Embarrassing Revelations for GOPSUBGATE
Gandalf Grey
More embarrassing revelations for the Navy
A leaked internal report acknowledges that civilians onboard the USS
Greeneville may have played a role in the crash that killed nine.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Daryl Lindsey
Feb. 24, 2001 | WASHINGTON -- With each new revelation about civilian
involvement in the USS Greeneville incident, the situation is growing
murkier and more embarrassing for the U.S. Navy.
On Friday, the results of the Navy's preliminary investigation of the
accident, in which a Navy submarine collided with the Japanese fishing
vessel Ehime Maru, were leaked to the conservative Washington Times
newspaper. The paper published excerpts that had been read over the phone to
a reporter. The report's conclusions paint an unsettling picture of the
involvement of civilians in the accident. The Navy reportedly acknowledges
in the document that civilians may have been a contributing factor in the
crash, jeopardizing not only the lives of those onboard the Ehime Maru, nine
of whom are now missing and presumed dead, but also the crew and passengers
of the Greeneville. Though the Navy and a number of former officers and
Naval experts have defended the safety of what the Navy refers to as
"civilian embarks," the latest allegations raise stark questions about the
soundness of that policy.
The report offered the first concrete evidence that the Navy's longtime
practice of bringing civilians aboard for joy rides on submarines may pose a
threat to public safety. "The location and number of civilian visitors did
interfere with the ability of the OOD (officer of the deck) and commanding
officer to use the fire-control system and converse with the (technician) in
ascertaining the contact picture from the time the ship was preparing for
periscope depth until the (rapid ascent) was conducted," the Navy report
states, according to the Times.
The role of civilians in the accident will be a major focus of a rare public
court of inquiry proceeding that will begin in March in Hawaii. Another
subject of the review will be why the Navy conducted the emergency-surfacing
operation that led to the crash. Did they do it to make the undersea voyage
more thrilling to the civilians aboard the Greeneville? That's another
sensational allegation that has fueled criticism since the Feb. 9 incident.
The report specifically criticized the crew of the Greeneville for allowing
too many civilians to gather around the ship's periscope. And though it does
not blame civilians as the sole cause of the accident, the leaked document
makes clear that their presence distracted the crew, and could have been a
serious contributing factor. And it flies in the face of what the Navy has
told the press so far about the accident.
When asked by PBS "Newshour" host Jim Lehrer on Feb. 15 whether there was
any indication so far in the Navy's investigation that civilians played a
role in the collision, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated, "None
whatsoever." He was backed up by other defense spokespersons who parroted
his line.
"First of all, on the civilians, as Secretary Rumsfeld said, there is no
indication at this point in the investigation that the civilians had any
impact on the outcome. We'll continue to look at that," one stated last
week.
It was the fourth major blow to the Navy P.R. machine since the deadly
collision. First, the Navy took a full week to release a list of civilian
passengers on the ship -- several days after two passengers went on NBC's
"Today" show to reveal that they had been at the controls of the submarine
as it rocketed to the surface. Reporters had been asking the Navy for the
list ever since it revealed -- the day after the accident -- that civilians
had been aboard the Greeneville. But the Navy remained intransigent, citing
the privacy rights of the passengers -- even as some of them came forward to
make network television appearances. That prompted an apology from Rear Adm.
Stephen Pietropaoli, who told reporters on Feb. 15, "Clearly, in hindsight,
we could have done a much better job of making that information known not
only to you all, but to the NTSB." Pietropaoli offered a more insightful
explanation in a Washington Post interview, admitting that the
"institutional reflex for military officers is to continue to gather
information and say nothing."
The National Transportation Safety Board, which is now leading the
investigation, also revealed Wednesday that the Navy told its investigators
that the submarine's fire control technician says he was unable to do his
job because the tight quarters of the Greenville's control room had become
packed with civilians. That technician's job is to plot sonar data on a
large paper chart, which is then used by the captain and crew members in
navigation.
Even more damaging was a Washington Post report Friday that the doomed Ehime
Maru had been tracked by the Greeneville's sonar at least one hour before
the collision -- and that Cmdr. Scott Waddle had been fully aware of the
trawler's presence in the vicinity. According to the report, Waddle also
told investigators that he was not warned about the boat's proximity to the
submarine by his fire control technician. That sailor told investigators
that his work was halted because he was distracted by civilians in the
overcrowded control room.
Citing unnamed sources at the Pentagon, CNN and the Washington Times both
reported that the Navy has found the Greeneville crew had conducted a
periscope search that was "too low and too deep to detect the nearby ship."
This was all bad news, of course, for suspended Cmdr. Waddle, who on March 5
will face the court of inquiry and possible criminal charges.
The recent developments will no doubt prompt a full review of the Navy's
civilian embarkation programs -- a demand that Rumsfeld soundly made on
Thursday, as he banned the placement of civilians in controlling positions
on military vehicles and called for a review of safety procedures for
civilian ride-alongs in general.
The Navy has long permitted select civilians to participate in its embark
programs. It's a public relations strategy aimed at developing public
support through backstage tours, as it were. And the United States is not
alone in conducting such programs. It's also done in the United Kingdom and
Russia, two countries with large and respected militaries. A notable
exception, however, is Japan, which does not permit civilians to ride on
military vessels. And that's one factor that has made it difficult for the
Japanese to understand how this accident happened.
Investigations have revealed a series of careless and inappropriate actions
on the part of the submarine. We cannot bear to hear such revelations, and,
at the same time, we feel strong anger. Especially, the fact that civilians
were allowed to be at the controls of the submarine caused us to doubt the
U.S. Navy's stance on safety. Facts about having civilians on board and
allowing some of them to operate controls have become known one after
another, after the media's pursuit of the truth and the investigation of the
accident by the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), leading
the families of the missing Japanese to distrust the U.S. side.
But in the U.S. Navy civilian embarks are routine -- so much so that
officials can't even recall when the programs were initiated.
Generally, requests are made directly to the Navy, and embarks are approved
by a number of criteria, mainly having to do with public relations. This
places an emphasis on journalists, business owners, politicians and other
community leaders. Rumsfeld has acknowledged that these programs are "a
reward for work people have done to help the Navy or the Navy League --
things like that."
Those rewards can also lead to criticism, as when journalists revealed that
among the passengers aboard the Greeneville were contributors to the USS
Missouri Memorial Association, whose trip had been arranged by former Adm.
Richard Macke, who volunteers for the organization. Macke's reputation had
been indelibly stained after he joked to reporters in 1995 about the rape of
a 12-year-old Japanese girl by three U.S. servicemen. "I've said several
times, for the price they paid to rent the car, they could have had a girl,"
he said, implying that soliciting a prostitute would have prevented the
rape. The unfortunate quip ultimately cost him his job.
Two men affiliated with the Missouri Memorial Association were allowed by
the submarine's captain to sit at the controls as it made its emergency
ascent.
The Navy denies that organizations like the Missouri Memorial Association
increase the pressure for civilian embarks. Pacific Fleet spokesman Lt.
Cmdr. Flex Plexico says, "It just happened that these civilians were
contributors to the Missouri, but I don't think that had any bearing on
whether or not they were brought aboard the submarine. They were seen as
business and community leaders, and that's one of our target audiences to
bring out to sea, so they can share that experience with their businesses
and communities."
However, between 1999 and 2000, civilian embarks in the Pacific Fleet
increased from 11,644 passengers to 14,273. Plexico attributes the increase
to better efficiency in running the programs, an increase in requests and
the recent Department of Defense program "Reconnecting with America," a
public relations program designed to build popular support for military
operations.
"We've been doing this for years -- trying to give the American people a
better idea of what their sailors do, where their money goes. Our belief is
that ships, submarines and airplanes belong to the taxpayers. If they pay
for it, then we ought to do our best to show them what they paid for,"
Pimlico says. He also says that anyone can request to sail on a submarine
like the Greeneville by calling a Navy public affair's office or the area
command.
"But nobody embarks people aboard Navy ships, submarines or aircraft besides
the Navy. We take referrals from people -- if somebody says, 'Hey, there's a
group of people that I think would benefit from going out on a submarine,'
then we take that referral and contact the group. But a Navy command makes
the final decision as to who will embark," he states.
The presence of high-powered citizens, however, could make it more difficult
for crewmembers to do their jobs. In an interview Thursday, Ned Beach, a
former Navy captain and author of the bestselling book "Run Silent, Run
Deep," offered the following poignant example that goes to the heart of the
question: "Chances are that this sonar man is a young guy, probably in his
very early 20s," he says, applying a hypothetical situation to the fire
control technician who admitted this week that he wasn't able to do his job
because civilians had crowded the control room. "He hasn't got the
horsepower to say to some 50-year-old bank manager, 'Please sir, get out of
my way.'" Nonetheless, Beach still believes the Navy should continue to
carry civilians on its vessels. "The Navy's been doing this for many
years -- as many as 50 or 60. It's all been well received and everyone has
been pleased. Of course, if a disaster happens, then you have to cope with
it."
The Navy maintains that it has strict criteria for determining who is
permitted to ride along. Applicants must meet a variety of criteria before
they are permitted on an embark. First and foremost, says Plexico, is the
physical condition of the passenger -- because they must climb ladders and
fit through tight spaces. It also depends on the ship or submarine's
schedule. "We can't embark everyone, so if we can get a group of people that
is known to have influence or the ability to communicate that message a
larger group of people, it's a better return on our investment. That's why
we embark media -- we know that individually we can't bring everyone on
board -- there aren't enough underway or enough ships or submarines. If we
bring on a journalist, they can talk to tens or hundreds of thousands of
people." The Navy does not keep statistics for the number of journalists it
takes on its vessels each year.
Prior to the Greeneville accident, there has been no major public debate
over whether or not civilians should be allowed to actively participate in
naval operations. One of the criticisms in the Navy's preliminary report was
that too many civilians were crowded into the control room of the
Greeneville during a critical time prior to the accident. However, Navy
policies do not specify a limit on the number of civilian passengers aboard
a ship at any given time.
"There is no specific maximum, but safety considerations, such as access to
emergency breathing apparatus, and logistics concerns, such as length of
underway period, composition of group and plans for getting the guests on
and off the submarine are all factors taken into account," says Jensin
Sommer, a spokeswoman for Navy headquarters in Washington. "Sixteen is not
an unusually high number of civilian guests for an orientation embarkation,
but more of an average."
Others are more critical about placing civilians in control positions than
they are about the number of passengers aboard. Jane's Defense magazine
spokesman Paul Beaver criticized the proximity of civilians to the controls
of the Greeneville last week. "By all means take them to see a
nuclear-powered submarine, but don't allow them to be in the control room."
But the Navy denies that the men were actually in control of the emergency
operation.
In a press conference, Navy spokesman Pietropaoli told reporters that
crewmen never relinquished control. "In a technical sense, they [the
civilians] had their hands on control surfaces at the control station," he
said. "In a real sense, they were 100 percent the entire time, as always --
many of you have done this procedure yourself, although perhaps not an
emergency surfacing, in driving the submarines when you've been brought to a
submarine -- in a real sense, they have a fully qualified, very interested
watch-stander standing directly behind them over their shoulder, with their
hands on your hands, ensuring that you don't have a sudden spasm and do
something you should not do."
Regardless of the ultimate outcome of the investigation, it seems clear from
preliminary reports that the Navy has procedures that are too loose in
regard to civilian passengers. Nuclear submarines are compact vessels with
controls and perils spread throughout. If the Navy is unable to control the
movement of its passengers or the commanders of any vessel permit civilians
to be in positions or areas that compromise the safe navigation of a ship or
submarine, then it may have to reconsider permitting them aboard.
As Ned Beach said, "I would be unhappy to see the Navy greatly reduce the
opportunity to take civilians out on cruises like this because of this one
incident. But nine people lost their lives, and how do you take that into
account? The monument to these nine lives may be to restrict the Navy's
operational capability to do these things. That's what the Navy may have to
do to pay for the accident."
--
"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator." George W. Bush, Televised Newsconference
December 18, 2000
Bill Mech
animosity towards the GOP. There is NOTHING in the investigative report
indicating ANY GOP or political involvement of ANY kind in this accident.
The data make clear that these submarine trips with civilians and especially
journalists have been going on for many years and had nothing to do with
either Republicans or Democrats.
Your choice of title indicates rather clearly your total disregard for
honesty.
--
Bill Mech
wm...@att.net
For info on politics, taxes, education etc., go to
http://home.att.net/~wmech
Gandalf Grey <gandal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:97c6vv$1mh$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
King Pineapple
King Pineapple <saddl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Fnhm6.46$B7....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> So far, This was a week and a half ago. He was repeating what had beed
> discovered by that date.
Sorry, what had *been* discovered. Spell check seems to be on the blink.
rose...@rapidnet.com
>Your title for this screed indicates an overwhelming and unwarranted
>animosity towards the GOP.
What DO you think the attitude towards fuckwitted, asskicked idiots that have
made "unproven allegation" Insinuations, innuendo the mainstay of their
political ideology, should be?
===================================================
http://x35.deja.com/[ST_rn=ap]/getdoc.xp?AN=556741088&CONTEXT=956240342.1344012307&hitnum=3
There are 3888 unique messages by
"Dana Raffaniello"
<ra...@home.com>
>> Forum: alt.personals
>> Thread: seeking big butt ladies inPhoenix
>> Message 4 of 7
Subject: seeking big butt ladies in
Phoenix
Date: 12/05/1999
Author: Dana <ra...@home.com>
Ladies if you have a nice round plump butt, and pretty feet.
Lets have some fun
King Pineapple
news:iYhm6.4249$Ea1.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Your title for this screed indicates an overwhelming and unwarranted
> animosity towards the GOP.
Well, DUH!
> There is NOTHING in the investigative report
> indicating ANY GOP or political involvement of ANY kind in this accident.
He can't be bothered with the "truth", just what suits his crusade. Which
is, of course, to shit on the guy who beat his guy (who couldn't even win
his own state).
> The data make clear that these submarine trips with civilians and
especially
> journalists have been going on for many years and had nothing to do with
> either Republicans or Democrats.
The passenger list for THIS mission was approved by Clinton's people at DOD.
NOT Bush's.
> Your choice of title indicates rather clearly your total disregard for
> honesty.
Of course it does. Which is why people have to stop his disinformation
campaign dead in the water. Keep exposing him as a fraud, as I am doing. The
more, the merrier.
He's using the standard Dem tactic honed by Clinton: repeat something often
enough and people will think it's "true". Remember, the Dems are pretty
stupid to begin with (Algore got 65% of the high school dropout vote).
Gandalf Grey
--
Somewhere in the Bush Junta White House, a toilet backed up and
King horseapple<saddl...@earthlink.net> pulled a full emergency blow in
message news:qVim6.346$AD6....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Bill Mech <wm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:iYhm6.4249$Ea1.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Your title for this screed indicates an overwhelming and unwarranted
> > animosity towards the GOP.
>
> Well, DUH!
Gosh, there's just nothing I can do that the Horseapple won't try to
imitate.
The sincerest form of flattery.
rose...@rapidnet.com
clue:
>
>King Pineapple <saddl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:Fnhm6.46$B7....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
>
>>
>> So far, This was a week and a half ago. He was repeating what had beed
>> discovered by that date.
So far it's been nearly a year and you still can't manage to support your
claims of "principles" and "perjury"
Are you just a dumb fuckwit, or what?
>Sorry, what had *been* discovered. Spell check seems to be on the blink.
>
>
===================================================
GW
> Your title for this screed indicates an overwhelming and unwarranted
> animosity towards the GOP. There is NOTHING in the investigative report
> indicating ANY GOP or political involvement of ANY kind in this accident.
It reveals goofball grey to be either a total idiot, a total asshole, or both.
He may be deluded, seeing a connection where none exists (an idiot), or may be
purely corrupt, intentionally drawing a connection he knows doesn't exist (an
asshole).
> The data make clear that these submarine trips with civilians and especially
> journalists have been going on for many years and had nothing to do with
> either Republicans or Democrats.
Greygoof should know that already. If he doesn't he's an idiot; if he does he's
an asshole AND an idiot.
> Your choice of title indicates rather clearly your total disregard for
> honesty.
His choice may be an indicator of his approximate age. He's probably a 60's
throwback; a hippie still stuck in the mindset of that era. He may have since
changed his clothes and gotten a haircut and a job, but he still sees the
military as part of the 'establishment' he detests, thereby equating anything
military with the GOP.
Reminds me of Hillary. She was outraged after the US Air Force did a fly-by
salute after Clinton's first inauguration ceremony. A Clinton aide reminded her
that those are "now our jets" and Hillary was suddenly appeased. Many dems have
served in and respect the military but *Clinton* dems are the one's who ran to
Canada during America's involvement in the Vietnam war. They hate the
military. Goofball grey is cut from the same cloth.
> Bill Mech
> wm...@att.net
> For info on politics, taxes, education etc., go to
> http://home.att.net/~wmech
>
> Gandalf Grey <gandal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:97c6vv$1mh$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> > Salon.com
> >
> > More embarrassing revelations for the Navy
> > A leaked internal report acknowledges that civilians onboard the USS
> > Greeneville may have played a role in the crash that killed nine.
> >
<snipped the rest>
Joseph R. Darancette
wrote:
>In response to Greygoof's irrelevant post, Bill Mech wrote:
>
>> Your title for this screed indicates an overwhelming and unwarranted
>> animosity towards the GOP. There is NOTHING in the investigative report
>> indicating ANY GOP or political involvement of ANY kind in this accident.
>
>It reveals goofball grey to be either a total idiot, a total asshole, or both.
>He may be deluded, seeing a connection where none exists (an idiot), or may be
>purely corrupt, intentionally drawing a connection he knows doesn't exist (an
>asshole).
>
>> The data make clear that these submarine trips with civilians and especially
>> journalists have been going on for many years and had nothing to do with
>> either Republicans or Democrats.
>
>Greygoof should know that already. If he doesn't he's an idiot; if he does he's
>an asshole AND an idiot.
>
>> Your choice of title indicates rather clearly your total disregard for
>> honesty.
>
He calls himself Gandalf because he's the Imperial Wizard of his local
Klavern of the Democrat party.
>
>His choice may be an indicator of his approximate age. He's probably a 60's
>throwback; a hippie still stuck in the mindset of that era. He may have since
>changed his clothes and gotten a haircut and a job, but he still sees the
>military as part of the 'establishment' he detests, thereby equating anything
>military with the GOP.
>
>Reminds me of Hillary. She was outraged after the US Air Force did a fly-by
>salute after Clinton's first inauguration ceremony. A Clinton aide reminded her
>that those are "now our jets" and Hillary was suddenly appeased. Many dems have
>served in and respect the military but *Clinton* dems are the one's who ran to
>Canada during America's involvement in the Vietnam war. They hate the
>military. Goofball grey is cut from the same cloth.
>
>> Bill Mech
>> wm...@att.net
>> For info on politics, taxes, education etc., go to
>> http://home.att.net/~wmech
>>
>> Gandalf Grey <gandal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:97c6vv$1mh$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
>> > Salon.com
>> >
>> > More embarrassing revelations for the Navy
>> > A leaked internal report acknowledges that civilians onboard the USS
>> > Greeneville may have played a role in the crash that killed nine.
>> >
>
><snipped the rest>
>
"The poor we have always with us, and the purpose of
the Lord in providing the poor is to enable us of the better
classes to amuse ourselves by investigating them and
uplifting them and at dinners telling how charitable we are.
The poor don't like it much. They have no gratitude. ...
But if they are taken firmly in hand they can be kept
reasonably dependent and interesting for years."
-- Sinclair Lewis in the short story _Things_
first published in the Saturday Evening Post in 1919
Computers let you make More mistakes faster than any other
invention in human history, with the possible exception of
handguns and tequila.
Joseph R. Darancette
dar...@uia.net
Dennis McGee
>> Your choice of title indicates rather clearly your total disregard
>> for honesty.
>
>His choice may be an indicator of his approximate age. He's probably a 60's
>throwback; a hippie still stuck in the mindset of that era.
And your response may be an indicator of what a naïve young hard-right
peckerwood you are. Using "-gate" to describe scandals didn't come into
prominence until the late 1970's.
King Pineapple
GW <gwa...@pop.mpls.uswest.net> wrote in message
news:3A9A108F...@pop.mpls.uswest.net...
>Many dems have
> served in and respect the military
Funny thing, I've been on these NGs for almost 4 years now, and have seen
few, if any, of these Democrats in the military posting HERE...they're
probably afraid to.
GW
Sheesh McClown. The thread isn't about the using suffix 'gate.' It's about
using the prefix 'GOP' regarding a situation having nothing to do with either
party. Go back and read the thread again from the begining to see how you missed
the whole point.
GW
More than likely they lurk here but don't post because they don't want to
associate with, or be associated with, the likes of rosewad, greygoof, and
loony lu, et al. They're not afraid, they're embarrassed.
Rob Robertson
>
> In response to Greygoof's irrelevant post, Bill Mech wrote:
<snip>
> > Your choice of title indicates rather clearly your total disregard for
> > honesty.
>
> His choice may be an indicator of his approximate age. He's probably a 60's
> throwback; a hippie still stuck in the mindset of that era. He may have since
> changed his clothes and gotten a haircut and a job, but he still sees the
> military as part of the 'establishment' he detests, thereby equating anything
> military with the GOP.
That's an interesting theory, but,...
> Reminds me of Hillary. She was outraged after the US Air Force did a fly-by
> salute after Clinton's first inauguration ceremony. A Clinton aide reminded her
> that those are "now our jets" and Hillary was suddenly appeased. Many dems have
> served in and respect the military but *Clinton* dems are the one's who ran to
> Canada during America's involvement in the Vietnam war. They hate the
> military. Goofball grey is cut from the same cloth.
...I don't remember Rick "Gandalf Grey" Hanson condemning the military
when Clinton was lobbing Tomahawk cruise missiles into Sudan, for example.
Not that I'd expect a partisan hack to have any principles, though.
_
RR
GW
> GW wrote:
> >
> > that those are "now our jets" and Hillary was suddenly appeased. Many dems have
> > served in and respect the military but *Clinton* dems are the one's who ran to
> > Canada during America's involvement in the Vietnam war. They hate the
> > military. Goofball grey is cut from the same cloth.
>
> ...I don't remember Rick "Gandalf Grey" Hanson condemning the military
> when Clinton was lobbing Tomahawk cruise missiles into Sudan, for example.
Clinton could have nuked Sudan and Greygoof would *still* be defending him.
> Not that I'd expect a partisan hack to have any principles, though.
Of course not. I'd love to hear greygoof's take on the slaughter in Mogadishu. I
think we ought to build a monument in honor of the US Rangers slaughtered there when
William Jefferson Clinton *refused* to send them the armored back up they desperately
requested before they died. Let nobody forget.
I'd also like to hear Rosewad's take on Mogadishu and WJC's deadly blunder. Not
likely to hear from either of them though.
Rob Robertson
>
> Rob Robertson <rob.ro...@verizon.com> wrote:
>
> <beat>
>
> > How many "Clinton-haters" actually blamed The Hustler from Hot Springs
> > for the unconscionable assault on February 28th, 1993 by the BATF on
> > the Davidians?
>
> Yesterday on CNN, I saw a report about the brutal Chicom
> suppression of Falun Gong, and it emphasized the propaganda campaign
> featuring nice pictures of burning adherents while citizens wept in
> proper fervent horror. I thought, "Goddamn... that's just a
> large-scale Davidian operation going on, and on all those community
> committees is a Roselle hooting over a smoldering body."
"Religious freaks had it coming to 'em."
That's an interesting connection to make, and you're right on the
money with that one. What puzzles me is how the chattering horde
can fail to recognize the fact that THEY will become the target
someday, and how the horror will be of their own making.
> Billy
>
> VRWC Fronteer
> http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/
_
Rob
Who Cares?
news:3A9C25...@verizon.com...
>
> That's an interesting connection to make, and you're right on the
> money with that one. What puzzles me is how the chattering horde
> can fail to recognize the fact that THEY will become the target
> someday, and how the horror will be of their own making.
Between you and me, Rob, I do have
some serious thoughts on my mind
besides my jpg library.
I can't quantify them, though. It's more
like a confluence of events.
In _The Great Reckoning_, Davidson and
Rees-Mogg argued that the microchip
was a force which tends to reduce
the size of organizations.
I always thought the argument was weak,
and lately I've seen signs of an opposite
effect.
One constraining factor on corporations
is, believe it or not, their IT systems. Most
large corporations are not as they appear.
They're really broken into divisions, departments,
and geographical regions which run their
own, separate IT systems. It's a bitch
to keep it all synchronized, man. It's
costly, error-prone, requires lots of
manpower. The interfaces between
these separate systems don't scale,
they *eat* proportionally more resources
as corporations grow.
Plus, there's data latency within the
org which increases with size, another
scalability problem.
It's like the thing about ants. If they
ever grew to be 10 feet tall, their
skeletons would collapse.
I think that's all changing now. I've known
for years what object-oriented programming
was *theoretically* capable of, but
now I'm seeing in DEED, not
just word. Tools and technology
have changed drastically since my
first project in '93.
And in one sentence, it seems that OOP
is actually making it *less* costly for
large corporations to compete, less
costly than for smaller organizations.
You grok what I talk?
Who Cares?
> can fail to recognize the fact that THEY will become the target
> someday, and how the horror will be of their own making.
A second disturbing item -
Check out this article, man.
http://www.forbes.com/2001/03/01/0301malone.html
Many troubling things here.
For one thing, it's a strong confirmation of what I
already believe - that you and I are just chemical
programs. Badly written programs with lots
of dead code, duplication, contention,
but hand-tweaked for thousands of years
until they worked pretty good.
One of the biggest problems in software is
that of managing complexity. Complexity tends
to be an exponential function. People aren't
good at estimating exponetial functions,
they live their entire lives in a linear world.
A reduction of gene pairs from an estimated
100,000 to 30,000 is freaking huge. That's
a really big difference.. With software and
hardware increasing exponentially, and
the complexity of the genome vastly
reduced, it changes a lot of expectations.
It's a confluence of events, Rob. I don't think
it's good. It's looking more and more to me
like our existing IT systems, at their max,
are already managing complexity close
to that of the genome.
Now read this one -
http://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/1127/162_2.html
And this one. I posted here years ago about the
Cost Of Information (COI), how the COI
was driving the economy, that as COI drops,
economic opportunities appear. I figured that
someday the trend would stagnate or reverse,
but I thought it would be a decade away.
http://www.dismal.com/todays_econ/te_022801_2.asp
And is The Singularity real or myth?
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~phoenix/vinge/vinge-sing.html
I've always been sceptical of The Singularity, but
now, with Wolfram, I don't know. The genome,
the acceleration beyond what even *I* expected.
Coupled with the emergence of the United
States as a real Empire, creepy guys with
smiles and suits in Congressional seats...
A confluence of events. This all doesn't seem right
to me, in conjunction with the market crash, Bush,
Clinton, the unveiling of The Empire. Things are
not right for the future, I think. At least, not
for many folks.
John D.
"Who Cares?" <vene...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9rGn6.6940$7Y1.7...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Dramatic as it seems, what you're observing here is really nothing
new, Who, just an illustration of man's continuing saga in his search
for the simple.
The seminar you've attended is reminiscent of the Bible story
concerning "The Tower of Babel."
John D.
Rob Robertson
>
> "Rob Robertson" <rob.ro...@verizon.com> wrote in message
> news:3A9C25...@verizon.com...
[re the Falun Gong/Davidian connection]
> > That's an interesting connection to make, and you're right on the
> > money with that one. What puzzles me is how the chattering horde
> > can fail to recognize the fact that THEY will become the target
> > someday, and how the horror will be of their own making.
>
> Between you and me, Rob, I do have
> some serious thoughts on my mind
> besides my jpg library.
Of course you do, Who. I was just waiting for you to
admit to yourself what I (and my bureau chief) knew
all along. But please, you were making manifest,...
> I can't quantify them, though. It's more
> like a confluence of events.
I know what you mean. It's the battle between synergy and
self-organized criticality; the drive towards ever greater
complexity; a reorganization of seemingly disparate parts
to form a larger and greater whole, and the requisite
collapse of the prior structure as a function of growth.
http://www.williamjames.com/Theory/BIOLOGY.htm
Are your lips tingling yet? Trust me, someday they will!
> In _The Great Reckoning_, Davidson and
> Rees-Mogg argued that the microchip
> was a force which tends to reduce
> the size of organizations.
>
> I always thought the argument was weak,
> and lately I've seen signs of an opposite
> effect.
>
> One constraining factor on corporations
> is, believe it or not, their IT systems. Most
> large corporations are not as they appear.
>
> They're really broken into divisions, departments,
> and geographical regions which run their
> own, separate IT systems. It's a bitch
> to keep it all synchronized, man. It's
> costly, error-prone, requires lots of
> manpower. The interfaces between
> these separate systems don't scale,
> they *eat* proportionally more resources
> as corporations grow.
Sure, but what's the time scale you're using to measure this
against? There's always the expansion/contraction of various
problems driven by, and then resolved by, technology. Who knew
there would even be such a thing as 'Enterprise Networking'
ten or twenty years ago?
Enterprise Networking Association
http://www.enanet.org/
Riscorian Enterprise Networking
http://www.riscorian.com/
Disparate parts work to make something greater than the sum of
its parts (synergy) until the complexity of it overwhelms the
structure as a whole (self-organized criticality) which drives
a further ramp-up of technological solutions. Robustness is
increased at each stage, which only leaves the question of how
far back you want to fall in the organic ratcheting action of
the process.
> Plus, there's data latency within the
> org which increases with size, another
> scalability problem.
You lost me there. I'm not seeing it.
> It's like the thing about ants. If they
> ever grew to be 10 feet tall, their
> skeletons would collapse.
So if you want something to be ten feet tall, that 'thing'
can't be an ant; it must be something else. At that point
you have to look at what remains constant, though; is the
'thing' still self-replicating and self-preserving? What
new characteristics accompany the new form?
> I think that's all changing now. I've known
> for years what object-oriented programming
> was *theoretically* capable of, but
> now I'm seeing in DEED, not
> just word. Tools and technology
> have changed drastically since my
> first project in '93.
>
> And in one sentence, it seems that OOP
> is actually making it *less* costly for
> large corporations to compete, less
> costly than for smaller organizations.
>
> You grok what I talk?
Just barely. I'm clueless re OOP, but if I can paraphrase
in dummytalk, you seem to be saying that, beyond a simple
economy of scale, there are technologies that more greatly
aid larger organizations by virtue of their complexity, and
that this will tend to increase the expansion/consolidation
of larger organizations and drive down the viability of
smaller ones.
Am I close?
_
Rob
Rob Robertson
>
> "Rob Robertson" <rob.ro...@verizon.com> wrote in message
> news:3A9C25...@verizon.com...
> > What puzzles me is how the chattering horde
> > can fail to recognize the fact that THEY will become the target
> > someday, and how the horror will be of their own making.
>
> A second disturbing item -
>
> Check out this article, man.
>
> http://www.forbes.com/2001/03/01/0301malone.html
>
> Many troubling things here.
Stop it, right now. You are simply not constituted at this moment
to go down this path you've stumbled upon, Who. That's clear with
your previous comment about 'being a spook if you had it all to do
again' as well as that bit about the Germans making a rational
choice to follow Hitler. Your time scale is out of whack, and if
you're not careful you'll end up listening to the Dragons at the
Mouth of the Waters, and that's a BadThing.
Do you know where all of this leads? I'll tell you where; you're
going to end up watching _The Wizard of Oz_ backwards a few dozen
times and swatting at tiny, invisible agents if you're not careful.
*I* am the trippy weirdo in this 'group, and your job is to be the
cynical curmudgeon. I'm serious; this is some seriously dangerous
shit you're playing with, and you have to be committed to push it
the whole way 'round the loop. Going only half way will leave you
ending up like Erb!
But, if you insist,...
> For one thing, it's a strong confirmation of what I
> already believe - that you and I are just chemical
> programs.
I've mentioned this several times over the years. I have a very
good friend who is an outstanding research chemist/pharmacologist,
and we often revisit this argument with the same results. It starts
with something like Lynn Margulis' take on life, that all creatures
are just so many walking condominiums of cooperative bacteria,...
http://www.bio.umass.edu/faculty/biog/margulis.html
...and in my friend's view, that we're just walking bags of chemicals.
And there he stops.
Push it further and you see that those chemicals are, in turn, the
product of interacting atomic particles, which are themselves the
quantum potentiality of energies winking and blinking in and out of
existence, but retaining a semblance of physical persistence that
isn't really there. At the finest resolution we, and everything around
us, are the manifestation of consciousness and energy, and leaves us
in a fundamentally undifferentiated 'quark soup' through which this
intentionality acts.
> Badly written programs with lots
> of dead code, duplication, contention,
> but hand-tweaked for thousands of years
> until they worked pretty good.
Well, there's the interplay between the 'physical', mathematical,
electromagnetic, etc,... that may require a chemical history to
exist as 'junk' [sic] code, but I'll go with what you've got.
> One of the biggest problems in software is
> that of managing complexity. Complexity tends
> to be an exponential function. People aren't
> good at estimating exponential functions,
> they live their entire lives in a linear world.
So far! As you progress along the low, gently rising function
there appears to be little 'rise' to the corresponding 'run',
but what happens when the derivative of the exponential function
of Life reaches one? Personally, I think we passed that point a
decade or so ago.
> A reduction of gene pairs from an estimated
> 100,000 to 30,000 is freaking huge. That's
> a really big difference.. With software and
> hardware increasing exponentially, and
> the complexity of the genome vastly
> reduced, it changes a lot of expectations.
>
> It's a confluence of events, Rob. I don't think
> it's good.
Oh, there's more of that 'short-term' thinking again. Yes, it's
going to get bad, and then worse, and then monstrously horrific,
but it'll all play out in the end. Life is the feel-good movie
of Eternity. God gives it One Thumb up!
> It's looking more and more to me
> like our existing IT systems, at their max,
> are already managing complexity close
> to that of the genome.
>
> Now read this one -
>
> http://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/1127/162_2.html
Social organization follows the prevailing scientific worldview,
and as Newtonian physics viewed the Universe as just so much
clockwork, so to did our social institutions reflect that nature
in their organization. But then along comes Max Planck and his
curious solution to a head-scratching physics problem, and
society simply refused to follow the lead. Quantum physics is
just too freakin' *weird* to be reflected in social organization
(or so we believe) and we've been living in denial for decades.
Now, creating something like Mathematica is one thing, but as
you hint at below and in your other post, there is a confluence
of science and technology that threatens to overtake our simple
understanding of reality.
Normal guy: "I am an *individual*!"
Raving L@@N: "Oh, I bet all your neurons say that!"
When all the pieces of the puzzle are out of the box, sometimes
they begin to arrange themselves into a larger whole of their
own accord.
> And this one. I posted here years ago about the
> Cost Of Information (COI), how the COI
> was driving the economy, that as COI drops,
> economic opportunities appear. I figured that
> someday the trend would stagnate or reverse,
> but I thought it would be a decade away.
>
> http://www.dismal.com/todays_econ/te_022801_2.asp
You lost me again. Maybe I'm just not following what you're
saying here, but I view it more as a matter of diminishing
returns. PC sales are dropping. So? Most of what people do
with a PC makes a 1 gig chip sorta pointless, and there's
not much need to upgrade if the limit is the mouse-clicker,
not the hardware itself. It's like the hot rod/motorcycle
threads that pop up; sometimes the limit is the nerve of
the driver, not the gears and carbs and stuff.
> And is The Singularity real or myth?
>
> http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~phoenix/vinge/vinge-sing.html
>
> I've always been sceptical of The Singularity, but
> now, with Wolfram, I don't know. The genome,
> the acceleration beyond what even *I* expected.
December 21, 2012. Mark it on your (Mayan) calendar.
> Coupled with the emergence of the United
> States as a real Empire, creepy guys with
> smiles and suits in Congressional seats...
It gets weirder, you know.
> A confluence of events. This all doesn't seem right
> to me, in conjunction with the market crash, Bush,
> Clinton, the unveiling of The Empire. Things are
> not right for the future, I think. At least, not
> for many folks.
Two rules I live by, Who.
One for the future,...
"Never trust a Reptoid."
...and one for the here-and-now;
"Never give a Volvo an even break."
Keep cool, hang loose, and ride it out on top.
_
Rob
John D.
> Who Cares? wrote:
> >
> > "Rob Robertson" <rob.ro...@verizon.com> wrote in message
> > news:3A9C25...@verizon.com...
>
(snip)
>
> Just barely. I'm clueless re OOP,
I believe, Who is referring to Object Oriented Programming. I think it's the
way programmers are putting themselves out of work, kind of like what CNC
did to highly skilled machinists.
John D.
> Rob
Rob Robertson
>
> Rob Robertson wrote:
>
> > Who Cares? wrote:
> > >
> > > Rob Robertson wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> > Just barely. I'm clueless re OOP,
>
> I believe, Who is referring to Object Oriented Programming.
Yeah, he said that in a previous paragraph, but I wasn't clear
on the overall thrust of his argument since I'm not familiar
with the particulars of OOP.
> I think it's the way programmers are putting themselves out of
> work, kind of like what CNC did to highly skilled machinists.
*shrug*
You can't make buggy whips forever, I guess.
> John D.
_
Rob
John D.
(snip)
> You can't make buggy whips forever, I guess.
>
I don't know, from what I gather around here lately, these SM folks may
reinvigorate the buggy whip business!
John D.
> _
> Rob
johnz~
infernal, terrestrial, and heavenly Rob Robertson
<rob.ro...@verizon.com> wrote:
> Who Cares? wrote:
> >
> > "Rob Robertson" <rob.ro...@verizon.com> wrote in message
> > news:3A9C25...@verizon.com...
> > > What puzzles me is how the chattering horde
> > > can fail to recognize the fact that THEY will become the target
> > > someday, and how the horror will be of their own making.
> >
> > A second disturbing item -
> >
> > Check out this article, man.
> >
> > http://www.forbes.com/2001/03/01/0301malone.html
> >
> > Many troubling things here.
>
> Stop it, right now. You are simply not constituted at this moment
> to go down this path you've stumbled upon, Who. That's clear with
> your previous comment about 'being a spook if you had it all to do
> again' as well as that bit about the Germans making a rational
> choice to follow Hitler. Your time scale is out of whack, and if
> you're not careful you'll end up listening to the Dragons at the
> Mouth of the Waters, and that's a BadThing.
>
> Do you know where all of this leads? I'll tell you where; you're
> going to end up watching _The Wizard of Oz_ backwards a few dozen
> times and swatting at tiny, invisible agents
Rob, nobody is supposed to know about the NSA's "tiny lungs"
Ahem.
_______________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER 2
1. Twenty-two foundation letters: three Mothers*, seven Doubles, and
twelve Elementals. The three Mothers, AMSh, their foundation is the pan
of merit, the pan of liability, and the tongue of decree deciding
between them.
2. Twenty-two letters: Engrave them, carve them, weigh them, permute
them, and transform them, and with them depict the soul of all that was
formed and all that will be formed in the future.
3. Twenty-two foundation letters: They are engraved with voice, carved
with breath, and placed in the mouth in five places: AChHO, BVMP, GYKO,
DTLNTh, ZSShRTz.
4. Twenty-two foundation letters: They are set in a circle as 231 Gates.
And this is the sign: There is no good higher than delight (ONG), and
there is no evil lower than plague (NGO).
5. How? Weigh them and transpose them, Aleph with each one, and each one
with Aleph; Bet with each one, and each one with Bet. They repeat in a
cycle. Therefore, everything formed and everything spoken emanates in
one name.
6. From substance out of chaos and make nonexistence into existence.
Carve great pillars out of air that cannot be grasped. This is the sign:
One forsees, transposes, and makes all creation and all words with one
Name. And a sign of this: Twenty-two objects in a single body.
- from SEPHIR YETZIRAH, trans. by Dr. David Blumenthal
_______________________________________________________________________
The good doctor has provided this commentary:
2.4 and 2.5 The "gates" described here are the gates to creative
activity, and the assumption is that, if one can combine the letters
properly, one can reenact the creative process used by God Himself in
the formation of the world. To understand this text, one must
distinguish between the "basic arrangement" of the letters in
"combinations" and "gates" and the "basic forms" by which the
arrangement is presented, the "wall" and the "wheel."
http://www.totalb.com/~mikeg/rel/kabbalah/yetzirah/sy.html
_______________________________________________________________________
When I get the time, I'll have to sit down and work out all the
combinations and reenact (at least, to a considerably lesser extent) the
processes used in the creation of the World. The weasels, Bubba Clinton,
Mr. Aryan Covington and Ms. Carole Ward had better watch out in that day
and hour!
(Doctor Blumenthal quite properly points out that "this Jewish creative
magic does not compel G*d (as does pagan magic). It has power only over
matter and, perhaps, angels." Picky, picky.
(People who suggest that the recent local earthquake was a result of an
inept or incomplete study of these matters on my part are *quite*
mistaken.)
As an aside, one may also get a hint of what lung means when she says
she's "mistress of the 231 (or 221) gates". lung loves acrostics,
crossword puzzles and number games. Creation *ex nihilo* at TRW? Need
one say more? (And have I violated National Security by saying this
much?)
As lung says, "no one knows what lung really is". Then again, perhaps
she's just being adorably puckish.
"Good-bye my book! Like mortal eyes, imagined ones must close some day.
Onegin from his knees will rise - but his creator strolls away. And yet
the ear cannot right now part with the music and allow the tale to fade;
the chords of fate itself continue to vibrate; and no obstruction for
the sage exists where I have put The End: the shadows of my world extend
beyond the skyline of the page, blue as tomorrow's morning haze - nor
does this terminate the phrase."
- From the ending of THE GIFT, a novel by Vladimir Nabokov - a book I
*very strongly* recommend to you, Rob. (You, too, Who)
>
> > It's looking more and more to me
> > like our existing IT systems, at their max,
> > are already managing complexity close
> > to that of the genome.
> >
> > Now read this one -
> >
> > http://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/1127/162_2.html
>
> Social organization follows the prevailing scientific worldview,
> and as Newtonian physics viewed the Universe as just so much
> clockwork, so to did our social institutions reflect that nature
> in their organization. But then along comes Max Planck and his
> curious solution to a head-scratching physics problem, and
> society simply refused to follow the lead. Quantum physics is
> just too freakin' *weird* to be reflected in social organization
> (or so we believe) and we've been living in denial for decades.
Hmm. Beware facile, "Tao of Physics"-style interpretations of "quantum
physics".
>
> Now, creating something like Mathematica is one thing, but as
> you hint at below and in your other post, there is a confluence
> of science and technology that threatens to overtake our simple
> understanding of reality.
>
> Normal guy: "I am an *individual*!"
>
> Raving L@@N: "Oh, I bet all your neurons say that!"
>
> When all the pieces of the puzzle are out of the box, sometimes
> they begin to arrange themselves into a larger whole of their
> own accord.
Some people say that's especially prone to happen in the beautiful
crystal palce of crystal rationality, but perhaps those people should
get some sleep.
I wouldn't know anything about that, of course.
>
> > And this one. I posted here years ago about the
> > Cost Of Information (COI), how the COI
> > was driving the economy, that as COI drops,
> > economic opportunities appear. I figured that
> > someday the trend would stagnate or reverse,
> > but I thought it would be a decade away.
> >
> > http://www.dismal.com/todays_econ/te_022801_2.asp
>
> You lost me again. Maybe I'm just not following what you're
> saying here, but I view it more as a matter of diminishing
> returns. PC sales are dropping. So? Most of what people do
> with a PC makes a 1 gig chip sorta pointless, and there's
> not much need to upgrade if the limit is the mouse-clicker,
> not the hardware itself. It's like the hot rod/motorcycle
> threads that pop up; sometimes the limit is the nerve of
> the driver, not the gears and carbs and stuff.
>
> > And is The Singularity real or myth?
> >
> > http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~phoenix/vinge/vinge-sing.html
> >
> > I've always been sceptical of The Singularity, but
> > now, with Wolfram, I don't know. The genome,
> > the acceleration beyond what even *I* expected.
>
> December 21, 2012. Mark it on your (Mayan) calendar.
>
> http://deoxy.org/omega.htm
Hey, Rob - who cares? (tee-hee) "The righteous could make a new world
(complete with Chevettes, etc) if they wish."
>
> > Coupled with the emergence of the United
> > States as a real Empire, creepy guys with
> > smiles and suits in Congressional seats...
>
> It gets weirder, you know.
>
> > A confluence of events. This all doesn't seem right
> > to me, in conjunction with the market crash, Bush,
> > Clinton, the unveiling of The Empire. Things are
> > not right for the future, I think. At least, not
> > for many folks.
>
> Two rules I live by, Who.
>
> One for the future,...
>
> "Never trust a Reptoid."
>
> ...and one for the here-and-now;
>
> "Never give a Volvo an even break."
I used to own a Volvo PV544, Rob. I had to get rid of it, though.
"Creature of Gothenburg, beloved vehicle of Nader, return to thy dust."
>
>
> Keep cool, hang loose, and ride it out on top.
>
> _
> Rob
JS
PS. Despite the above L@@Nacy, I am not going down the MK way - I'm just
being puckish.
*"Three Mothers" A-ha! Remember
John T. Kennedy
"Sorry Miss Coolheaded, my nerves are thinly threaded
My spirit, I confess, is in distress
With whiskered traces of my kisses on their faces
The girls have flown off once again to remedy this mess
Facts and science, this kangaroo alliance
A pallid pair when everything's at stake
What would they choose, if their feet were in my shoes?
The like of Newton, Faraday, von Heisenberg, and Planck?
Please be strong, wave goodbye, and don't look down
Heaven above me
Oh would there were ten of me
To take my girls and lead them by the hand
Such reflections try me, and mirrors multiply me,
But in the end I am merely one solitary man
Please be strong, wave goodbye, and don't look down"
- Dean E. Wooldridge, a.k.a. The Sugarplastic
-
John Kennedy
The Wild Shall Wild Remain!
http://members.nbci.com/rational1/wild/
Who Cares?
>
> Just barely. I'm clueless re OOP, but if I can paraphrase
> in dummytalk, you seem to be saying that, beyond a simple
> economy of scale, there are technologies that more greatly
> aid larger organizations by virtue of their complexity, and
> that this will tend to increase the expansion/consolidation
> of larger organizations and drive down the viability of
> smaller ones
Yes, but it's more than that.
I'm not joking around, man. I'm deadly
serious.
Think "Hitler in 1932 with genomic
nukes". Don't try to make direct
connections, just let ideas, trends
and possibilities float around in your head
for awhile -
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aa0321a0968.htm
I'm not sure of the specifics. Like I said,
it's something that's being floating
around in my mind for several
months.
You and Martin have jumped all over
Fuki's "evil immigrants" article, but
there's stuff in it that's true. Like this -
"Arizona is approaching Mississippi in the
percentage of people living at or near poverty,
and it's the direct result of a high level of immigration,"
I don't care if it's because of immigration, but I
know that there's a bad situation here. Most
folks ignore it. I choose to notice it.
It's not what this country is about. Rome was
built on slave labor.
Do you remember that article that Ambrose
Evans-Pritchard wrote? About the two-class society
that he feared America would become?
John T. Kennedy
> "Arizona is approaching Mississippi in the
> percentage of people living at or near poverty,
> and it's the direct result of a high level of immigration,"
>
> I don't care if it's because of immigration, but I
> know that there's a bad situation here. Most
> folks ignore it. I choose to notice it.
Well gee, it sounds like poor people are coming.
Would it be better if they were poor somewhere else?
Who Cares?
>
> Stop it, right now. You are simply not constituted at this moment
> to go down this path you've stumbled upon, Who. That's clear with
> your previous comment about 'being a spook if you had it all to do
> again' as well as that bit about the Germans making a rational
> choice to follow Hitler.
The spook comment was half-joke.
The Hitler comment was not. The German
people made an extremely rational choice,
given their alternatives and their economic
situation.
It *should* disturb you.
> ...and in my friend's view, that we're just walking bags of chemicals.
Now there's proof.
If you worked in a code shop, you'd know.
I know exactly what that article was saying. I
worked on code like that. I know how it
happened, I know why it happened.
> Oh, there's more of that 'short-term' thinking again. Yes, it's
> going to get bad, and then worse, and then monstrously horrific,
> but it'll all play out in the end. Life is the feel-good movie
> of Eternity. God gives it One Thumb up
That's not the issue, Rob. I'm not worried
about the changes in paradigms. I'm worried
about people like Roselle / Hanson, or rather,
their more competent counterparts in
high-level positions of government and
corporations, with monopolistic
access to patterns of creation, with
oligopic control of entire industries.
> society simply refused to follow the lead. Quantum physics is
> just too freakin' *weird* to be reflected in social organization
Object-oriented methodology will
permeated society. It's already half-way
there. Which is okay, the methodology
is not the problem. The problem is
the leverage it provides in the context
of world of Clintons.
Imagine *one* judge with the aiblity to alter
*all* legal references at a single stroke. Imagine
nobody else with the power to stop it.
And it would be okay even if there
were counterbalancing forces, just
like the Executive, Judicial, and
Legislative.
But it doesn't look like that to me.
> You lost me again. Maybe I'm just not following what you're
> saying here, but I view it more as a matter of diminishing
> returns. PC sales are dropping.
The driving force behind the booms of the
post-Civil war were railroads, agriculture
and communciation.
When the railroads hit the point of diminishing
returns, they laid off the most productive
people with the greatest means to consume.
Have you ever *looked* at the growth
curve for the U.S. for the past 200 years?
The past 30 years is so far off the scale,
so anomalous to *anything* that came
before.... it's clearly an exponential
curve.
>
> December 21, 2012. Mark it on your (Mayan) calendar.
Yeah, yeah, I know, my wife mentions it
all the time, she's into it.
> It gets weirder, you know.
No doubt.
Let me spell out a scenario for you.
The Crash of All-Time, brought about
by the hyperbolic growth of All-Time,
ushering in the mindset that elected
Hitler, with access to genomic
alteration ability that can target specific
ethnic groups, by sex, by age, anything you
care to name, coupled with the
ability to create any kind of
clone-slaves for military use, organs,
etc.
Supported by a worker class that
believes in euthansia, death sports,
and violent suppression of the
slave class..., a class that *knows*
no God exists...
Presided over by an elite that sound
and act a lot like Clinton, except
without constraints of today.
Remember 1990, Rob?
Remember how different it was?
And then we got the "contained depression",
Clinton, Waco and the X-Files. Those
events were portents of the 90s, weren't
they?
I think we're entering another period
of transition. I don't like how it looks.
I could easily be wrong. I've been
wrong before. I just have a creepy
feeling. Maybe it will pass.
gm...@hiwaay.net
Wasn't this batted around in the 'Open Borders' thread some time back?
If I recall correctly it dealt with destroying public services by
overwheming them with a flood of new immigrants. If I gather this
correctly from that series of posts and the article, or parts of it,
that Fugi posted we are rapidly approaching that point in time.
"You can't *pay* for entertainment like this."
Who Cares?
news:QV2gOq1auSzv+oWRp=Y7cLb...@4ax.com...
>
> Well gee, it sounds like poor people are coming.
>
> Would it be better if they were poor somewhere else?
That's not the issue.
I think less of you for this comment.
If Mexico crushes its own people into
poverty, does the United States have
the same right? Oh, wait, yes, it's
okay to crush them if we dress them
up with a K-Mart shirt!
John T. Kennedy
>Wasn't this batted around in the 'Open Borders' thread some time back?
>If I recall correctly it dealt with destroying public services by
>overwheming them with a flood of new immigrants. If I gather this
>correctly from that series of posts and the article, or parts of it,
>that Fugi posted we are rapidly approaching that point in time.
There was also a novel argument offered about The Rhythm of The
Republic.
It's okay with me if public services break down. Private services are
better for me.
John T. Kennedy
Have you ever heard me argue for any right of the United States to
crush anyone?
I'm all for the United States leaving everyone alone.
Lynette Warren
> "John T. Kennedy" <kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> Would it be better if they were poor somewhere else?
>
> That's not the issue.
>
> I think less of you for this comment.
It's a logical question, not a reason to think less of anyone for it.
> If Mexico crushes its own people into
> poverty, does the United States have
> the same right? Oh, wait, yes, it's
> okay to crush them if we dress them
> up with a K-Mart shirt!
Crushed? By the cognitive elite reaping the benefits of their labor in a
free market?
Lynette
Lynette Warren
> Think "Hitler in 1932 with genomic
> nukes". Don't try to make direct
> connections, just let ideas, trends
> and possibilities float around in your head
> for awhile -
Touch and go. Heads up all the time.
> http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aa0321a0968.htm
> I'm not sure of the specifics. Like I said,
> it's something that's being floating
> around in my mind for several
> months.
> You and Martin have jumped all over
> Fuki's "evil immigrants" article, but
> there's stuff in it that's true. Like this -
> "Arizona is approaching Mississippi in the
> percentage of people living at or near poverty,
> and it's the direct result of a high level of immigration,"
> I don't care if it's because of immigration, but I
> know that there's a bad situation here. Most
> folks ignore it. I choose to notice it.
What do you see that's bad about it? Life so cheap that crimes get more
and more vicious? It's been like that in Mexico for a few years now.
> It's not what this country is about. Rome was
> built on slave labor.
> Do you remember that article that Ambrose
> Evans-Pritchard wrote? About the two-class society
> that he feared America would become?
He was talking about Michael Lind's book decrying laissez faire
capitalism. Where a machiavellian overclass exploits cheap labor of
all colors, while looking down its nose at (primarily white)
patriotism. It was quite Buchananistic. You warned me about him.
Remember? I took your advice.
Thanks.
Lynette
johnz~
"Who Cares?" <vene...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Speaking only for myself, my basic objection to Fuji's Carole Ward
article was the barely veiled racialism and loathesome denials of
other's people's humanity ("breeders") that it embodied, not the
position on immigration per se. In fact, I would say that Ward is using
the immigration question as a mask to hide her real agenda. Her animus
is hardly restricted to immigrants - I am willing to bet that it easily
extends to include native-born non-"whites" as well. I don't usually
respond to legitimate anti-immigration articles in that way. And you'll
note that Martin McPhillips, whose position on immigration is not
exactly the same as my own, instantly saw the Ward article for what it
was and reacted accordingly.
Carole Ward's article wasn't really about immigration at all - it was
about crypto-National Socialism. These people are like the Communists of
the 1930's (or indeed, of the present time) - they are very careful not
to reveal what they really are, and they hide behind other people's
issues to slip in their own "ideas".
The Weezils and the Nazis have learned everything from each other,
except how not to be pathetic and utterly ineffectual.
JS
Who Cares?
news:SZ%n6.3782$wA6.1...@e420r-sjo3.usenetserver.com...
>
> Crushed? By the cognitive elite reaping the benefits of their labor in a
> free market?
Historians will look back on this era
and laugh their asses off when they
read the phrase "free market".
Who Cares?
>
> What do you see that's bad about it? Life so cheap that crimes get more
> and more vicious? It's been like that in Mexico for a few years now.
*I* don't live in Mexico.
If I wanted to live in Mexico, I would
move there.
> He was talking about Michael Lind's book decrying laissez faire
> capitalism. Where a machiavellian overclass exploits cheap labor of
> all colors, while looking down its nose at (primarily white)
> patriotism. It was quite Buchananistic. You warned me about him.
> Remember? I took your advice
What on earth are you talking about?
"It was the power crisis. The endless hours,
the layoffs, the buyout, the new uniforms"
http://civic.net/civic-values.archive/199509/msg00388.html
Wow, you're right. I didn't even remember anything
about racism in the article, just the last paragraph...
"The replacement of the American Republic with a
decentralised and privatised society would create
something like a high-tech Holy Roman Empire on
American soil," he writes, calling it the new feudalism.
"The result would be a wasteland of crime-ravaged
slums between the fortified private neighbourhoods
of the white overclass, compounds connected, no
doubt, by private toll roads."
Not a bad description of Phoenix, L.A. or Miami.
Who Cares?
news:johnsabotta-2A72...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
>
> Speaking only for myself, my basic objection to Fuji's Carole Ward
> article was the barely veiled racialism and loathesome denials of
> other's people's humanity ("breeders") that it embodied, not the
It's immaterial. I'll agree that the article probably
serves an agenda, but it's immaterial to
the point.
I understand why you would chose to discredit
it on those grounds rather than dealing with
the real issue, which is that "laissez faire"
economies don't work over the long run.
There's a *reason* that the U.S. looks like
it does.
#1 - People are hardwired...
Oh, man, why am I bothering?
John, do you think it would be possible
to build a complex, interlocking,
technological system, with successive
layers dependent upon each other,
with an agrarian "laissez faire" economy?
No. That's why the U.S. looks like it does.
It *couldn't* look like anything else
to be a technological superpower.
There's a *reason* for all of it. I used
to bitch about how complicated my
car engine was. My dad invited me to
build a better one. It never happened.
There's a reason for bureacracies, even.
It's a scalability issue. *Everything* is
driven by transaction costs. Transaction
costs = communication costs.
As complex systems grow, you have
to restrict communication between internal
nodes, they can't *all* talk to each other,
it's too much traffic, too many transaction
costs.
How do I do that? I embed knowledge
of a particular job in rules and regulations,
I restrict the amount of information that
needs to move in / out of a node by
embedding the majority of the info
IN the node. That's encapsulation.
The whole structure exists for a reason.
It's structured for a *reason*.
Honestly, sometimes y'all "anarcho-capitalists"
remind of the ecologists that wanted to
tear everything down during the 60s and
70s, without regard to how food and
water would get created.
Gad, I can't believe I'm geting suckered in
some pointless argument about meaningless
things that can't work and won't happen.
Lynette Warren
Who Cares? <vene...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Historians will look back on this era
> and laugh their asses off when they
> read the phrase "free market".
Why would they laugh? Because the market is imbalanced by regulations?
Billy Beck
"Who Cares?" <vene...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"John T. Kennedy" <kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote...
>>
>> Well gee, it sounds like poor people are coming.
>>
>> Would it be better if they were poor somewhere else?
>
>
> That's not the issue.
>
> I think less of you for this comment.
>
> If Mexico crushes its own people into
> poverty, does the United States have
> the same right? Oh, wait, yes, it's
> okay to crush them if we dress them
> up with a K-Mart shirt!
Who the hell are you, and what have you done with Bob Fuller?
Billy Beck
"Who Cares?" <vene...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Arizona is approaching Mississippi in the
> percentage of people living at or near poverty,
> and it's the direct result of a high level of immigration,"
So what? What's your point?
Billy Beck
"Who Cares?" <vene...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"johnz~" <johns...@removethishome.net> wrote...
>>
>> Speaking only for myself, my basic objection to Fuji's Carole Ward
>> article was the barely veiled racialism and loathesome denials of
>> other's people's humanity ("breeders") that it embodied, not the
> It's immaterial. I'll agree that the article probably
> serves an agenda, but it's immaterial to
> the point.
>
> I understand why you would chose to discredit
> it on those grounds rather than dealing with
> the real issue, which is that "laissez faire"
> economies don't work over the long run.
How the hell would you know? There has never *been* one in this
country. For christ's sake, Langford, you could get Roselle to post
that bullshit and save yourself the trouble.
Lynette Warren
> > capitalism. Where a machiavellian overclass exploits cheap labor of
> > all colors, while looking down its nose at (primarily white)
> > patriotism. It was quite Buchananistic. You warned me about him.
> > Remember? I took your advice
>
>
> What on earth are you talking about?
>
> "It was the power crisis. The endless hours,
> the layoffs, the buyout, the new uniforms"
Guess what, Who. The state is getting ready to negotiate another cost
plus deal with PG&E. ka-ching! So we can pay them back for the
bail-out that the state sternly insists "is NOT a bail-out" :) So the
state is negotiating with us over rate hikes that will benefit the
state. It's like the bargaining scene in The Life of Brian. Just
hysterically funny. And California voters are so freaking clueless
they're going to let them all get away with it. Pure artistry of form
and function? Nah. More like a really bad card trick performed for a
really stooopid audience, but Great Justice, if you ask me.
Lynette
John T. Kennedy
I'm aware that this market isn't free.
Government is the problem.
John T. Kennedy
>
>"Who Cares?" <vene...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>"John T. Kennedy" <kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote...
>>>
>>> Well gee, it sounds like poor people are coming.
>>>
>>> Would it be better if they were poor somewhere else?
>>
>>
>> That's not the issue.
>>
>> I think less of you for this comment.
>>
>> If Mexico crushes its own people into
>> poverty, does the United States have
>> the same right? Oh, wait, yes, it's
>> okay to crush them if we dress them
>> up with a K-Mart shirt!
>
> Who the hell are you, and what have you done with Bob Fuller?
No, Fuller is the Walmart guy. Big difference.
John T. Kennedy
>"johnz~" <johns...@removethishome.net> wrote in message
>news:johnsabotta-2A72...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
>>
>> Speaking only for myself, my basic objection to Fuji's Carole Ward
>> article was the barely veiled racialism and loathesome denials of
>> other's people's humanity ("breeders") that it embodied, not the
>
>
> It's immaterial. I'll agree that the article probably
> serves an agenda, but it's immaterial to
> the point.
>
> I understand why you would chose to discredit
> it on those grounds rather than dealing with
> the real issue, which is that "laissez faire"
> economies don't work over the long run.
Sabotta just explained this to you. They're just discrediting the
racism. McPhillips argues *for* substantial controls on immigration
without being racist. He's no radical advocate of laissez faire.
>
> There's a *reason* that the U.S. looks like
> it does.
>
> #1 - People are hardwired...
>
> Oh, man, why am I bothering?
How can you, with all that hardwiring?
>
> John, do you think it would be possible
> to build a complex, interlocking,
> technological system, with successive
> layers dependent upon each other,
> with an agrarian "laissez faire" economy?
I think order arises naturally. Could you make anything as complex as
a frog? No, but frogs have arisen naturally.
>
> No. That's why the U.S. looks like it does.
>
> It *couldn't* look like anything else
> to be a technological superpower.
>
> There's a *reason* for all of it. I used
> to bitch about how complicated my
> car engine was. My dad invited me to
> build a better one. It never happened.
>
> There's a reason for bureacracies, even.
>
> It's a scalability issue. *Everything* is
> driven by transaction costs. Transaction
> costs = communication costs.
>
> As complex systems grow, you have
> to restrict communication between internal
> nodes, they can't *all* talk to each other,
> it's too much traffic, too many transaction
> costs.
Why are you trying to program this system?
>
> How do I do that? I embed knowledge
> of a particular job in rules and regulations,
> I restrict the amount of information that
> needs to move in / out of a node by
> embedding the majority of the info
> IN the node. That's encapsulation.
>
> The whole structure exists for a reason.
>
> It's structured for a *reason*.
>
> Honestly, sometimes y'all "anarcho-capitalists"
> remind of the ecologists that wanted to
> tear everything down during the 60s and
> 70s, without regard to how food and
> water would get created.
In a free market food and water will be produced because people value
them.
Who Cares?
news:LU3o6.5127$wA6.2...@e420r-sjo3.usenetserver.com...
>
> Guess what, Who. The state is getting ready to negotiate another cost
> plus deal with PG&E. ka-ching! So we can pay them back for the
> bail-out that the state sternly insists "is NOT a bail-out" :)
Looks like Lynette is getting a raise!
That's the ticket. I did the startup thing for
two years but when I moved on, I figured
it was safest to hang with an oligopic
entity. It's paying off. Half my buddies
have been laid off from the little
companies they moved to.
There's a pretty big demand for
creating true, scalable nervous
systems for big corporations.
Even though Java job demand has
shrunk by about 60% in the past
twelve months, salaries for people
at the top, doing the most sophisticated
work, look like they've increased
by about 20%.
That's just nuts, but it makes sense
when you view the entire process
as a gigantic wave, sweeping across
the land, the crest can get higher
and higher.
> And California voters are so freaking clueless
> they're going to let them all get away with it. Pure artistry of form
> and function? Nah. More like a really bad card trick performed for a
> really stooopid audience, but Great Justice, if you ask me
It's not justice, it's just a cosmic
practical joke from the Ether
that we imagine to be God.
Who Cares?
>
> Sabotta just explained this to you. They're just discrediting the
> racism. McPhillips argues *for* substantial controls on immigration
> without being racist. He's no radical advocate of laissez faire.
It's not important.
> I think order arises naturally. Could you make anything as complex as
> a frog? No, but frogs have arisen naturally.
Yeah, but can you build a frog
with chopsticks and rice?
> Why are you trying to program this system?
Because I'm getting paid to? :)
> In a free market food and water will be produced because people value
> them
Sad. Never mind. It's not gonna matter
either way. Once in awhile I question
the validity of stuff I'm working on,
but ultimately, somebody else would
build it anyway.
John, in one sentence. Tell me why "free markets"
are important.
Who Cares?
news:3aa0c900...@news.mindspring.com...
>
> "Who Cares?" <vene...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > "Arizona is approaching Mississippi in the
> > percentage of people living at or near poverty,
> > and it's the direct result of a high level of immigration,"
>
> So what? What's your point?
That's it's an unstable system? That resources
are allocated in a manner that don't produce
maximum usability?
I honestly don't understand why you
and John can't grasp that you're
proposing unworkable ideas.
Okay, okay. Let's just do this.
Beck, in one sentence. Tell me why
"free markets" are important.
Who Cares?
>
> How the hell would you know? There has never *been* one in this
> country. For christ's sake, Langford, you could get Roselle to post
> that bullshit and save yourself the trouble.
Ahh, Beck finally begins to understand.
Scary. The LSD must be wearing off.
Or the toupee.
Tell me, Beck, why do you suppose that
there has "never been a lassiez faire"
economy in this country?
Who Cares?
Because there are very few free markets
in this country, regardless of regulations.
It's a myth. Billy and John have built up this
godlike image of "free markets", and approximations
of free markets can be powerful constructs,
but they're hardly the dominant structure
in the U.S.
Didn't Billy tell you that before he sold
you the Anarcho Cookbook?
The whole system is built on oligopolies, markets
dominated by a few key players that can
restrict resources to maximize their profit,
they can influence the cost of their
resources, they can influence the price
of their products.
PG&E.
Ford.
GE.
ADM.
Microsoft.
Intel.
IBM.
Boeing.
AT&T
Government agencies
Utiltities
HMOs
Hospitals
Universities
Sure, our pals can come up with a few examples
that might be termed "free markets", but they're
few and far between, and they're almost
exclusively limited to COMMODITY products.
It's pretty hard to fight wars or police actions
with a stalk of corn or jar of honey.
Anybody can whip up kooky ideas that have
zero grounding in reality, and zero possibility
of implementation. They can even work those
kooky ideas over and over until they gleam
with the shining appeal of "internal consistency".
But, like Saskia's diogenian search for a
non-psycho man, it takes a "real man"
to work with existing resources, possibilities
and compromises to make something work.
Imagine Billy Beck as Thomas Jefferson,
refusing to sign the Declaration because
of the slavery clause.
The United States never existed, it remained
a colony of the British Empire.
Did you get a raise yet?
Who Cares?
> country. For christ's sake, Langford, you could get Roselle to post
> that bullshit and save yourself the trouble
Billy, you can't think that I *care* if
you use my original name, do you? :)
Okay, okay, I got another one, Billy.
The aboriginals here, the Indians. Isn't their
economy pretty close to your mythical
"laissez faire" economy?
Martin McPhillips
I'll tell you in one word: *Prices*.
Without a free market in which prices signal commercial
exchange, you have, in essence, sado-masochism, what the
Soviets ultimately came to express as "we pretend to work and
they pretend to pay us."
Now, are free markets absolute? No. But intervention always
takes you to the same place, and the last time we, meaning
the U.S., were there in a really big way -- was in the late
'70s, '80, and '81. That deep nasty recession in '82 cut
a lot of necrotic flesh off of the national and world
economy. In the far less interventionist, high investment,
stable money environment that followed that recession,
you have an 18 year boom interrupted by a mirage downturn
in '91. During that time, Soviet Communism just flat went
out of business. It had *no* free market through which
prices could signal, and Russia still doesn't have it.
Bureaucracy is a technocratic compulsion that seeks
only more bureaucracy. It's like what used to be said
about cocaine: it's net effect is that you want more
cocaine. Sado-masochism.
Who Cares?
news:3AA1B92E...@earthlink.net...
>
> I'll tell you in one word: *Prices*.
>
> Without a free market in which prices signal commercial
> exchange, you have, in essence, sado-masochism, what the
> Soviets ultimately came to express as "we pretend to work and
> they pretend to pay us."
Don't play games with me, Martin, unless
you're a woman. :)
So if prices are *the* most important
aspect of "free markets", you'd be
pretty comfortable with a centralized
economy that produced lower prices.
Right?
Sounds like you support old Russia to me,
prices were practically free. Of course,
the variety of good was sucky, but
prices were great.
Who Cares?
>
> I'll tell you in one word: *Prices
Yeah, I think the "prices" answer is
going fall by the wayside.
heck, Martin, what if the government
gave it to you for FREE?
Best price in town, man! Martin McPhillips,
Government Yes-Man!
Wait ,wait, wait. What if I just enslave
50 mexicans and produce your stuff
for a really, really low cost?
Heck, maybe Martin's answer *is*
spot on!
Martin McPhillips
>
> "Martin McPhillips" <jour...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3AA1B92E...@earthlink.net...
> >
> > I'll tell you in one word: *Prices*.
> >
> > Without a free market in which prices signal commercial
> > exchange, you have, in essence, sado-masochism, what the
> > Soviets ultimately came to express as "we pretend to work and
> > they pretend to pay us."
>
> Don't play games with me, Martin, unless
> you're a woman. :)
>
> So if prices are *the* most important
> aspect of "free markets", you'd be
> pretty comfortable with a centralized
> economy that produced lower prices.
>
> Right?
Wrong. Prices aren't "produced." They are signals between
purchasers and sellers. Centralized or command economies
have command of everything *but* prices, which they artificially
control and by doing so create scarcity, i.e., no clear signal
can get from purchaser of metals A to miner of metals B and
vice versa to make it worth miner of metals B's while to take
the metals out of the ground. In a free market -- as free as
you can get it -- those signals will go both ways and from that
you *get* production. To talk of "producing" prices is nonsense,
the kind of nonsense that you get in socialist bureaucracies
in the third world. It doesn't work. Except to create disasters.
That's why when you get to the extreme, you have to force people
to work at gunpoint. That's what happened in the Soviet
Union.
>
> Sounds like you support old Russia to me,
> prices were practically free. Of course,
> the variety of good was sucky, but
> prices were great.
Great for what? For buying cigarettes from the guards on the
gulag?
Who Cares?
>
> Wrong. Prices aren't "produced." They are signals between
> purchasers and sellers.
ahhh, "signals between purchasers
and producers".
That's close, but I'm still going to
toy with you.
> That's why when you get to the extreme, you have to force people
> to work at gunpoint. That's what happened in the Soviet
> Union.
Well, HECK, Martin, you're claiming
here that's there IS something more
important than "prices".
Let's forget that point for now, but
it's a loser, too, I think.
What if I just contracted Ford to
mass-produce ONE kind of vehicle?
Wouldn't that be *really*, *really*
low price and not involve coercion
of workers?
Who Cares?
> purchasers and sellers. Centralized or command economies
> have command of everything *but* prices, which they artificially
> control and by doing so create scarcity, i.e., no clear signal
> can get from purchaser of metals A to miner of metals B and
> vice versa to make it worth miner of metals B's while to take
> the metals out of the ground.
You claim that "no clear signal"
can pass from producer to
consumer in a "central" economy.
Why?
John T. Kennedy
>
>"Lynette Warren" <ar...@surfari.net> wrote in message
>news:M83o6.2940$sD.3...@e420r-sjo2.usenetserver.com...
>>
>> Who Cares? <vene...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > Historians will look back on this era
>> > and laugh their asses off when they
>> > read the phrase "free market".
>>
>> Why would they laugh? Because the market is imbalanced by regulations
>
>
> Because there are very few free markets
> in this country, regardless of regulations.
>
> It's a myth. Billy and John have built up this
> godlike image of "free markets", and approximations
> of free markets can be powerful constructs,
> but they're hardly the dominant structure
> in the U.S.
>
> Didn't Billy tell you that before he sold
> you the Anarcho Cookbook?
>
> The whole system is built on oligopolies, markets
> dominated by a few key players that can
> restrict resources to maximize their profit,
> they can influence the cost of their
> resources, they can influence the price
> of their products.
The only way they can influence their prices that is a problem is by
force, and government force is the worst problem.
That aside, the following folks are welcome to do as they like with
their property, it's no skin off my nose.
>
> PG&E.
> Ford.
> GE.
> ADM.
> Microsoft.
> Intel.
> IBM.
> Boeing.
> AT&T
> Government agencies
> Utiltities
> HMOs
> Hospitals
> Universities
>
> Sure, our pals can come up with a few examples
> that might be termed "free markets", but they're
> few and far between, and they're almost
> exclusively limited to COMMODITY products.
>
> It's pretty hard to fight wars or police actions
> with a stalk of corn or jar of honey.
I'll just have to do without what I can't steal, won't I?
>
> Anybody can whip up kooky ideas that have
> zero grounding in reality, and zero possibility
> of implementation.
What anyone can do is hop on the gravy train of your protection
racket, your "implementation".
>They can even work those
> kooky ideas over and over until they gleam
> with the shining appeal of "internal consistency".
>
> But, like Saskia's diogenian search for a
> non-psycho man, it takes a "real man"
> to work with existing resources, possibilities
> and compromises to make something work.
I guess we've found her soul mate.
>
> Imagine Billy Beck as Thomas Jefferson,
> refusing to sign the Declaration because
> of the slavery clause.
>
> The United States never existed, it remained
> a colony of the British Empire.
Could be. Though that empire seems to have lost most of it's colonies
anyway.
John T. Kennedy
>"John T. Kennedy" <kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:MwihOtRhYgTvfQ...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Sabotta just explained this to you. They're just discrediting the
>> racism. McPhillips argues *for* substantial controls on immigration
>> without being racist. He's no radical advocate of laissez faire.
>
>
> It's not important.
>
>
>> I think order arises naturally. Could you make anything as complex as
>> a frog? No, but frogs have arisen naturally.
>
>
> Yeah, but can you build a frog
> with chopsticks and rice?
I can't build a frog at all. Get it?
>
>
>> Why are you trying to program this system?
>
>
> Because I'm getting paid to? :)
>
>
>> In a free market food and water will be produced because people value
>> them
>
>
> Sad. Never mind. It's not gonna matter
> either way. Once in awhile I question
> the validity of stuff I'm working on,
> but ultimately, somebody else would
> build it anyway.
>
> John, in one sentence. Tell me why "free markets"
> are important.
Individuals cannot arrange their survival without liberty.
John T. Kennedy
>"Billy Beck" <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3aa0c900...@news.mindspring.com...
>>
>> "Who Cares?" <vene...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> > "Arizona is approaching Mississippi in the
>> > percentage of people living at or near poverty,
>> > and it's the direct result of a high level of immigration,"
>>
>> So what? What's your point?
>
>
> That's it's an unstable system? That resources
> are allocated in a manner that don't produce
> maximum usability?
Ah but free markets do tend to produce maximum value, what you are
witnessing is the tragedy of the commons.
If the ladn were privatized as it should be the tragedy of the commons
need not occur. People take care of their own property.
>
> I honestly don't understand why you
> and John can't grasp that you're
> proposing unworkable ideas.
>
> Okay, okay. Let's just do this.
>
> Beck, in one sentence. Tell me why
> "free markets" are important.
>
John T. Kennedy
>"Martin McPhillips" <jour...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:3AA1B92E...@earthlink.net...
>>
>> I'll tell you in one word: *Prices*.
>>
>> Without a free market in which prices signal commercial
>> exchange, you have, in essence, sado-masochism, what the
>> Soviets ultimately came to express as "we pretend to work and
>> they pretend to pay us."
>
>
> Don't play games with me, Martin, unless
> you're a woman. :)
>
> So if prices are *the* most important
> aspect of "free markets", you'd be
> pretty comfortable with a centralized
> economy that produced lower prices.
That's precisely as possible as a violation of the laws of
thermodynamics, precisely as possible as a perpetual motion machine.
You really need to review elementary economic principles:
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Academic/Price_Theory/PThy_ToC.html
>
> Right?
>
> Sounds like you support old Russia to me,
> prices were practically free. Of course,
> the variety of good was sucky, but
> prices were great.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Martin McPhillips
>
> "Martin McPhillips" <jour...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3AA1C12E...@earthlink.net...
> >
> > Wrong. Prices aren't "produced." They are signals between
> > purchasers and sellers.
>
> ahhh, "signals between purchasers
> and producers".
>
> That's close, but I'm still going to
> toy with you.
You think that do you?
>
> > That's why when you get to the extreme, you have to force people
> > to work at gunpoint. That's what happened in the Soviet
> > Union.
>
> Well, HECK, Martin, you're claiming
> here that's there IS something more
> important than "prices".
>
> Let's forget that point for now, but
> it's a loser, too, I think.
>
> What if I just contracted Ford to
> mass-produce ONE kind of vehicle?
>
> Wouldn't that be *really*, *really*
> low price and not involve coercion
> of workers?
Well, I said that when you get to the extreme of doing
this, you'd have force people to work at gunpoint, which is
exactly what happened in the Soviet Union. This time out
you're offering a narrow hypothetical, so I'll answer it
narrowly. You could contract with Ford to mass produce
one kind of vehicle -- if by "I" you mean the centrally
controlling government -- and you might "get away with
it" in isolation. Assuming, of course, that the rest
of the economy was functioning as a real market. But the
more control you exert the more the market begins to shut
down. Anytime the government takes over the control of
production and institutionalizes *a* product or *a* means
of production, competition declines or is lost, innovate
essentially ends, grow slows or stops. This is elementary
stuff. Maybe your head has been into "systems analysis" to the
point where you think that an "economic system" can
be sketched out at the home office. It doesn't work
like that. Central to an economic system is what is
called the "knowledge problem," and the knowledge problem
comes down to this: only you know how much you're willing
to pay for something, because only you know what it is
worth to you. Likewise, only you know how much you'll
accept for something. When that happens with a few
hundred million people you get a multi-dimensional
market that is dynamically changing all the time.
No central plan can capture that because it cannot
*know* what any given product is worth to any individual
at any given time. *That* is what *price* is, in economic
terms. It has nothing to do with whether "you" can
contract with Ford to produce only one car at the
lowest possible price. "You" don't know what is on
the minds of a 100 million purchaser market. 75
million of those purchasers might not want to have
anything to do with the Ford HB Low-Priced Autobox.
Unless you hold a gun on them, they'll go elsewhere
for their car. You'll fire 3/4ths of your workers,
and you'll change Ford's name to something Russian.
Lynette Warren
>> Why would they laugh? Because the market is imbalanced by regulations
>
> Because there are very few free markets
> in this country, regardless of regulations.
In this country government regulation is the ultimate impediment to
free markets. All the attempts at price fixing and underhanded business
practices can be overcome by a savvy consumer market and by competition.
All of which government stifles in the most effective ways.
> It's a myth. Billy and John have built up this
> godlike image of "free markets", and approximations
> of free markets can be powerful constructs,
> but they're hardly the dominant structure
> in the U.S.
Kennedy and Billy hardly originated the concept.
> Didn't Billy tell you that before he sold
> you the Anarcho Cookbook?
He hasn't sold anything. I've listened to you more than I listen to him.
I've been hearing you for a long time. Thanks.
> The whole system is built on oligopolies, markets
> dominated by a few key players that can
> restrict resources to maximize their profit,
> they can influence the cost of their
> resources, they can influence the price
> of their products.
So what. Consumers still can choose not to buy those products. Without
government control, individual consumers would be the last word in value.
> PG&E.
> Ford.
> GE.
> ADM.
> Microsoft.
> Intel.
> IBM.
> Boeing.
> AT&T
> Government agencies
> Utiltities
> HMOs
> Hospitals
> Universities
Who, on that list, am I forced to support with my consumer dollars?
There's only one and it begins with Government.
It is true that companies like PG&E will be supported by government, as I
cite regarding the bail-out. But if the free market reigned in California
power, the company would survive very well and electricity consumers would
benefit. Instead, after a bizzare experiment in faux deregulation,
we're going back to the old heavily regulated market. The company
will benefit, but consumers/taxpayers will get the long term shaft.
> Sure, our pals can come up with a few examples
> that might be termed "free markets", but they're
> few and far between, and they're almost
> exclusively limited to COMMODITY products.
Pennsylvania power market.
> It's pretty hard to fight wars or police actions
> with a stalk of corn or jar of honey.
I'm with you there. It's probably why I'm doomed to stay eternally
locked in conflict with Kennedy and Billy. I'm still exploring the issue,
though.
> Anybody can whip up kooky ideas that have
> zero grounding in reality, and zero possibility
> of implementation. They can even work those
> kooky ideas over and over until they gleam
> with the shining appeal of "internal consistency".
Doesn't it bother you? That consistency? Isn't it that niggling artifact
that makes you want question all the more your zero assessment. I do.
> But, like Saskia's diogenian search for a
> non-psycho man, it takes a "real man"
> to work with existing resources, possibilities
> and compromises to make something work.
>
> Imagine Billy Beck as Thomas Jefferson,
> refusing to sign the Declaration because
> of the slavery clause.
haha! That's not hard to imagine. Not at all. Billy telling them off in
no uncertain terms. The rest of the founders just standing there at him
with a blank look. Kennedy being defenestrated. That would have been
great.
> The United States never existed, it remained
> a colony of the British Empire.
Bite your tongue, man? You need a vacation. Why don't you and the wife
take a nice little weekend trip down to Nogales?
> Did you get a raise yet?
No, but I'd be getting the dividend that was suspended due to the 'the
crisis'. Too good that I wasn't on PCG last December 15th. I made about
15K on the stock during 'the crisis' in these past two months, though. I
think I'll get back on and hold until 17 this time.
I love a crisis.
Lynette
John T. Kennedy
>"Martin McPhillips" <jour...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:3AA1C12E...@earthlink.net...
>>
>> Wrong. Prices aren't "produced." They are signals between
>> purchasers and sellers.
>
>
> ahhh, "signals between purchasers
> and producers".
>
> That's close, but I'm still going to
> toy with you.
>
>> That's why when you get to the extreme, you have to force people
>> to work at gunpoint. That's what happened in the Soviet
>> Union.
>
> Well, HECK, Martin, you're claiming
> here that's there IS something more
> important than "prices".
You think you're being clever but actually you're being spectacularly
obtuse.
Martin didn't mean *low prices* are paramount, he meant that prices
are the signals which facilite the efficient exchange of values.
While this is true and important it is not the reason I require free
markets.
>
> Let's forget that point for now, but
> it's a loser, too, I think.
You haven't even recognized the point so you're in no postion to
evaluate it.
>
> What if I just contracted Ford to
> mass-produce ONE kind of vehicle?
>
> Wouldn't that be *really*, *really*
> low price and not involve coercion
> of workers?
But how many cars do *you* want?
Martin McPhillips
That's a good question, and the short answer is that the "centralized"
state economy takes no risk, and it's downside is not economic but
political, and that's not efficient, and it's not efficient because
the signals will be skewed and can't be reacted to on the basis of said
real economic risk. The long answer is that the demand for metal and
the willingness to produce it and the price agreed to satisfy both
ends of that equation have many layers of complexity to them, having
to do with the need for wire hangers in Peoria and land and home
rental prices near the mines, and *thousands* of other inputs
like that. It's a web of signals, forces if you will, not a
bureaucrat with a green eyeshade setting abstract production quotas.
John T. Kennedy
Because even the individual doesn't know what he really wants until he
has to put his own stake on the line.
That's why a vote is such a crappy signal, it costs you nothing.
It's why people will vote for all sorts of nonsense they'd never dream
of paying for out of their own pockets.
Who Cares?
> >
> > That's close, but I'm still going to
> > toy with you.
>
> You think that do you?
Yes, I do. You already blundered with "prices",
plus all these issues have been rehashed in
information technology. Utlimately, it's
all about resources and scalability.
> one kind of vehicle -- if by "I" you mean the centrally
> controlling government -- and you might "get away with
> it" in isolation. Assuming, of course, that the rest
In other words, the "prices" answer was
wrong and you can't defend it. :)
That's okay, we'll got with the
"signals between producers and consumers".
So, a "free market' is important because
it allows signals to pass from consumers
to producers?
Is that the proposition?
Who Cares?
>
> In this country government regulation is the ultimate impediment to
> free markets.
Is it now?
Yikes!
Let me finish with Martin first, I'm having fun! :)
> He hasn't sold anything. I've listened to you more than I listen to him.
> I've been hearing you for a long time. Thanks.
I hope you're kidding.
Who Cares?
>
> That's a good question, and the short answer is that the "centralized"
> state economy takes no risk,
Interesting answer. I was wondering
when you'd really put up your gloves.
No risk? So, you're saying that a "free
market" takes risks?
You're saying that "free markets" are
important because they take risks?
Or is it the negotiated contract stuff?
John T. Kennedy
>> It's pretty hard to fight wars or police actions
>> with a stalk of corn or jar of honey.
>
>I'm with you there. It's probably why I'm doomed to stay eternally
>locked in conflict with Kennedy and Billy. I'm still exploring the issue,
>though.
When was the last time you had a really good police action?
By the way, who's going to draft Billy, will it be you or Broward?
I want a ticket for that.
>
>> Anybody can whip up kooky ideas that have
>> zero grounding in reality, and zero possibility
>> of implementation. They can even work those
>> kooky ideas over and over until they gleam
>> with the shining appeal of "internal consistency".
>
>Doesn't it bother you? That consistency? Isn't it that niggling artifact
>that makes you want question all the more your zero assessment. I do.
>
>> But, like Saskia's diogenian search for a
>> non-psycho man, it takes a "real man"
>> to work with existing resources, possibilities
>> and compromises to make something work.
>>
>> Imagine Billy Beck as Thomas Jefferson,
>> refusing to sign the Declaration because
>> of the slavery clause.
>
>haha! That's not hard to imagine. Not at all. Billy telling them off in
>no uncertain terms. The rest of the founders just standing there at him
>with a blank look. Kennedy being defenestrated. That would have been
>great.
I've been defenestrated. In a pinch I've been known to defenestrate
myself. I'd consider it an honor to have been defenestrated by the
founding fathers.
Who Cares?
>
> When was the last time you had a really good police action?
Seattle, WTO demonstration.
> By the way, who's going to draft Billy, will it be you or Broward?
In all honesty, John? The System treats
people like Billy exactly the way it
treats conpiracy theorists". It accepts
the fact that some small percentage
of the population are disrupters,
dissenters, etc.
It ignores them until they draw its ire.
And then there's no more Billy to worry about.
John T. Kennedy
>"Martin McPhillips" <jour...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:3AA1C8E8...@earthlink.net...
>> >
>> > That's close, but I'm still going to
>> > toy with you.
>>
>> You think that do you?
>
>
> Yes, I do. You already blundered with "prices",
> plus all these issues have been rehashed in
> information technology. Utlimately, it's
> all about resources and scalability.
>
>
>> one kind of vehicle -- if by "I" you mean the centrally
>> controlling government -- and you might "get away with
>> it" in isolation. Assuming, of course, that the rest
>
> In other words, the "prices" answer was
> wrong and you can't defend it. :)
No, a man's worth is his price, and you can't afford me.
>
> That's okay, we'll got with the
>
> "signals between producers and consumers".
>
> So, a "free market' is important because
> it allows signals to pass from consumers
> to producers?
>
> Is that the proposition?
You're not even scratching the surface. Important to whom?
John T. Kennedy
>"John T. Kennedy" <kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:Ts+hOkX2oAkwmv...@4ax.com...
>>
>> When was the last time you had a really good police action?
>
>
> Seattle, WTO demonstration.
Dumb example. Persons and property could obviously have been protected
by private means in that case.
>
>
>> By the way, who's going to draft Billy, will it be you or Broward?
>
>
> In all honesty, John? The System treats
> people like Billy exactly the way it
> treats conpiracy theorists". It accepts
> the fact that some small percentage
> of the population are disrupters,
> dissenters, etc.
>
> It ignores them until they draw its ire.
>
> And then there's no more Billy to worry about.
So you'll be sending hired hands I take it.
You speak of "The System" as if it weren't doing your bidding, but
you just admitted that's precisely what you want it to do.
You're standing with the weasel trash now, right with Rosell and
Gandy.
Martin McPhillips
Let me put it to you this way, about risk. I've got $100 million
to invest. I sink it into Manhattan real estate. The market
collapses. I lose half my investment. Was that a risk that
I took? My upside calculation had me doubling my money in
ten years, but the market bottomed out, and I took a hit.
Why did I take a hit: because the price that I paid turned
out to be far more than the price I could get.
Now, translate that basic dynamic of risk into the calculations
that buyers and sellers make at all levels in a vast interacting
network of commodities exchanges and you understand precisely what a
free market is. Each and every transaction is a resolution of
the "knowledge problem" that can only be arrived out by the
parties involved.
Lynette Warren
> Lynette Warren
>> In this country government regulation is the ultimate impediment to
>> free markets.
>
>
> Is it now?
Absolutely.
> Yikes!
>
> Let me finish with Martin first, I'm having fun! :)
I'm having fun watching you have fun.
>> He hasn't sold anything. I've listened to you more than I listen to
>> him. I've been hearing you for a long time. Thanks.
>
> I hope you're kidding.
No. I'm dead serious this time. I'm your disciple. It won't do any good
to disavow me.
Lynette
Who Cares?
Lynette has taken the wind out of my sails.
"Martin McPhillips" <jour...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3AA1D7A6...@earthlink.net...
Who Cares?
> >
> > I hope you're kidding.
>
> No. I'm dead serious this time. I'm your disciple. It won't do any good
> to disavow me
Now I feel sick.
I don't want to go into detail, but last
year I got to test out some theories
that I have about people, altruism,
teams, motivation, etc.
It wasn't just me, there were others
involved in different ways.
It was far more successful than
I expected. And there were
many after-effects that I
didn't anticipate.
I don't think I want to do it again. I'm
trying hard to avoid it in the new job.
Billy Beck
"Who Cares?" <vene...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"Billy Beck" <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote...
>> > "Arizona is approaching Mississippi in the
>> > percentage of people living at or near poverty,
>> > and it's the direct result of a high level of immigration,"
>>
>> So what? What's your point?
> That's it's an unstable system?
What "system"? There is no "system". What you're looking at is
a mix of elemental contradictions. Fire & water. The instability
you're pointing is a natural result of the contradictions. This is
chaos -- of the sort that the ignorant almost universally attribute to
"anarchy" -- but, in any case, it's not a "system" at all.
> That resources
> are allocated in a manner that don't produce
> maximum usability?
To whom? And: so what? Note the first question: it points up
the arbitrary presumption of your point. "Maximum usability" is an
individual matter, as usual. There is no room for a macro view in
these affairs: to posit "maximum usability" without accounting for
*what* is "use[d]" and by whom, is to completely dismiss ethics
(values) in these matters, and when you do that, you're also
dismissing the *motives* for individual human action. I don't think
it's going to make a dent in your head, but I am going to point out to
inlookers here that "maximum usability" beyond solitary individual
human beings is an economic and political fiction.
> I honestly don't understand why you
> and John can't grasp that you're
> proposing unworkable ideas.
You don't have a clue what you're talking about.
> Okay, okay. Let's just do this.
>
> Beck, in one sentence. Tell me why
> "free markets" are important.
Forget it. This is not a "one sentence" deal, and you're not
interested in any case. You're just the bastard troll of this
newsgroup now.
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/
John D.
"Who Cares?" <vene...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4sko6.14054$7Y1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
The Waco syndrome, I know who you are now, no longer just a confused drone
but also a dangerous accepting drone. You've lost.
John D.
Rob Robertson
<snip>
> Think "Hitler in 1932 with genomic
> nukes". Don't try to make direct
> connections, just let ideas, trends
> and possibilities float around in your head
> for awhile -
Yeah, that's what the other voices in my head keep saying.
> http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aa0321a0968.htm
>
> I'm not sure of the specifics. Like I said,
> it's something that's being floating
> around in my mind for several months.
OOP to 'the right to die' to 'the duty to die',... that's some
pretty free-form thinkin' ya got goin' on, Who.
> You and Martin have jumped all over
> Fuki's "evil immigrants" article, but
> there's stuff in it that's true. Like this -
>
> "Arizona is approaching Mississippi in the
> percentage of people living at or near poverty,
> and it's the direct result of a high level of immigration,"
>
> I don't care if it's because of immigration, but I
> know that there's a bad situation here. Most
> folks ignore it. I choose to notice it.
>
> It's not what this country is about. Rome was
> built on slave labor.
There's still the monopolization of power factored into this, though.
> Do you remember that article that Ambrose
> Evans-Pritchard wrote? About the two-class society
> that he feared America would become?
Vaguely.
_
Rob
Rob Robertson
Still, the drone has an excellent point. I don't think he's advocating
it, just pointing out was is.
> John D.
_
Rob
John D.
"Rob Robertson" <rob.ro...@verizon.com> wrote in message
news:3AA2AD...@verizon.com...
The advocacy of tyranny is not my complaint, it's the expression of
acceptance, on Who's part, business as usual, if you will, that I find
intolerable.
John D.
> _
> Rob
Lynette Warren
Rob Robertson <rob.ro...@verizon.com> wrote:
>> The Waco syndrome, I know who you are now, no longer
>> just a confused drone but also a dangerous accepting drone. You've
lost.
>
> Still, the drone has an excellent point. I don't think he's
advocating
> it, just pointing out was is.
What's with the pile on? Anyone who's read L Ron Broward's posts knows
he's detests what happened at Waco. He's not the problem.
Lynette
John D.
"Lynette Warren" <ar...@surfari.net> wrote in message
news:4eyo6.16220$wA6.9...@e420r-sjo3.usenetserver.com...
His expression denotes an acceptance of, as "normal" behavior, the
elimination of "wrong thinking" people that should never happen.
> Lynette
>
>
>
>
Rob Robertson
>
> In article <3A9FE8...@verizon.com>,
> infernal, terrestrial, and heavenly Rob Robertson
> <rob.ro...@verizon.com> wrote:
>
> > Who Cares? wrote:
[DragonTalk]
> > Do you know where all of this leads? I'll tell you where; you're
> > going to end up watching _The Wizard of Oz_ backwards a few dozen
> > times and swatting at tiny, invisible agents
>
> Rob, nobody is supposed to know about the NSA's "tiny lungs"
The secret's still safe; noone pays attention but me and Yu.
> > Push it further and you see that those chemicals are, in turn, the
> > product of interacting atomic particles, which are themselves the
> > quantum potentiality of energies winking and blinking in and out of
> > existence, but retaining a semblance of physical persistence that
> > isn't really there. At the finest resolution we, and everything around
> > us, are the manifestation of consciousness and energy, and leaves us
> > in a fundamentally undifferentiated 'quark soup' through which this
> > intentionality acts.
>
> Ahem.
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> CHAPTER 2
[Yiddish Yahtzee]
> When I get the time, I'll have to sit down and work out all the
> combinations and reenact (at least, to a considerably lesser extent) the
> processes used in the creation of the World. The weasels, Bubba Clinton,
> Mr. Aryan Covington and Ms. Carole Ward had better watch out in that day
> and hour!
Just for practice, do you think you could whip me up a new suit? I'm
thinking something Christian Diorish, or maybe Bill Blassy. 40 Regular.
> (Doctor Blumenthal quite properly points out that "this Jewish creative
> magic does not compel G*d (as does pagan magic). It has power only over
> matter and, perhaps, angels." Picky, picky.
>
> (People who suggest that the recent local earthquake was a result of an
> inept or incomplete study of these matters on my part are *quite*
> mistaken.)
>
> As an aside, one may also get a hint of what lung means when she says
> she's "mistress of the 231 (or 221) gates". lung loves acrostics,
> crossword puzzles and number games. Creation *ex nihilo* at TRW? Need
> one say more? (And have I violated National Security by saying this
> much?)
>
> As lung says, "no one knows what lung really is". Then again, perhaps
> she's just being adorably puckish.
"What is the sound of one lung wheezing? Mu."
> > Oh, there's more of that 'short-term' thinking again. Yes, it's
> > going to get bad, and then worse, and then monstrously horrific,
> > but it'll all play out in the end. Life is the feel-good movie
> > of Eternity. God gives it One Thumb up!
>
> "Good-bye my book! Like mortal eyes, imagined ones must close some day.
> Onegin from his knees will rise - but his creator strolls away. And yet
> the ear cannot right now part with the music and allow the tale to fade;
> the chords of fate itself continue to vibrate; and no obstruction for
> the sage exists where I have put The End: the shadows of my world extend
> beyond the skyline of the page, blue as tomorrow's morning haze - nor
> does this terminate the phrase."
>
> - From the ending of THE GIFT, a novel by Vladimir Nabokov - a book I
> *very strongly* recommend to you, Rob. (You, too, Who)
I'm currently reading "If You Give a Pig a Pancake" for the hundredth
time (as well as Rebecca West's _The New Meaning of Treason_), but I'll
definitely put that at the top of the list.
> > > It's looking more and more to me
> > > like our existing IT systems, at their max,
> > > are already managing complexity close
> > > to that of the genome.
> > >
> > > Now read this one -
> > >
> > > http://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/1127/162_2.html
> >
> > Social organization follows the prevailing scientific worldview,
> > and as Newtonian physics viewed the Universe as just so much
> > clockwork, so to did our social institutions reflect that nature
> > in their organization. But then along comes Max Planck and his
> > curious solution to a head-scratching physics problem, and
> > society simply refused to follow the lead. Quantum physics is
> > just too freakin' *weird* to be reflected in social organization
> > (or so we believe) and we've been living in denial for decades.
>
> Hmm. Beware facile, "Tao of Physics"-style interpretations of "quantum
> physics".
Ha! I *wish* I could chalk it up to New Age-y pap, but the National
Academy of Sciences often throws me for a loop, too. Just 'cause it's
gooey doesn't mean it's bad for you.
> > Now, creating something like Mathematica is one thing, but as
> > you hint at below and in your other post, there is a confluence
> > of science and technology that threatens to overtake our simple
> > understanding of reality.
> >
> > Normal guy: "I am an *individual*!"
> >
> > Raving L@@N: "Oh, I bet all your neurons say that!"
...and there's something about transactional costs mixed up in that
stripped-down joke that Who should consider, as well.
> > When all the pieces of the puzzle are out of the box, sometimes
> > they begin to arrange themselves into a larger whole of their
> > own accord.
>
> Some people say that's especially prone to happen in the beautiful
> crystal palce of crystal rationality, but perhaps those people should
> get some sleep.
>
> I wouldn't know anything about that, of course.
And equally, I wouldn't understand the reference. Perhaps something
to do with getting hepped up on goofballs, or mainlining marihuana?
> > > And is The Singularity real or myth?
> > >
> > > http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~phoenix/vinge/vinge-sing.html
> > >
> > > I've always been sceptical of The Singularity, but
> > > now, with Wolfram, I don't know. The genome,
> > > the acceleration beyond what even *I* expected.
> >
> > December 21, 2012. Mark it on your (Mayan) calendar.
> >
> > http://deoxy.org/omega.htm
>
> Hey, Rob - who cares? (tee-hee) "The righteous could make a new world
> (complete with Chevettes, etc) if they wish."
You'll be fixing AMC Pacers in Hell's Garage for that one. I remember
cracks like that, you know.
<snip>
> > "Never give a Volvo an even break."
>
> I used to own a Volvo PV544, Rob.
I hesitated sharing my one prejudice for just that reason; I'd hate to
offend the wrong target inadvertently, but it's just a fact; Ten times
out of nine some dumb-assed Volvo driver is going to make you miss the
light, signal right and turn left, or some other irritating thing. But
a friend of mine had a Saab at the same time I had a Cadillac, and those
two are equally notorious (well, not the cars, but their owners).
I don't hold it against you (much).
> PS. Despite the above L@@Nacy, I am not going down the MK way - I'm just
> being puckish.
Oh, and speaking of synchronicity, guess who's running for Joe Moakley's
seat in the House?
> [NatSec]
_
Rob
Rob Robertson
> >
> > Stop it, right now. You are simply not constituted at this moment
> > to go down this path you've stumbled upon, Who. That's clear with
> > your previous comment about 'being a spook if you had it all to do
> > again' as well as that bit about the Germans making a rational
> > choice to follow Hitler.
>
> The spook comment was half-joke.
>
> The Hitler comment was not. The German
> people made an extremely rational choice,
> given their alternatives and their economic
> situation.
>
> It *should* disturb you.
I get your point, but I still disagree with the rationality of the
choice because their time-scale was out of whack.
> > ...and in my friend's view, that we're just walking bags of chemicals.
>
> Now there's proof.
>
> If you worked in a code shop, you'd know.
I'm a Leptonic Alchemist, Who. Push it deeper.
> I know exactly what that article was saying. I
> worked on code like that. I know how it
> happened, I know why it happened.
>
> > Oh, there's more of that 'short-term' thinking again. Yes, it's
> > going to get bad, and then worse, and then monstrously horrific,
> > but it'll all play out in the end. Life is the feel-good movie
> > of Eternity. God gives it One Thumb up
>
> That's not the issue, Rob. I'm not worried
> about the changes in paradigms. I'm worried
> about people like Roselle / Hanson, or rather,
> their more competent counterparts in
> high-level positions of government and
> corporations, with monopolistic
> access to patterns of creation, with
> oligopic control of entire industries.
Oh, well now you're getting all rational on me again. I thought you
had some concern for the Singularity/Omega Point/Apocalypse. My error.
> Object-oriented methodology will
> permeate society. It's already half-way
> there. Which is okay, the methodology
> is not the problem. The problem is
> the leverage it provides in the context
> of world of Clintons.
>
> Imagine *one* judge with the ablity to alter
> *all* legal references at a single stroke. Imagine
> nobody else with the power to stop it.
>
> And it would be okay even if there
> were counterbalancing forces, just
> like the Executive, Judicial, and
> Legislative.
>
> But it doesn't look like that to me.
Imagine Clinton with nuclear warheads. Oh, wait a minute,...
> > You lost me again. Maybe I'm just not following what you're
> > saying here, but I view it more as a matter of diminishing
> > returns. PC sales are dropping.
>
> The driving force behind the booms of the
> post-Civil war were railroads, agriculture
> and communciation.
>
> When the railroads hit the point of diminishing
> returns, they laid off the most productive
> people with the greatest means to consume.
>
> Have you ever *looked* at the growth
> curve for the U.S. for the past 200 years?
>
> The past 30 years is so far off the scale,
> so anomalous to *anything* that came
> before.... it's clearly an exponential
> curve.
Lunching with the Toffler's again, Who? If you don't want to
touch self-organized criticality here, I'll understand.
> > December 21, 2012. Mark it on your (Mayan) calendar.
>
> Yeah, yeah, I know, my wife mentions it
> all the time, she's into it.
>
> > It gets weirder, you know.
>
> No doubt.
>
> Let me spell out a scenario for you.
>
> The Crash of All-Time, brought about
> by the hyperbolic growth of All-Time,
> ushering in the mindset that elected
> Hitler, with access to genomic
> alteration ability that can target specific
> ethnic groups, by sex, by age, anything you
> care to name, coupled with the
> ability to create any kind of
> clone-slaves for military use, organs,
> etc.
"Just machines to make our decisions,
programmed by fellas of compassion and vision,..."
> Supported by a worker class that
> believes in euthansia, death sports,
> and violent suppression of the
> slave class..., a class that *knows*
> no God exists...
>
> Presided over by an elite that sound
> and act a lot like Clinton, except
> without constraints of today.
>
> Remember 1990, Rob?
I'm not really sure (seriously). It's almost as if there's been
some serious time distortion that's occurred over the last decade,
like every day was crammed with a month's worth of events.
> Remember how different it was?
>
> And then we got the "contained depression",
> Clinton, Waco and the X-Files. Those
> events were portents of the 90s, weren't
> they?
>
> I think we're entering another period
> of transition. I don't like how it looks.
>
> I could easily be wrong. I've been
> wrong before. I just have a creepy
> feeling. Maybe it will pass.
Maybe it's gas.
_
Rob
Who Cares?
news:Ayyo6.3697$vY1.8...@feed.centurytel.net...
> >
> > What's with the pile on? Anyone who's read L Ron Broward's posts knows
> > he's detests what happened at Waco. He's not the problem.
>
> His expression denotes an acceptance of, as "normal" behavior, the
> elimination of "wrong thinking" people that should never happen.
There's that "should" word again. :)
Who Cares?
news:4eyo6.16220$wA6.9...@e420r-sjo3.usenetserver.com...
>
> he's detests what happened at Waco. He's not the problem.
Oh, heck, it's obvious that I'm the problem.
I've pointed out the futility of fighting Fate. :)
And I thought I was doing pretty good, I
was trying to get into the mindset of
the Beckian philosophy of "everybody
is on their own", but I can it see it's
not flying very well. :)
John D.
Laziness, and should, go well together, don't you think?
John D.
Who Cares?
>
> Laziness, and should, go well together, don't you think?
Yes, along with "could" and "would". :)
John D.
Mostly 'ugly' words, especially when used in the past tense.
Who Cares?
>
> Mostly 'ugly' words, especially when used in the past tense.
Yup, they sure are, John. :)
John T. Kennedy
But that's The System. It may not be pretty, but it's "workable", not
some pie in the sky that will never get implemented.
John T. Kennedy
>> The Waco syndrome, I know who you are now, no longer just a confused drone
>> but also a dangerous accepting drone. You've lost.
>
> Still, the drone has an excellent point. I don't think he's advocating
>it, just pointing out was is.
>
Look closer Rob, Broward wants The System (TM) to fight his wars and
his police actions, but he evades responsibility for it. If The System
has to swat Beck like fly to get things done, well these things just
happen.
Who Cares?
>
> Look closer Rob, Broward wants The System (TM) to fight his wars and
> his police actions, but he evades responsibility for it. If The System
> has to swat Beck like fly to get things done, well these things just
> happen
Yeah, yeah, you're mad, but at least be
clear about why you're mad, John.
*I* am not the one trying to design a system.
That's you and Beck. I thought you and
Beck accepted responsibility for your actions.
Beck's fate is Beck's fault, right?
Gee whiz, what happened to the consistency?
I'm telling ya, John. You have to make a
conscious choice - kids get to be normal
and happy, or kids get to be righteous
and tweaked. :) Man, oh, man, I'm
so glad that I never had kids.
John T. Kennedy
>"John T. Kennedy" <kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:HNaiOudaSrq0mg...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Look closer Rob, Broward wants The System (TM) to fight his wars and
>> his police actions, but he evades responsibility for it. If The System
>> has to swat Beck like fly to get things done, well these things just
>> happen
>
>
> Yeah, yeah, you're mad, but at least be
> clear about why you're mad, John.
>
> *I* am not the one trying to design a system.
Just collobarating with the one that burned the Davidian's? Well no
one can say that's not "workable" Broward, no one can say it can't be
implemented.
>
> That's you and Beck.
You nderstand nothing. I'm not designing a system.
> I thought you and
> Beck accepted responsibility for your actions.
I am.
>
> Beck's fate is Beck's fault, right?
What fate? Who was responsible for shooting Vicky Weaver in the head?
The Weavers because Randy sawed a rifle barrel half an inch shorter
than your System likes it, and declined to submit himself to the
tender mercies of your System? Or is it the reponsility of Lon
Horiuchi and his employers, your System?
Beck is responsible for living his life, and if you collaborate with
those who would harm him for that then you're responsible for the
harm.
>
> Gee whiz, what happened to the consistency?
>
> I'm telling ya, John. You have to make a
> conscious choice - kids get to be normal
> and happy, or kids get to be righteous
> and tweaked. :) Man, oh, man, I'm
> so glad that I never had kids.
Lucky escape for the kids.
Who Cares?
>
> Just collobarating with the one that burned the Davidian's? Well no
> one can say that's not "workable" Broward, no one can say it can't be
> implemented.
And Lynnette called *me* the borderline psycho.
> > That's you and Beck.
>
> You nderstand nothing. I'm not designing a system.
Do you repent anarcho-capitalism then?
If you want to replace the status quo, John,
you really need to understand how it works
and why, before you tear it apart.
> Beck is responsible for living his life, and if you collaborate with
> those who would harm him for that then you're responsible for the
> harm.
It doesn't wash anymore, John.
I'm sorry. It doesn't. Look at how twisted up
and unhappy you sound here. Been there,
done that. It was for nothing.
Heck, John, even my own *parents* think
that now, sometimes.
> Lucky escape for the kids.
No doubt. I would probably have repeated my
parents' actions since I was still idealistic during
my "child-bearing" years. :)
One of my coworkers is a devout Christian. He's
worried about his kid. It's the same issue, the kid
is basically an outcast because he's isolated from
the "normal culture". As near as I can tell,
even the great majority of Christians here
aren't that strict, so the kid has no
friends at all, really.
It's a hard choice.
John T. Kennedy
>"John T. Kennedy" <kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:h9+iOg+qVnxpqA...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Just collobarating with the one that burned the Davidian's? Well no
>> one can say that's not "workable" Broward, no one can say it can't be
>> implemented.
>
>
> And Lynnette called *me* the borderline psycho.
>
>
>> > That's you and Beck.
>>
>> You nderstand nothing. I'm not designing a system.
>
>
> Do you repent anarcho-capitalism then?
AC is not a system, it's just the absence of government and the
recognition of property rights. It's a condition.
>
> If you want to replace the status quo, John,
> you really need to understand how it works
> and why, before you tear it apart.
What is it I don't understand?
Teach me something new and maybe you can have another protege.
>
>
>> Beck is responsible for living his life, and if you collaborate with
>> those who would harm him for that then you're responsible for the
>> harm.
>
>
> It doesn't wash anymore, John.
>
> I'm sorry. It doesn't. Look at how twisted up
> and unhappy you sound here. Been there,
> done that. It was for nothing.
You're tone deaf too. I told you what makes me happy.
What makes you happy?
>
> Heck, John, even my own *parents* think
> that now, sometimes.
I HEAR THAT!
>
>
>> Lucky escape for the kids.
>
>
> No doubt. I would probably have repeated my
> parents' actions since I was still idealistic during
> my "child-bearing" years. :)
>
> One of my coworkers is a devout Christian. He's
> worried about his kid. It's the same issue, the kid
> is basically an outcast because he's isolated from
> the "normal culture". As near as I can tell,
> even the great majority of Christians here
> aren't that strict, so the kid has no
> friends at all, really.
>
> It's a hard choice.
My kids have excellent taste in friends.