle East. I doubt oil would lose all its value, and there still would be a situation where oil money mixes with religious nuts under dictatorial governments and terrorist organizations all seeking weapons of mass destruction.
a massive smallpox epidemic deliberately released by Europeans
Where is your evident that this was deliberate? At the time of original contact, no one understood how smallpox was spread.
At least one million Native Americans along the Mississippi died of smallpox in the 1500's before they ever met any Europeans.
If we see a clear path to fixing a problem that could save millions of lives, shouldn't we do that?
The problem is that tens of millions of people die every year already from poverty. AIDS and Malaria kill 1 million each. Then there are deaths due to bad infrastructure, dysentary, etc. Moving to more expensive energy sources with increase the length that these people stay in poverty.
There are simple political solutions to poverty (as China and India discovered in the 1980's... it is called free market capitalism).
On the other hand, reducing CO2 emissions is much tougher. It would require a global carbon emission tax to push people into using more expensive energy sources. While the US is the greatest emitter today, China is ready to put on so many new coal-burning power plants that they will eclipse Kyoto CO2 emission savings.
I'm not saying that a massive global move to non-carbon emitting energy is absolutely a bad thing, but it has real economic consequences that need to be kept in mind.
Personally, I believe that nuclear power can be quite cheap for base power for advanced economies. However it is unclear if what can be done in France (80% nuclear electricity) can be done in China or India due to lack of internal electrical infrastructure...today anyway.
We know that poverty kills. It is unclear if global warming will kill in the same amounts.
hurricanes have been striking with increasing devastation
Could you please point me to the data that show increasing number or strength of Atlantic hurricanes?
There is evidence that Japanese policies supporting small, inefficient retail stores (rather then Walmart/Target/Kmart) is one of the main reasons for stagnant economic growth in Japan over the last 15 years despite low unemployment rates.
People are always complaining about monopolies. If Microsoft and Walmart are so horrible, why does the US have such high economic growth, high home ownership rates, and low unemployment? I have yet to see an example of a "monopoly" (without government barriers) that does not lead to permanent price lowering to customers (this includes Standard Oil).
Home ownership in the US is at an all-time high, about 68%...