That's kind of a silly example, especially as it doesn't illustrate free information.
My attention is worth something. If you didn't want it you wouldn't try to tell me anything. We exchange. You get attention, I get the color of the sky. Not free information, just VERY inexpensive, because it's not worth much.
We're lucky it's only nuclear power that people with power lie about, otherwise we'd have to give up all the other possibly helpful technologies that people would lie about (like electricity).
How much of your own money do you currently give to fusion research?
Unless you are already voluntarily spending 10% of your gross income on fusion research I don't much respect your willingness to vote to spend 10% of my money, even though I thnk it is a very worthy cause, as such things go.
I think that the US government can be said to be successful, as far as having influence within and without its borders.
If you think that the US government controls mass media in the US than you've probably been watching (reading, listening to) too much advertising, and have forgotten it's all about selling soap.
I would suspect that anyone that "comes from" the PRC to the west is of the richest in the country. Sweatshop wages aren't usually appealing to people that can afford trans-oceanic air travel, nor do such wages usually allow such travel.
Thus I'm not inclined to accept information from the average PRC expatriate as if it came from an average PRC citizen.
If you damage the street in front of your house can you see your property taxes go up due to the increase in street repair expense? That is what I mean by cost being disconnected from service. Voters in small towns are the same as the voters in national elections, and no less willing to try to get something for nothing, which introduces budget growth.
It is true that local government (for small towns, not Philadelphia) is fairly directly connected to the voters, but that doesn't mean that small government isn't still less efficient than private business for something like this.
To repeat: There is no real motivation because, as I mentioned above, the cost is too easily disconnected from product usage. The effect of elections is often to make the problem worse by adding more inefficiency.
In cities where I've lived (mostly under 20,000) the cable co doesn't have to be extremely bad to lose its monopoly, just generate enough dissatisfaction so that the contract is awarded to a different company next renogotiation time.
But, if a government is running the business . . . lets just say that governments are the most tenacious of all monopolies.
Quote: "Companies will charge users whatever they think they can get from them. It's just the way things are."
The trouble having a government-run ISP is that there is NO real motivation for making it cheap and efficient. If the system doesn't work someone will be voted in on the platform of taxing to fix it. If it does work someone will be voted in on the platform, "If it's working at this level of funding just think what we could do with more money?"
If your internet (or cheez whiz, or public road, or T-shirt) doesn't have a specific price on it that is obviously connected with your use of it the money you spend on it will very quickly increase.
For a good example, think of the difference between buying on credit, and paying full cost up-front. How many ads tell you the monthly cost, instead of the full price, or even better, the full price + interest? If the actual price paid for the thing isn't directly connected with the thing, it will get more expensive.
You could say, "Just have the government manage it, but have it entirely non-tax funded in any way." But I think few of us would expect that condition to stick for long, and even if it did the monopoly would be harder to break than cable in a small town. A money machine made to attract cooked politicians.
Quote: "based on the mythos of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"
That's stretching it quite a bit. I would say, instead, that he used some ideas and some jargon from mormonism to help give the people a distinct culture that is different from mainstream culture anywhere.
One of most striking examples, in my opinion, of Larsen's mormon culture showing through, was a leader (Adama) that had basically absolute power over the people that he leads, but is absolutely moral, and still a believable character.
When he was tying his robot novels, and foundation series, and galactic empire novels all together he introduced a "God" that would make it possible for humanity to live in harmony.
I don't think that he realized that he was setting up Olivaw as a God (because Asimov suffered from Carl Sagan's disease), but that is the role that was given to Olivaw just the same.
Asimov liked to talk of religious people as if they were delusional, but when you read enough of his personal writings (story intros, autobiographical stuff) it becomes apparent that he was no less delusional than the rest of us.
I don't want to lessen anyone's perception of Isaac Asimov. He was one of my most admired people ever for a long time, and the qualities that I admired him for were real ones that he posessed. He was VERY intelligent, and knew how to explain things as clearly as anyone I've ever read.
He just wasn't the paragon of intellectual virtue and rationality that he would liked to have been, and, I believe to his credit, strove to be.
OK, very interesting report on "ONE PLAUSIBLE OUTCOME" (see begining of report). I also agree that the probablility is not negligible and, as I mentioned earlier, should be considered.
I still wish that the "New Scientist" article had also admitted that there were other possibilities.
Do you have references for the other possibilities too, or is your interest in the future of artic ice lopsided the same way as the article?
OK, I read the article in the New Scientist. It was biased.
All shining hope for the future with lots of fuzzy inexactness like "could allow" and "in as little as." There was more than ample consideration for the arguments that favored their hope, and only those arguments in favor, but there was no actual research quoted or referenced.
There was a partial quote from one person. There was no context given for the quote, and the quote was so brief, that I have to be skeptical of the real intent of Peter Wadham when (if) he said that.
Perhaps this is "new science." I prefer science that is reported with as little bias as possible, that is backed up with research, and that, when things aren't known concretely, alternatives are presented.
Quote: "There are shipping companies now planning on using new routes which are being opened up by melting sea ice."
There are people planning to play Duke Nukem Forever, too.
Any shipping company that would get an advantage by using such new routs would have to be bonkers not to make plans for such a contingency. Just as bonkers as they would have to be to bank the whole business on such routs being commercially viable in the near future.
I guess that my different interpretation of the story (even when I first heard it, when I was about 5) probably stems from the fact that I was always aware that there are important differences between between being forced to share (theft, maybe tax-subsidised charity), being tricked to share (stone soup, older sibling sharing style), and sharing because you choose to with open eyes.
It seems that creating clouds would make the climate/weather difference downwind, not right over the coral giving off the DMS.
Maybe this theory is right, but to me it looks like grasping at straws.
The actual words of the article don't actually say that we know anything for sure, but the consistently positive tone, with no mention of a real possibility of error, followed by using this fairly unsupported hypothesis to support something like the Gaia thing, is very unscientific, if not outright dishonest.
My guess is that the actual scientists are still doing the science, but the author of the article found the actual science too boring and decided to "pep it up" a little. Of course I have no hard evidence for my hypothesis, so don't trust me too far on this.
Slashdot Mirror
As Isaac Asimov pointed out once. Though our ability to record and store data have increase, so has our ability to destroy it.
This was not meant to be a troll.
It was meant to suggest that it is not generally considered ethical to coerce others to do something that you aren't willing to do yourself.
Perhaps I should have phrased my concern differently.
Of course, I recognize the fact that Troll modifiers are often given to show disagreement, rather than as an evaluation of the merits of the post.
That's kind of a silly example, especially as it doesn't illustrate free information.
My attention is worth something. If you didn't want it you wouldn't try to tell me anything. We exchange. You get attention, I get the color of the sky. Not free information, just VERY inexpensive, because it's not worth much.
I have often wondered, but haven't wondered enough to do actual research, how expensive it would be to send radioactive waste to the sun for disposal.
We're lucky it's only nuclear power that people with power lie about, otherwise we'd have to give up all the other possibly helpful technologies that people would lie about (like electricity).
How much of your own money do you currently give to fusion research?
Unless you are already voluntarily spending 10% of your gross income on fusion research I don't much respect your willingness to vote to spend 10% of my money, even though I thnk it is a very worthy cause, as such things go.
Quote: "every successful government on earth"
I think that the US government can be said to be successful, as far as having influence within and without its borders.
If you think that the US government controls mass media in the US than you've probably been watching (reading, listening to) too much advertising, and have forgotten it's all about selling soap.
I would suspect that anyone that "comes from" the PRC to the west is of the richest in the country. Sweatshop wages aren't usually appealing to people that can afford trans-oceanic air travel, nor do such wages usually allow such travel.
Thus I'm not inclined to accept information from the average PRC expatriate as if it came from an average PRC citizen.
If you damage the street in front of your house can you see your property taxes go up due to the increase in street repair expense? That is what I mean by cost being disconnected from service. Voters in small towns are the same as the voters in national elections, and no less willing to try to get something for nothing, which introduces budget growth.
It is true that local government (for small towns, not Philadelphia) is fairly directly connected to the voters, but that doesn't mean that small government isn't still less efficient than private business for something like this.
To repeat: There is no real motivation because, as I mentioned above, the cost is too easily disconnected from product usage. The effect of elections is often to make the problem worse by adding more inefficiency.
In cities where I've lived (mostly under 20,000) the cable co doesn't have to be extremely bad to lose its monopoly, just generate enough dissatisfaction so that the contract is awarded to a different company next renogotiation time.
But, if a government is running the business . . . lets just say that governments are the most tenacious of all monopolies.
Quote: "Companies will charge users whatever they think they can get from them. It's just the way things are."
The trouble having a government-run ISP is that there is NO real motivation for making it cheap and efficient. If the system doesn't work someone will be voted in on the platform of taxing to fix it. If it does work someone will be voted in on the platform, "If it's working at this level of funding just think what we could do with more money?"
If your internet (or cheez whiz, or public road, or T-shirt) doesn't have a specific price on it that is obviously connected with your use of it the money you spend on it will very quickly increase.
For a good example, think of the difference between buying on credit, and paying full cost up-front. How many ads tell you the monthly cost, instead of the full price, or even better, the full price + interest? If the actual price paid for the thing isn't directly connected with the thing, it will get more expensive.
You could say, "Just have the government manage it, but have it entirely non-tax funded in any way." But I think few of us would expect that condition to stick for long, and even if it did the monopoly would be harder to break than cable in a small town. A money machine made to attract cooked politicians.
Quote: "based on the mythos of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"
That's stretching it quite a bit. I would say, instead, that he used some ideas and some jargon from mormonism to help give the people a distinct culture that is different from mainstream culture anywhere.
One of most striking examples, in my opinion, of Larsen's mormon culture showing through, was a leader (Adama) that had basically absolute power over the people that he leads, but is absolutely moral, and still a believable character.
When he was tying his robot novels, and foundation series, and galactic empire novels all together he introduced a "God" that would make it possible for humanity to live in harmony.
I don't think that he realized that he was setting up Olivaw as a God (because Asimov suffered from Carl Sagan's disease), but that is the role that was given to Olivaw just the same.
Asimov liked to talk of religious people as if they were delusional, but when you read enough of his personal writings (story intros, autobiographical stuff) it becomes apparent that he was no less delusional than the rest of us.
I don't want to lessen anyone's perception of Isaac Asimov. He was one of my most admired people ever for a long time, and the qualities that I admired him for were real ones that he posessed. He was VERY intelligent, and knew how to explain things as clearly as anyone I've ever read.
He just wasn't the paragon of intellectual virtue and rationality that he would liked to have been, and, I believe to his credit, strove to be.
Quote: "Meanwhile, the invasion demonstrated to the world that the U.S. will not be restrained by law, ethics, or common sense"
Which is why we NUKED the stinkers in Iraq!
Go, Joe!!
The Government is required not to inhibit free speech. Private citizens, and the companies that they own, don't have the same rules, for good reason.
I was reading at the very beginning of the "Arctic Scenario" link, from the "Naval Operations in an Ice Free Arctic Symposium" page.
OK, very interesting report on "ONE PLAUSIBLE OUTCOME" (see begining of report). I also agree that the probablility is not negligible and, as I mentioned earlier, should be considered.
I still wish that the "New Scientist" article had also admitted that there were other possibilities.
Do you have references for the other possibilities too, or is your interest in the future of artic ice lopsided the same way as the article?
OK, I read the article in the New Scientist.
It was biased.
All shining hope for the future with lots of fuzzy inexactness like "could allow" and "in as little as." There was more than ample consideration for the arguments that favored their hope, and only those arguments in favor, but there was no actual research quoted or referenced.
There was a partial quote from one person. There was no context given for the quote, and the quote was so brief, that I have to be skeptical of the real intent of Peter Wadham when (if) he said that.
Perhaps this is "new science." I prefer science that is reported with as little bias as possible, that is backed up with research, and that, when things aren't known concretely, alternatives are presented.
Quote: "There are shipping companies now planning on using new routes which are being opened up by melting sea ice."
There are people planning to play Duke Nukem Forever, too.
Any shipping company that would get an advantage by using such new routs would have to be bonkers not to make plans for such a contingency. Just as bonkers as they would have to be to bank the whole business on such routs being commercially viable in the near future.
Make a deep fryer out of it, of course.
I guess that my different interpretation of the story (even when I first heard it, when I was about 5) probably stems from the fact that I was always aware that there are important differences between between being forced to share (theft, maybe tax-subsidised charity), being tricked to share (stone soup, older sibling sharing style), and sharing because you choose to with open eyes.
True, but that wouldn't be as mocking of PC paranoia.
So, are there no elisted police? Are they all officers? Is a police sergeant still called an officer, or are they considered some kind of non-com?
I always thought that the point of the stone soup story was how easy it is to fool greedy, selfish people.
Maybe what looks like the bottom of Saturn to us is really the top, and we all know that hot air rises . . .
How's that for a theory?
It seems that creating clouds would make the climate/weather difference downwind, not right over the coral giving off the DMS.
Maybe this theory is right, but to me it looks like grasping at straws.
The actual words of the article don't actually say that we know anything for sure, but the consistently positive tone, with no mention of a real possibility of error, followed by using this fairly unsupported hypothesis to support something like the Gaia thing, is very unscientific, if not outright dishonest.
My guess is that the actual scientists are still doing the science, but the author of the article found the actual science too boring and decided to "pep it up" a little. Of course I have no hard evidence for my hypothesis, so don't trust me too far on this.