Hello,
I am planning to start using Common Lisp in projects, and was considering
which of these 3 implementations to use.
I recall having read somewhere that CLISP generates faster code than GCL, and
according to CMUCL's site, it is faster than CLISP, though it requires more
memory.
However, I was seriously considering GCL as it will likely be the first
implementation ported to the GNU/Hurd (which will be one of the main systems
I'll be programming on). My main concern with GCL is that it seems to be the
less ANSI-compliant implementation of the three.
Can you give any advice on this issue? Is there a real difference in
performance (in all aspects, not only speed) between these implementations?
Thank you,
Sam
--
"People sometimes ask me if it is a sin in the Church of Emacs to use vi.
Using a free version of vi is not a sin; it's a penance".
- Richard Stallman
Sam Zoghaib wrote:
> I recall having read somewhere that CLISP generates faster code than GCL, and
> according to CMUCL's site, it is faster than CLISP, though it requires more
> memory.
> However, I was seriously considering GCL as it will likely be the first
> implementation ported to the GNU/Hurd (which will be one of the main systems
> I'll be programming on). My main concern with GCL is that it seems to be the
> less ANSI-compliant implementation of the three.
> Can you give any advice on this issue? Is there a real difference in
> performance (in all aspects, not only speed) between these implementations?
It is certainly not generally true that CLISP is faster than GCL. CLISP
is byte compiled; GCL is compiled through gcc. Sometimes GCL is faster than
CMUCL: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/moore/acl2/v2-7/new.html
CLISP and CMUCL are currently much more ANSI CL compliant than GCL, although
there is an effort to make GCL more compliant (and you are encouraged to
contribute to this effort. :) ) If you decide to use GCL, and compliance
is important, be sure to configure it with --enable-ansi before you build
it (or use the correct Debian package.)
You could also consider ECL, SBCL, and the commercial lisps. ECL is a cousin
of GCL and is currently more ANSI compliant, if perhaps (?) slower.
Paul
Paul F. Dietz wrote in article <······················@dls.net> on Thursday 17
July 2003 02:55 in comp.lang.lisp:
> It is certainly not generally true that CLISP is faster than GCL. CLISP
> is byte compiled; GCL is compiled through gcc. Sometimes GCL is faster than
> CMUCL: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/moore/acl2/v2-7/new.html
Thanks for the correction.
> CLISP and CMUCL are currently much more ANSI CL compliant than GCL, although
> there is an effort to make GCL more compliant (and you are encouraged to
> contribute to this effort. :) ) If you decide to use GCL, and compliance
> is important, be sure to configure it with --enable-ansi before you build
> it (or use the correct Debian package.)
Do you know "how much" ANSI compliant (ie some kind of percentage of the
standard implemented) GCL is?
> You could also consider ECL, SBCL, and the commercial lisps.
I'll look at ECL and SBCL. If by "commercial" you mean proprietary, I cannot
use them (I only use free software).
Thank you,
Sam
--
"Fear is the path to the dark side.
Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hatred, hatred leads to suffering.
I sense much fear in you."
Sam Zoghaib wrote:
> Do you know "how much" ANSI compliant (ie some kind of percentage of the
> standard implemented) GCL is?
I can't give you a hard number. There is a large but incomplete ANSI
compliance test suite in the gcl source tree, but you shouldn't use
its results as a quantitative score of conformance. CLOS is probably
the weakest part so far tested by the suite.
Paul
Sam Zoghaib <·····@zep.homedns.orgSPAM> writes:
> Paul F. Dietz wrote in article <······················@dls.net> on Thursday 17
> July 2003 02:55 in comp.lang.lisp:
>
> > CLISP and CMUCL are currently much more ANSI CL compliant than GCL, although
> > there is an effort to make GCL more compliant (and you are encouraged to
> > contribute to this effort. :) ) If you decide to use GCL, and compliance
> > is important, be sure to configure it with --enable-ansi before you build
> > it (or use the correct Debian package.)
>
> Do you know "how much" ANSI compliant (ie some kind of percentage of the
> standard implemented) GCL is?
It's not, really. If you're learning CL, you should really use a
more-or-less stable implementation, which the ANSI build of GCL isn't.
It's a work in progress, which would be fine, but there are other,
free, mature ANSI CLs.
I'd recommend you try CMUCL, or GNU CLISP. They're both high-quality,
mature, ANSI[*] Common Lisps. Unlike some languages, it's easy to
write portable code in CL. If you find yourself needing to use some
implementation-dependant functionality, you might look at PORT in the
CLOCC -- it's a portability library for many implementations. It
doesn't cover GCL yet, but it should by the time ANSI-GCL is ready for
mainstream use.
> > You could also consider ECL, SBCL, and the commercial lisps.
>
> I'll look at ECL and SBCL. If by "commercial" you mean proprietary, I cannot
> use them (I only use free software).
"will not", not "cannot". There's nothing wrong with making choices,
just don't misrepresent them as non-choices.
[*] CLISP's object system is not ANSI-compliant in some important
areas. Also, GCL is a perfectly mature CLtL1 (pre-ANSI)
implementation, but I recommend you use the latest-and-greatest CL
spec, not the old early-80's one.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
Thomas F. Burdick wrote in article <···············@famine.OCF.Berkeley.EDU>
on Friday 18 July 2003 01:33 in comp.lang.lisp:
> It's not, really. If you're learning CL, you should really use a
> more-or-less stable implementation, which the ANSI build of GCL isn't.
> It's a work in progress, which would be fine, but there are other,
> free, mature ANSI CLs.
Ok, thanks for the advice.
> I'd recommend you try CMUCL, or GNU CLISP. They're both high-quality,
> mature, ANSI[*] Common Lisps. Unlike some languages, it's easy to
> write portable code in CL. If you find yourself needing to use some
> implementation-dependant functionality, you might look at PORT in the
> CLOCC -- it's a portability library for many implementations. It
> doesn't cover GCL yet, but it should by the time ANSI-GCL is ready for
> mainstream use.
Ok. How does CMUCL compare to CLISP in terms of ANSI compliance? (I'm
referring to your foot-note).
It seems in terms of performance both are roughly equivalent, eachbeating the
other on some fields.
>> I'll look at ECL and SBCL. If by "commercial" you mean proprietary, I
>> cannot use them (I only use free software).
>
> "will not", not "cannot". There's nothing wrong with making choices,
> just don't misrepresent them as non-choices.
I use "cannot" just as I would say "I cannot kill a man" (not that the two are
as grave, but "cannot" emphasize on the importance of the issue to me, with a
single word).
Sam
--
"The pain of war cannot exceed the woe of aftermath
The drums will shake the castle wall, the Ringwraiths ride in black, ride on!
Sing as you raise your bow, shoot straighter than before."
- Led Zeppelin, "The Battle of Evermore"
Sam Zoghaib <·····@zep.homedns.orgSPAM> writes:
> Thomas F. Burdick wrote in article <···············@famine.OCF.Berkeley.EDU>
> on Friday 18 July 2003 01:33 in comp.lang.lisp:
>
> > I'd recommend you try CMUCL, or GNU CLISP. They're both high-quality,
> > mature, ANSI[*] Common Lisps. Unlike some languages, it's easy to
> > write portable code in CL. If you find yourself needing to use some
> > implementation-dependant functionality, you might look at PORT in the
> > CLOCC -- it's a portability library for many implementations. It
> > doesn't cover GCL yet, but it should by the time ANSI-GCL is ready for
> > mainstream use.
>
> Ok. How does CMUCL compare to CLISP in terms of ANSI compliance? (I'm
> referring to your foot-note).
Someone like Paul Dietz can speak for what happens when you go through
the spec point-by-point and try to test for compliance. In terms of
writing research and production code, I've run into problems here and
there on both, but it's been pretty minor. Except for CLISP's object
system, which I consider a blight on an otherwise fine implementation.
If you're interested in object-oriented programming, I'd at least
start with CMUCL. You may later want to move to CLISP, where you'll
have to learn to avoid certain operations, but it's better to do that
later, than to internalize CLISP's restrictions early on.
(Note that CLISP's object system kills lesser OOPS like Java or C++.
Just, in terms of Lisp, it's not as flexible as it should be)
> It seems in terms of performance both are roughly equivalent,
> eachbeating the other on some fields.
Well, 90% of the time, it doesn't matter. CLISP is generally slower,
but it's also generally fast enough. If you're into speed demonology,
you can get CMUCL to produce blazingly fast code, if you know what
you're doing.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
[ Sam Zoghaib ]
> I use "cannot" just as I would say "I cannot kill a man" (not that the two are
> as grave, but "cannot" emphasize on the importance of the issue to me, with a
> single word).
To my (admittedly non-native English) ears this implies you're
physically unable to. I've been in the military, I know I'm physically
able to kill a man, it's "just" a moral stance that I will not under
normal circumstances (I might reconsider in a war).
I think it's fair to say you _will_ not use proprietary software, but
saying you _cannot_ just invites unneccessary confusion.
Martin
--
"An ideal world is left as an exercise to the reader."
-Paul Graham, On Lisp
Martin Thornquist wrote:
> [ Sam Zoghaib ]
>
>
>>I use "cannot" just as I would say "I cannot kill a man" (not that the two are
>>as grave, but "cannot" emphasize on the importance of the issue to me, with a
>>single word).
>
>
> To my (admittedly non-native English) ears this implies you're
> physically unable to. I've been in the military, I know I'm physically
> able to kill a man, it's "just" a moral stance that I will not under
> normal circumstances (I might reconsider in a war).
>
> I think it's fair to say you _will_ not use proprietary software, but
> saying you _cannot_ just invites unneccessary confusion.
I was going to defend the use of "cannot" where "will not" was meant as
defensible hyperbole, but then I remembered that the usage did leave me
wondering if the OP was working on a project where they were under some
artificial constraints as to what they could use.
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
http://www.tilton-technology.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Everything is a cell." -- Alan Kay
Kenny Tilton wrote in article <················@nyc.rr.com> on Friday 18 July
2003 17:01 in comp.lang.lisp:
> I was going to defend the use of "cannot" where "will not" was meant as
> defensible hyperbole, but then I remembered that the usage did leave me
> wondering if the OP was working on a project where they were under some
> artificial constraints as to what they could use.
>
Then sorry for the unaccuracy of the term. In context, my use of cannot could
indeed imply exterior constraints.
I think that's where the bigger part of the mistake in using "cannot" is.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it correct English to use cannot as an
hyperbole?
Anyway sorry for the misleading use of "cannot".
Sam
--
"If sharing a thing in no way diminishes it, it is not rightly owned if it is
not shared."
- St Augustine
Sam Zoghaib wrote:
> Kenny Tilton wrote in article <················@nyc.rr.com> on Friday 18 July
> 2003 17:01 in comp.lang.lisp:
>
>
>>I was going to defend the use of "cannot" where "will not" was meant as
>>defensible hyperbole, but then I remembered that the usage did leave me
>>wondering if the OP was working on a project where they were under some
>>artificial constraints as to what they could use.
>>
>
>
> Then sorry for the unaccuracy of the term. In context, my use of cannot could
> indeed imply exterior constraints.
> I think that's where the bigger part of the mistake in using "cannot" is.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it correct English to use cannot as an
> hyperbole?
Sure. If Bill Gates ran for President I might find myself saying, "Well,
I sure as hell can't vote for Bush, so I'm going fishing on Election Day."
But in that case there is no ambiguity, since it would be understood by
any listener who knows I have not yet been convicted of a felony that I
can in fact vote for Bush.
In your case I first took your "cannot" as "will not", but in the next
moment wondered if you were in fact under some constraint.
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
http://www.tilton-technology.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Everything is a cell." -- Alan Kay
Kenny Tilton wrote:
>
>
> Sam Zoghaib wrote:
>
>> Kenny Tilton wrote in article <················@nyc.rr.com> on Friday
>> 18 July
>> 2003 17:01 in comp.lang.lisp:
>>
>>
>>> I was going to defend the use of "cannot" where "will not" was meant as
>>> defensible hyperbole, but then I remembered that the usage did leave me
>>> wondering if the OP was working on a project where they were under some
>>> artificial constraints as to what they could use.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Then sorry for the unaccuracy of the term. In context, my use of
>> cannot could
>> indeed imply exterior constraints.
>> I think that's where the bigger part of the mistake in using "cannot" is.
>>
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it correct English to use cannot as an
>> hyperbole?
>
>
> Sure. If Bill Gates ran for President I might find myself saying, "Well,
> I sure as hell can't vote for Bush, so I'm going fishing on Election Day."
>
> But in that case there is no ambiguity, since it would be understood by
> any listener who knows I have not yet been convicted of a felony that I
> can in fact vote for Bush.
>
> In your case I first took your "cannot" as "will not", but in the next
> moment wondered if you were in fact under some constraint.
>
>
btw, if "I will not use..." seems too wishy-washy, then "I refuse to
use..." has a nice foot-stomping ring to it. :)
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
http://www.tilton-technology.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Everything is a cell." -- Alan Kay
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> btw, if "I will not use..." seems too wishy-washy, then "I refuse to
> use..." has a nice foot-stomping ring to it. :)
Why would "will" not seem forthright? In the first person, "shall" is
the simple future, while "will" is the emphatic.
Christophe, campaigning for Real English :-)
--
http://www-jcsu.jesus.cam.ac.uk/~csr21/ +44 1223 510 299/+44 7729 383 757
(set-pprint-dispatch 'number (lambda (s o) (declare (special b)) (format s b)))
(defvar b "~&Just another Lisp hacker~%") (pprint #36rJesusCollegeCambridge)
Christophe Rhodes wrote:
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>
>
>>btw, if "I will not use..." seems too wishy-washy, then "I refuse to
>>use..." has a nice foot-stomping ring to it. :)
>
>
> Why would "will" not seem forthright? In the first person, "shall" is
> the simple future, while "will" is the emphatic.
>
> Christophe, campaigning for Real English :-)
I am reminded of the New Yorker cartoon showing five people sitting
around a conference table, four of them quite sedate and one of them a
scowling little old lady with her arms folded defiantly.
The chairman of the group is looking at some ballots saying, "That makes
four 'aye' and one 'No! No! A thousand times, No!'".
:)
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
http://www.tilton-technology.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Everything is a cell." -- Alan Kay
Christophe Rhodes <·····@cam.ac.uk> writes:
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>
>> btw, if "I will not use..." seems too wishy-washy, then "I refuse to
>> use..." has a nice foot-stomping ring to it. :)
>
> Why would "will" not seem forthright? In the first person, "shall" is
> the simple future, while "will" is the emphatic.
- "I will drown; nobody shall save me"
- "I shall drown; nobody will save me"
-dan
--
http://www.cliki.net/ - Link farm for free CL-on-Unix resources
Hi Sam Zoghaib,
> Thomas F. Burdick wrote in article
> <···············@famine.OCF.Berkeley.EDU>
>>> I'll look at ECL and SBCL. If by "commercial" you mean proprietary, I
>>> cannot use them (I only use free software).
>>
>> "will not", not "cannot". There's nothing wrong with making choices,
>> just don't misrepresent them as non-choices.
>
> I use "cannot" just as I would say "I cannot kill a man" (not that the
> two are as grave, but "cannot" emphasize on the importance of the issue
> to me, with a single word).
You were given good (and Zen like) advice. Take heed.
Regards,
Adam
Sam Zoghaib <·····@zep.homedns.orgSPAM> writes:
> Paul F. Dietz wrote in article <······················@dls.net> on Thursday 17
>
> > You could also consider ECL, SBCL, and the commercial lisps.
>
> I'll look at ECL and SBCL. If by "commercial" you mean proprietary, I cannot
> use them (I only use free software).
> ...
> "Fear is the path to the dark side.
> Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hatred, hatred leads to suffering.
> I sense much fear in you."
The constraint is imposed by yourself, no? I don't want to start a
new discussion of free/Free vs. proprietary, but why do you not want
to consider the commercial alternatives? Are you afraid you might
like them? Are you afraid to learn that they are in many ways better
than the "free" alternatives?
Rant follows:
The biggest incentive for people to use "free" software is to fight
the "bad" commercial software. But commercial Common Lisp vendors are
our friends! They make good software! And if I want them to make
even better software I go and buy their products. It's that simple.
Same goes to improving the "free" CLs -- if you want them to become
better, donate some money, hardware, or anything else the developers
need. The model is quite the same -- people need to eat.
Or you can go and "improve" the "free" software yourself, which will
consume your time. And time is money. But I'd better allow
professionals to do what they do best, and do myself what I do best.
YMMV, of course.
--
Janis Dzerins
If million people say a stupid thing, it's still a stupid thing.
Janis Dzerins wrote in article <···············@gulbis.latnet.lv> on Friday 18
July 2003 11:07 in comp.lang.lisp:
> The constraint is imposed by yourself, no? I don't want to start a
> new discussion of free/Free vs. proprietary, but why do you not want
> to consider the commercial alternatives? Are you afraid you might
> like them? Are you afraid to learn that they are in many ways better
> than the "free" alternatives?
I don't consider them for ethical reasons. To me, using free software is
unethical, period. I admit there are technically very good proprietary
software, but I would never give up my freedom for performance.
> The biggest incentive for people to use "free" software is to fight
> the "bad" commercial software. But commercial Common Lisp vendors are
> our friends! They make good software! And if I want them to make
> even better software I go and buy their products. It's that simple.
That's not the point of free software. Free software is about freedom, not
performance. see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ for different articles on
this issue. It would not be appropriate to extensively discuss that here.
> Same goes to improving the "free" CLs -- if you want them to become
> better, donate some money, hardware, or anything else the developers
> need. The model is quite the same -- people need to eat.
Money is not everything. Not everybody can afford doncating money to software
developers. If I can help through writing code, I'd rather do that.
A very interesting article about reward and motivation can be found here:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/motivation.html
I think it's especially true with respect to hacking.
Sam
--
"Don't be afraid, I'm gonna give you the choice I never had..."
- Lestat in "Interview with the Vampire" (Ann Rice, 1976)
Sam Zoghaib <·····@zep.homedns.orgSPAM> writes:
> To me, using free software is unethical, period.
Wow, that trumps even the most uncharitable readings of Kent Pitman's
position. Seriously, though, some free software is quite good, you
should try it ;-)
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
Thomas F. Burdick wrote in article <···············@famine.OCF.Berkeley.EDU>
on Friday 18 July 2003 20:46 in comp.lang.lisp:
> Sam Zoghaib <·····@zep.homedns.orgSPAM> writes:
>
>> To me, using free software is unethical, period.
>
OOOPs!! I of course meant NON-free software!
Sam
--
"One cannot be betrayed if one has no people"
- Kobayashi in "The Usual Suspects", 1995
Sam Zoghaib <·····@zep.homedns.orgSPAM> writes:
> I don't consider them for ethical reasons. To me, using free software is
> unethical, period. I admit there are technically very good proprietary
> software, but I would never give up my freedom for performance.
I can see `philosophic' reasons for not wanting to use free software,
but `ethical' ones? Presumably the author of the free software wrote
it with the full knowledge and intent to give it away. There's no
moral wrong in donating your time (under most philosophies, anyway),
nor is there any evil in accepting a freely offered gift (in
general).
Joe Marshall wrote in article <············@ccs.neu.edu> on Friday 18 July
2003 21:22 in comp.lang.lisp:
> Sam Zoghaib <·····@zep.homedns.orgSPAM> writes:
>
>> I don't consider them for ethical reasons. To me, using free software is
>> unethical, period. I admit there are technically very good proprietary
>> software, but I would never give up my freedom for performance.
>
> I can see `philosophic' reasons for not wanting to use free software,
> but `ethical' ones?
As I corrected in a previous post, I of course meant I don't consider
*non*-free software for ethical reasons.
Sam
--
"One cannot be betrayed if one has no people"
- Kobayashi in "The Usual Suspects", 1995
Sam Zoghaib <·····@zep.homedns.orgSPAM> writes:
> As I corrected in a previous post, I of course meant I don't
> consider *non*-free software for ethical reasons.
Joe's point was that you cannot possibly object to "non-free" software
on ETHICAL reasons, but PHILOSOPHICAL reasons.
There is nothing unethical about the willful exchange of a product or
service under terms acceptable to all involved parties.
--
Matt Curtin, CISSP, IAM, INTP. Keywords: Lisp, Unix, Internet, INFOSEC.
Founder, Interhack Corporation +1 614 545 HACK http://web.interhack.com/
Author of /Developing Trust: Online Privacy and Security/ (Apress, 2001)
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL]
Date:
Message-ID: <un0fbugrb.fsf_-_@dtpq.com>
>>>>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 00:49:42 -0400, Matt Curtin ("Matt") writes:
Matt> There is nothing unethical about the willful exchange of a
Matt> product or service under terms acceptable to all involved
Matt> parties.
How about when a company comes into a market and dumps their
products (eg. sells at a loss) in order to drive the competition
out of business?
In article <················@dtpq.com>, Christopher C. Stacy
<······@dtpq.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 00:49:42 -0400, Matt Curtin ("Matt") writes:
> Matt> There is nothing unethical about the willful exchange of a
> Matt> product or service under terms acceptable to all involved
> Matt> parties.
>
> How about when a company comes into a market and dumps their
> products (eg. sells at a loss) in order to drive the competition
> out of business?
That is suicide unless at some point they start making money on their
products again. At that point they lose the 'advantage' they gained by
dumping, and competitors are free to enter the market.
"mikel" <·····@evins.net> wrote in message
·····························@evins.net...
> In article <················@dtpq.com>, Christopher C. Stacy
> <······@dtpq.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 00:49:42 -0400, Matt Curtin ("Matt") writes:
> > Matt> There is nothing unethical about the willful exchange of a
> > Matt> product or service under terms acceptable to all involved
> > Matt> parties.
> >
> > How about when a company comes into a market and dumps their
> > products (eg. sells at a loss) in order to drive the competition
> > out of business?
>
> That is suicide unless at some point they start making money on their
> products again. At that point they lose the 'advantage' they gained by
> dumping, and competitors are free to enter the market.
It is not an uncommon strategy actually. Your "unless" above is the whole
point. And the advantage they have gained is a field clear of established
competitors. Yes, others are now free to enter again, beginning at zero.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ big pond . com")
In article <·············@otis.netspace.net.au>, Coby Beck
<·····@mercury.bc.ca> wrote:
> "mikel" <·····@evins.net> wrote in message
> ·····························@evins.net...
> > In article <················@dtpq.com>, Christopher C. Stacy
> > <······@dtpq.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >>>>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 00:49:42 -0400, Matt Curtin ("Matt") writes:
> > > Matt> There is nothing unethical about the willful exchange of a
> > > Matt> product or service under terms acceptable to all involved
> > > Matt> parties.
> > >
> > > How about when a company comes into a market and dumps their
> > > products (eg. sells at a loss) in order to drive the competition
> > > out of business?
> >
> > That is suicide unless at some point they start making money on their
> > products again. At that point they lose the 'advantage' they gained by
> > dumping, and competitors are free to enter the market.
>
> It is not an uncommon strategy actually.
Certainly there are many anecdotes about it. It's not clear to me that
it actually works particularly well (for example, Standard Oil did it,
but the court testimony seems to indicate that it did not work), and
it's not clear to me that if it did work there would be anything
unethical about it.
> Your "unless" above is the whole
> point. And the advantage they have gained is a field clear of established
> competitors. Yes, others are now free to enter again, beginning at zero.
> > > > >>>>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 00:49:42 -0400, Matt Curtin ("Matt") writes:
> > > > Matt> There is nothing unethical about the willful exchange of a
> > > > Matt> product or service under terms acceptable to all involved
> > > > Matt> parties.
> > > In article <················@dtpq.com>, Christopher C. Stacy <······@dtpq.com> wrote:
> > > > How about when a company comes into a market and dumps their
> > > > products (eg. sells at a loss) in order to drive the competition
> > > > out of business?
> > "mikel" <·····@evins.net> wrote in message
> > ·····························@evins.net...
> > > That is suicide unless at some point they start making money on their
> > > products again. At that point they lose the 'advantage' they gained by
> > > dumping, and competitors are free to enter the market.
> In article <·············@otis.netspace.net.au>, Coby Beck
> <·····@mercury.bc.ca> wrote:
> > It is not an uncommon strategy actually. Your "unless" above is the whole
> > point. And the advantage they have gained is a field clear of established
> > competitors. Yes, others are now free to enter again, beginning at zero.
mikel <·····@evins.net> writes:
> it actually works particularly well (for example, Standard Oil did it,
> but the court testimony seems to indicate that it did not work), and
> it's not clear to me that if it did work there would be anything
> unethical about it.
What about Microsoft with web browsers? Netscape built a whole business.
Microsoft was large enough that it was able to completely subsidize its
web browser business, using excess monopoly profits from a different business.
It never needed to make money in the browser business, where it dumped IE.
How could Netscape have competed with that? How could a new startup today?
Microsoft can run its IE product line at a loss indefinitely.
And, as a result, Netscape is no longer an independent company. And
innovations in web browsers, which were fast and furious in the early Netscape
days, have basically halted in any significant way. Microsoft got IE good
enough to win, killed the competition, and then halted innovation (as it was
no longer needed).
Whether this was ethical depends on your moral framework, but an easier
question is whether the general public benefited from those business decisions,
and thus whether the government should be used to halt such behavior.
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
I don't want to be immortal through my work. I want to be immortal through not
dying. -- Woody Allen
I find these discussions pretty interesting and think it's ontopic to
lisp if a lot of CL is dependent on commercial compilers. But I feel
weird jumping into this as a newcomer...
Don Geddis <···@geddis.org> wrote in message news:<·················@sidious.geddis.org>...
> What about Microsoft with web browsers? Netscape built a whole business.
[...]
> Microsoft got IE good enough to win, killed the competition, and then halted
> innovation (as it was no longer needed).
Microsoft has been dismissed on this topic as a force of nature that
killed Netscape. However, Netscape has often been described as a
snotty company that made it clear it would reduce "Windows to a set of
poorly-debugged device drivers." From High Stakes, No Prisoners:
"Until recently, Netscape was one of the most arrogant companies in
Silicon Valley history, which is saying quite a lot. The consensus of
almost every company that tried to deal with Netscape was that it was
insufferably unpleasant and unhelpful. [...] Their incessant public
denigration of Microsoft drew a reaction that was faster and more
vicious than otherwise would have been the case. In addition,
Netscape's attitude toward Microsoft alienated many potential
customers, who correctly viewed Netscape's behavior as immature and
potentially indicative that the company would not prove to be a
reliable supplier."
Furthermore, even the Lisp/AI companies were vicious and
self-defeating. From Gabriel's Patterns of Software:
"The AI companies were founded almost exclusively by AI faculty from
universities [...] Academics have an interesting view of business:
They equate business with war. A company wins because other companies
lose -- a classic misunderstanding of evolution. A company keeps
everything a secret. A company tries to spy on other companies. A
company cannot trust anyone not part of themselves. Because of these
beliefs, AI companies rarely made strategic partnerships."
I have to ask what company is indeed being successful at putting a
computer on everyone's desk. These computers are commodities -- sure
Microsoft leans on Dell heavily, but Walmart can sell $300 PCs with
GNU, or you can build one yourself. I am excited to research LispM's,
but I have to notice that a lot these are single-user OSes I still
can't afford. I'm happier Microsoft keeps its costs up and hardware
prices down, instead of vice versa.
In fact, some of those silicon valley companies invited the government
into the industry and forced Microsoft to become reasonably competent
at lobbying. I understand Microsoft can be justifiably blamed in
individual cases of killing tech, but what would the alternate world
without Microsoft be like?
··········@yahoo.com (Tayss) writes:
> In fact, some of those silicon valley companies invited the government
> into the industry and forced Microsoft to become reasonably competent
> at lobbying. I understand Microsoft can be justifiably blamed in
> individual cases of killing tech, but what would the alternate world
> without Microsoft be like?
I think the issue isn't with Microsoft's existence, but with its buggy
software, unsound engineering and monopolistic business practice.
But even so, Microsoft is slowly but surely defeating itself as well.
I imagine the next revolution in computing which will sink them the
way they sank IBM is unfortunately a long way off. In the meantime I
suppose they will continue to fossilize.
Gregm
··········@yahoo.com (Tayss) writes:
> I have to ask what company is indeed being successful at putting a
> computer on everyone's desk. These computers are commodities -- sure
> Microsoft leans on Dell heavily, but Walmart can sell $300 PCs with
> GNU, or you can build one yourself.
The PC hardware business is cutthroat, and a huge benefit to consumers.
> I'm happier Microsoft keeps its costs up and hardware prices down,
> instead of vice versa. I understand Microsoft can be justifiably blamed
> in individual cases of killing tech, but what would the alternate world
> without Microsoft be like?
There's no reason in principle why PC operating systems can't be the same
kind of business as PC hardware. I.e. industry-wide open specifications,
with multiple suppliers trying to attract your business, and rock-bottom
prices.
You can compare, for example, the rise of the internet (TCP/IP) and the web
(HTTP/HTML/XML), where open standards allow both cross-company interoperation,
as well as competition. Or even ANSI Common Lisp, where the spec is shared
but there are multiple commercial implementations (as well as free
implementations).
There's no reason that PC OSes need to be proprietary, and controlled by a
single monolithic company. (Which in turn means that Bill Gates deserves all
the more credit for constructing his monopoly, when the economics didn't
force it that way.)
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
Lazlo's Chinese Relativity Axiom: No matter how great your triumphs or how
tragic your defeats---approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
On 19 Jul 2003 22:21:53 -0700, Don Geddis <···@geddis.org> wrote:
> What about Microsoft with web browsers? Netscape built a whole business.
> Microsoft was large enough that it was able to completely subsidize its
> web browser business, using excess monopoly profits from a different business.
> It never needed to make money in the browser business, where it dumped IE.
>
> How could Netscape have competed with that? How could a new startup today?
[...]
> And, as a result, Netscape is no longer an independent company. And
Incidentally, AOL is currently getting rid of the last bits of Netscape it
owns.
> innovations in web browsers, which were fast and furious in the early Netscape
> days, have basically halted in any significant way. Microsoft got IE good
I have read a statement, I seem to remember by a representative of the
Mozilla team. He said that IE is no longer innovative, and that users
interested in web browser innovation should look at Mozilla.
Paolo
--
Paolo Amoroso <·······@mclink.it>
Don Geddis wrote:
>
> Whether this was ethical depends on your moral framework,
ITYM,
"Whether this was morally just depends on your ethical framework."
Moral is based on ethics, not the other way around. I know what you mean
though and this is more a FYI post than anything else :)
--
Thomas.
"What is the future c existence which does not do in all languages"
Thomas Stegen <·······@cis.strath.ac.uk> writes:
> Moral is based on ethics, not the other way around. I know what you mean
> though and this is more a FYI post than anything else :)
I haven't been following the discussion, but this statement in isolation does
not resonate with my own terminology.
Just as laws are built up from jurisdictions (federal -> state ->
local/city -> household), I think what I'll hear call meta-morality
for want of a better word [there probably is one, I just don't know
it] is build up from a similar cascade of sources. Plainly, that
which is elected by a person (which is what I call "ethics") is based
upon that which is elected by God/Universe (which is what I call
"morality" and is given by religion). I personally often call myself
"amoral" since I don't believe much in any God and consequently have
no religion fettering my "global environment of meta-morality"; this
places on me a heavy burden, however, to fill the gaps that this leaves
with a heap more ethics than one might otherwise have, lest I appear
"immoral" (which is an entirely different thing than amoral). (Of course
you could model this as saying that I fill the "amorality gap" with half of
my chosen ethics and that what is left is what I should call my ethics;
I don't know if that's a distinction with any meaning... but in any case,
relevant to the context here, it does not reverse the order of inheritance).
Of course, I haven't surveyed the literature on this, and I won't be
surprised if others break this down not by "who gives the rules" but by
"who the rules affect". I just have a political bent to all of my view
of the Universe, by virtue of how I came to be who I am (working in lots
of politically oriented situatinos) and I think the notion of "who gave
you these ideas", each of which is after all meant to control you, is as
important or moreso, in establishing an appropriate understanding of
the effect in context.
Hence, I side with Don and take issue with your claim that morality
is based on ethics.
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> wrote:
> Just as laws are built up from jurisdictions (federal -> state ->
> local/city -> household), I think what I'll hear call meta-morality
> for want of a better word [there probably is one, I just don't know
> it] is build up from a similar cascade of sources.
There is a philosophical subdiscipline called "meta-ethics", actually.
It asks the question, "What do we mean, to say that an act is good or
bad? What are our criteria for this claim?"
See, e.g.: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaethics
--
Karl A. Krueger <········@example.edu>
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Email address is spamtrapped. s/example/whoi/
"Outlook not so good." -- Magic 8-Ball Software Reviews
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
> Thomas Stegen <·······@cis.strath.ac.uk> writes:
>
> > Moral is based on ethics, not the other way around. I know what you mean
> > though and this is more a FYI post than anything else :)
[SNIP]
> Of course, I haven't surveyed the literature on this, and I won't be
> surprised if others break this down not by "who gives the rules" but by
> "who the rules affect". I just have a political bent to all of my view
> of the Universe, by virtue of how I came to be who I am (working in lots
> of politically oriented situatinos) and I think the notion of "who gave
> you these ideas", each of which is after all meant to control you, is as
> important or moreso, in establishing an appropriate understanding of
> the effect in context.
Back when I was a student of philosophy, the definitions we used was
"moral is what you do; ethics is what you say you do and moral
philosophy is reasoning about morals and ethics". Touching on the
source of the ethics didn't enter into it (that is either philosophy
of law, political philosophy or philosophy of religions).
> Hence, I side with Don and take issue with your claim that morality
> is based on ethics.
Though on the whole, I would have to agree on this. What people do is
often (but possibly not often enough) corresponds to what they say
they would do.
//Ingvar
--
Coffee: Nectar of gods / Aesir-mead of sysadmins / Elixir of life
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> wrote:
+---------------
| Thomas Stegen <·······@cis.strath.ac.uk> writes:
|
| > Moral is based on ethics, not the other way around. I know what you mean
| > though and this is more a FYI post than anything else :)
|
| I haven't been following the discussion, but this statement in
| isolation does not resonate with my own terminology.
|
| Just as laws are built up from jurisdictions (federal -> state ->
| local/city -> household), I think what I'll hear call meta-morality
| for want of a better word [there probably is one, I just don't know
| it] is build up from a similar cascade of sources. Plainly, that
| which is elected by a person (which is what I call "ethics") is based
| upon that which is elected by God/Universe (which is what I call
| "morality" and is given by religion).
+---------------
Well, the definitions of or distinctions between these terms that I have
always used (well, for long enough that I can't remember when or where I
first heard them) don't require the introduction of religion at all:
Ethics are the rules that a person imposes on him/herself
for the sake of the health/well-being of society.
Morals are the rules that a society imposes on itself
for the sake of the health/well-being of its members.
That is, to a first approximation, unethical behavior hurts the fabric
of society (e.g., unethical business practices), while immoral behavior
hurts other people (telling lies about someone, for example).
Yes, there's overlap; the two are not totally disjoint. But I've found
the above to be useful approximations.
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock, PP-ASEL-IA <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
> | Thomas Stegen <·······@cis.strath.ac.uk> writes:
> | > Moral is based on ethics, not the other way around.
> Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> wrote:
> | Plainly, that which is elected by a person (which is what I call
> | "ethics") is based upon that which is elected by God/Universe (which is
> | what I call "morality" and is given by religion).
····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) writes:
> Ethics are the rules that a person imposes on him/herself
> for the sake of the health/well-being of society.
> Morals are the rules that a society imposes on itself
> for the sake of the health/well-being of its members.
I'm far from an expert myself, but everyone seems to be using their own
private definitions of the two terms. Just for kicks, I thought I'd check
what a dictionary says. From Merriam-Webster (www.m-w.com):
synonyms: MORAL, ETHICAL
MORAL implies conformity to established sanctioned codes or accepted
notions of right and wrong <the basic MORAL values of a community>.
ETHICAL may suggest the involvement of more difficult or subtle
questions of rightness, fairness, or equity <committed to the highest
ETHICAL principles>.
This seems to imply that you use "moral" if everyone would agree that it's
wrong (murder?), but "ethical" is more appropriate if there are shades of
gray (corporate accounting?).
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
The number you have dialed is imaginary. Please divide by 0 and try again.
····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) writes:
> Well, the definitions of or distinctions between these terms that I have
> always used (well, for long enough that I can't remember when or where I
> first heard them) don't require the introduction of religion at all:
Even though I don't agree with your listing, I very much appreciate your
taking the time to add to my understanding of how others view this.
> Ethics are the rules that a person imposes on him/herself
> for the sake of the health/well-being of society.
>
> Morals are the rules that a society imposes on itself
> for the sake of the health/well-being of its members.
Those are laws. I left out "laws" and also "manners" in my original cascade.
(Hmm. Maybe morals are to laws as manners are to ethics. Or some such.
That is, hard and soft rules for each structural tier. I'll have to
ponder that.)
The problem about morality being imposed by society is that it doesn't work
well under pluralism and freedom. That is, different sensibilities will yield
different results, and ultimately only the laws will remain.
At the risk of bringing this back to a CL-related topic (which is one
reason I indulge these branch-offs, myself, because I _do_ think they
are related), I am reminded of some situations in which I was editing
away on the ANSI CL spec and drafts would get revied by Dick Gabriel,
who would often just line through massive blocks of text that
contained text like "blah blah blah really ought to do blah blah
blah". He would make a note saying "really ought to" means the same
as "doesn't have to at all". His point was that in a spec, there is
only "must do x" and "may do anything at all", there is no notion of
statistics, etc. We did retain some "advice" in the notes, and if
we'd had more time we might have migrated certain other apparent
'requirements' into the notes... But the point is that a thing that is
a good idea but is really not testable or enforceable, or that needs
to be legitimately violated from time to time, is just not ripe for
'law'. And so we write style guides, which I suppose are the
needs of the community of and the dynamics of programming environments
and cultures to keep things working in a harmoneous fashion. But, as I
always say, rules of style are not really rules--they are just guidelines
that exist more so that you know "what you will break when you violate
them" than so that you will not ever violate them...
> That is, to a first approximation, unethical behavior hurts the fabric
> of society (e.g., unethical business practices), while immoral behavior
> hurts other people (telling lies about someone, for example).
Funny, I think of breach of ethics as hurting me because it hurts my
sense of predictability to others, and consequently reduces the degree
of trust they will invest in me. I see immorality as the vanishingly
small set of victimless crimes that others worry somehow will hurt
them because they cannot predict or understand them, even though it
has no effect on them at all, and that they have been frustrated by
their inability to get added as laws (probably because enough people
understand it's a bad topic for law). That's a personal view, though;
another view might be the political one of a hermit crab [well, that's
not quite right naming, but similar enought that I'll go with it for
visual effects' sake], where a new would-be government (say, a
religion) moves into a town that already has a government and decides to
rule it not by interfering with its rules, but by trying to assert an
additional set of rules that are to be legislated in a parallel set
of courts. Even civil/tort law differs from criminal law in that it has
its own parallel set of courts, with parallel sets of penalties and without
risk of double jeopardy.
In the realm of programming, I guess you could say that "conformance to
the Church of Paul Dietz" (sorry, Paul, just playing with you) would have
its own set of penalties and privileges distinct from conformance with
ANSI CL itself. To the extent that these seem less "parallel sets of rules"
and just "parallel sets of enforcement for the same rules", I recommend
Neil Stephenson's "Snow Crash" and its very inventive notion of private
law enforcement after the fall of nation states that might enforce things
in a uniform state way ...
> Yes, there's overlap; the two are not totally disjoint. But I've found
> the above to be useful approximations.
Thanks!
[snip stuff about dumping practices]
mikel <·····@evins.net> writes:
> Certainly there are many anecdotes about it. It's not clear to me that
> it actually works particularly well (for example, Standard Oil did it,
> but the court testimony seems to indicate that it did not work), and
> it's not clear to me that if it did work there would be anything
> unethical about it.
We have markets with competition so that demand can be met with as
little resource consumption as possible. Using outside tools (such as
a large cash box or other "offers you can't refuse") to gain a
monopoly enables the monopolist to charge a premium. Said premium
means that fewer items are made/sold than resources would allow. This
is a net loss for society. This is why monopolies are bad. This is why
exploiting a natural monopoly and creating artificial ones are
illegal.
--
H�kon Alstadheim, hjemmepappa.
······@online.no (H�kon Alstadheim) wrote in message news:<··············@alstadhome.dyndns.org>...
> monopoly enables the monopolist to charge a premium. Said premium
> means that fewer items are made/sold than resources would allow. This
> is a net loss for society. This is why monopolies are bad.
Why do you think that the un-ending expansion of an economy in a
finite environment is a good thing?
You (and others in these threads) use 'good' and 'bad' as if we really
were discussing /ethics/, rather than maximising the growth of the
economy. To me ethics derives from people. Money as a measure of good
is undermined in many ways. Not least the accounting fallacy that
considers non-renewable resources as 'income' rather than 'capital',
so that trusting to the expansion of our economy to solve the world's
problems is worse than visiting a loan-shark to meet the payments on
your mortgage [1].
Computing's potential ethical value is to enable us to comprehend our
vastly complex society, to deal with the mass of fellow humans more as
individuals than homogenous statistics, and to coordinate vast
efforts on a human scale. Lisp favours individuals and small teams, so
is close to the spirit of this. But none of this is automatic.
Recently, I have been playing around with the following (ethical)
value judgement:
A 'Free' software computing industry of many small, efficient and
dynamic groups.
{a world of techno-peasants programming for food, delivering maximum
benefit to the rest of the economy, while drawing the minimum from it}
- is probably comparable with -
A Free-market capitalist computing industry of many, efficient and
dynamic companies.
{forced by competition to deliver value, but able to draw more back
(although this will be off-set by the drive to invest in innovation)}
- is worse than -
An industry dominated by monolithic, ossified capitalist monopolies.
{delivers minimum value for maximum return, so puts as good a break as
possible on the rest of the economy. is harmless compared to the
automobile industry. concentrates power in the hands of a few
individuals (the likely-hood of their behaving ethically is small, but
more plausible than no-one choosing 'betrayal' in the n-player
prisoner's dilemmas set up above)}
- is worse than -
A world where the GPL breaks the hold of money and allows the
formation of a people orientated computing industry, /which then
spreads/ to the rest of the economy.
{at least a successful free-software industry would demonstrate that
the current economy is not a law of nature, but a social construction}
- is worse than -
Something else (which probably begins with a bonfire of economics
text-books).
I'm far from convinced by this, but I am deeply bothered by your
failure to question you assumptions, so I thought i'd share it.
thomas
P.S.
[1] Yes, i have just been reading E. F. Schumacher...
No, i'm no saint. I'm employed by a global construction company, not
subsisting in a wood, but then i've long felt that abandoning society
is a poor way to change it.
From: Nils Goesche
Subject: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL]
Date:
Message-ID: <lysmoyiljk.fsf@cartan.de>
······@yahoo.com (thomas) writes:
> ······@online.no (H�kon Alstadheim) wrote in message news:<··············@alstadhome.dyndns.org>...
>
> > monopoly enables the monopolist to charge a premium. Said premium
> > means that fewer items are made/sold than resources would
> > allow. This is a net loss for society. This is why monopolies are
> > bad.
But it is also why monopolies and cartels usually break apart rather
quickly once their bad sides become apparent. Only if governments
guarantee a monopoly by eliminating competition, as they unfortunately
do all too often, everybody suffers for a long time.
> Why do you think that the un-ending expansion of an economy in a
> finite environment is a good thing?
Because one has little of nothing to do with the other?
> You (and others in these threads) use 'good' and 'bad' as if we
> really were discussing /ethics/, rather than maximising the growth
> of the economy. To me ethics derives from people. Money as a measure
> of good is undermined in many ways.
Who is using money as ``a measure of good��? Money is just the
preferred medium of exchange, that's all. There is nothing magical
about it, and nothing ethical, either.
> Not least the accounting fallacy that considers non-renewable
> resources as 'income' rather than 'capital', so that trusting to the
> expansion of our economy to solve the world's problems is worse than
> visiting a loan-shark to meet the payments on your mortgage [1].
Oh my gawd, an environmentalist nut. You know, until the 19th
century, one very important industrial ``resource�� was whale oil.
Whale oil was used for all kinds of things in industry, and no
substitute was known. Imagine what would have happened if a
contemporary environmentalist was transferred with a time machine back
to the 19th century and came to power: He'd introduce quotas on whale
oil and all other of resources of nature thus damaging the economy and
bringing economic growth and progress to an instant halt. Now we'd
still have the standard of living and the life expectancy of the 19th
century, thanks to him. But there'd still be some quota of whale oil
for everyone, thanks to his superior wisdom.
Look, if we ever run out of resource X, we'll use something else.
This will happen gradually and automatically when X's price grows.
There is absolutely no reason to worry about it. That is, if you
don't share the mythical Gaia faith of the environmentalists, who
somehow believe that earth, ``Gaia��, is some sentient being that is
suffering hard because evil man is stealing its copper.
Incidentally, despite all the gloomy predictions of environmentalists,
or the Club of Rome that claimed in ``Limits to Growth�� we'd run out
of oil in the early 1980s, nothing like that happened so far. In
fact, not a single prediction from ``Limits to Growth�� was correct.
What happened instead was what every economist had predicted, anyway:
If you look at the inflation-adjusted prices of any commodity during
the last decades, you'll see that /every single one of them/,
including oil, is falling (in the long run, and not counting taxes, of
course). Why so many people, especially at colleges and universities,
still believe those environmentalist nuts is beyond me.
> Recently, I have been playing around with the following (ethical)
> value judgement:
>
> A 'Free' software computing industry of many small, efficient and
> dynamic groups. {a world of techno-peasants programming for food,
> delivering maximum benefit to the rest of the economy, while drawing
> the minimum from it}
If they don't program for profit, they program for fun. Unfortunately
that means that stuff that isn't fun won't be written, much to the
dismay of people who need the stuff anyway.
> - is probably comparable with -
>
> A Free-market capitalist computing industry of many, efficient and
> dynamic companies. {forced by competition to deliver value, but
> able to draw more back (although this will be off-set by the drive
> to invest in innovation)}
What do you mean, ``draw back��? You seem to have some misconception
here. If A produces something and B buys it, /both/ parties profit.
Otherwise, B wouldn't buy or A wouldn't sell. I am always amazed at
how few people really understand this simple, fundamental fact (and
its implications).
> - is worse than -
>
> An industry dominated by monolithic, ossified capitalist monopolies.
> {delivers minimum value for maximum return, so puts as good a break
> as possible on the rest of the economy.
And that's what we all want, I take it... Why don't we simply
exterminate all of mankind, wouldn't that be even closer to the
environmentalist ideal?
> is harmless compared to the automobile industry. concentrates power
> in the hands of a few individuals (the likely-hood of their behaving
> ethically is small, but more plausible than no-one choosing
> 'betrayal' in the n-player prisoner's dilemmas set up above)}
Ah, that's better... So the economy in general and production in
particular should be controlled by a ``few individuals�� who behave
``ethically��. If you ever meet a Russian, you should ask him how
well that worked in the Soviet Union.
And what is meant by ``ethically�� here, I wonder? Bringing
production to a halt, again? You /do/ know that that means instant
death of starvation for most of mankind? Bringing growth to a halt?
Same thing, only slower.
> - is worse than -
>
> A world where the GPL breaks the hold of money
What ``hold of money��?
> and allows the formation of a people orientated computing industry,
As every successful business is customer oriented, and customers are
people (until the Greens start giving social welfare to animals), the
industry is very much people oriented already.
> /which then spreads/ to the rest of the economy.
And becomes a Free Democratic People's Republic of X, right?
> {at least a successful free-software industry would demonstrate that
> the current economy is not a law of nature, but a social
> construction}
Our society is indeed a social construction, and thus the economy, if
you want. Laws of nature are the economic theorems that describe how
it works under certain conditions and events.
> - is worse than -
>
> Something else (which probably begins with a bonfire of economics
> text-books).
Ah. What's next? Burn physics books because they say earth isn't
flat? Economics textbooks are not books about ethics. Economics is a
science, studying Human Action. It doesn't say ``Do this, don't do
that,�� but more something like: ``If you do this, it will have such
and such effect.�� Already in the 19th century, and still today, there
were lots of people who simply didn't like to hear what economics had
to say: Truth hurts sometimes, especially if your faith is at conflict
with reality. That's why leftists and environmentalists have always
hated economists and invented ludicrous reasons for abandoning
economics. The leftists said that there is another truth and logic
for the ``bourgoisie�� than for ``proletarians�� (although they never
quite elaborated what proletarian logic might look like), and the
environmentalists and Greens claimed that human reason is ``evil�� per
se, an ``aberrant of nature��.
> [1] Yes, i have just been reading E. F. Schumacher...
Ah, so ``Buddhist economics�� is it, right? :-)
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x0655CFA0
In article <··············@cartan.de>, Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> wrote:
> Oh my gawd, an environmentalist nut.
As a card-carrying member of the environmentalist nut club I couldn't
resist chiming in here despite the fact that this thread has veered
seriously off-topic.
> You know, until the 19th
> century, one very important industrial ``resource�� was whale oil.
> Whale oil was used for all kinds of things in industry, and no
> substitute was known. Imagine what would have happened if a
> contemporary environmentalist was transferred with a time machine back
> to the 19th century and came to power: He'd introduce quotas on whale
> oil and all other of resources of nature thus damaging the economy and
> bringing economic growth and progress to an instant halt. Now we'd
> still have the standard of living and the life expectancy of the 19th
> century, thanks to him. But there'd still be some quota of whale oil
> for everyone, thanks to his superior wisdom.
Well, thank gawd we have Nils Goesche's superior wisdom to set us straight
about what doubtless would happen if we ever allow environmentalist nuts
access to time-travel technology. Let us hope that this disastrous
scenario never comes to pass. And while we're at it, let us thank gawd
also that the whales lasted long enough for us to develop the technology
that superceded them, because if we had hunted them to extinction first we
would have become perpetually mired in pre-19th century technology
because, most assuredly, the extinction of whales would have restricted
the use of whale oil far more effectively than any environmentalist nut
could possibly do.
> Look, if we ever run out of resource X, we'll use something else.
Your optimism is charming. What if we run out of whales? What will we
replace them with? Whales are good for more than just whale oil, you
know. They are, for example, quite inspiring just to look at. It's one
of those ineffable experiences that makes life a little more worthwhile
than if you spend it all just eating, shitting, fornicating, hacking, and
hanging out on usenet.
> This will happen gradually and automatically when X's price grows.
No. You may be able to come up with a replacement for whale oil, but you
will never come up with a replacement for whales (particularly if you hunt
them to extinction).
> There is absolutely no reason to worry about it.
...
> Incidentally, despite all the gloomy predictions of environmentalists,
> or the Club of Rome that claimed in ``Limits to Growth�� we'd run out
> of oil in the early 1980s, nothing like that happened so far.
You must be joking. It's happening all over. Perhaps because I live in
Los Angeles it's a little more obvious to me, but we're running out of
nearly everything. We're running out of water. We're running out of
clean air. We're running out of space to put people.
We're running out of fish. There is a good chance that we could hunt
certain food species to extinction. We did it with the Dodo and the
Carrier Pigeon. No reason we couldn't do it with tuna and swordfish.
And we are running out of oil. The predictions of exactly when this would
happen are a little off, but if you consume a non-renewable resource at an
exponentially growing rate it is inevitable that 1) you will run out and
2) this will not become apparent until very shortly before it happens.
The predictions may be off by twenty years or even a hundred years, but
there is little doubt that we will run out of oil, and probably sooner
rather than later. (The only hope for avoiding this is if it turns out
that certain radical theories about the source of oil being the earth's
mantle rather than decayed dinosaurs turn out to be true. Personally I
wouldn't bet my life savings on it.)
> If you look at the inflation-adjusted prices of any commodity during
> the last decades, you'll see that /every single one of them/,
> including oil, is falling
Yes. Why is this? According to your theory above resources ought to be
getting more expensive as they become scarcer. Could it be that the
policies of certain governments is keeping the price of oil artificially
low? Wouldn't this encourage consumption and discourage the development
of alternatives? Wouldn't that hasten the day when we do run out, and
increase the likelihood that we will meet that day with our technological
pants down, without an alternative ready to take its place?
> Why so many people, especially at colleges and universities,
> still believe those environmentalist nuts is beyond me.
Because it is obivous to anyone with half a brain that in the long run 1)
the environmentalist nuts are almost certainly right and 2) even if they
are wrong, Pascal's Wager argues for their position. It is far better to
be wrong assuming that you will run out of a critical resource than
assuming that you will not.
E.
From: Nils Goesche
Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Environmentalist nuts (was: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL])
Date:
Message-ID: <87wueal38w.fsf@darkstar.cartan>
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> In article <··············@cartan.de>, Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> wrote:
>
> > Oh my gawd, an environmentalist nut.
>
> As a card-carrying member of the environmentalist nut club
Why am I not surprised ;-)
> I couldn't resist chiming in here despite the fact that this
> thread has veered seriously off-topic.
>
> > You know, until the 19th century, one very important
> > industrial ``resource�� was whale oil. Whale oil was used
> > for all kinds of things in industry, and no substitute was
> > known. Imagine what would have happened if a contemporary
> > environmentalist was transferred with a time machine back to
> > the 19th century and came to power: He'd introduce quotas on
> > whale oil and all other of resources of nature thus damaging
> > the economy and bringing economic growth and progress to an
> > instant halt. Now we'd still have the standard of living and
> > the life expectancy of the 19th century, thanks to him. But
> > there'd still be some quota of whale oil for everyone, thanks
> > to his superior wisdom.
>
> Well, thank gawd we have Nils Goesche's superior wisdom to set
> us straight about what doubtless would happen if we ever allow
> environmentalist nuts access to time-travel technology. Let us
> hope that this disastrous scenario never comes to pass. And
> while we're at it, let us thank gawd also that the whales
> lasted long enough for us to develop the technology that
> superceded them, because if we had hunted them to extinction
> first we would have become perpetually mired in pre-19th
> century technology because, most assuredly, the extinction of
> whales would have restricted the use of whale oil far more
> effectively than any environmentalist nut could possibly do.
You missed ``and all other [...] resources��.
> > Look, if we ever run out of resource X, we'll use something else.
>
> Your optimism is charming. What if we run out of whales? What
> will we replace them with? Whales are good for more than just
> whale oil, you know.
I hear they also make for excellent steaks.
> They are, for example, quite inspiring just to look at. It's
> one of those ineffable experiences that makes life a little
> more worthwhile than if you spend it all just eating, shitting,
> fornicating, hacking, and hanging out on usenet.
I know what you mean: I regularly do a lot of fish watching at my
local Sushi bistro.
> > This will happen gradually and automatically when X's price grows.
>
> No. You may be able to come up with a replacement for whale
> oil, but you will never come up with a replacement for whales
> (particularly if you hunt them to extinction).
You are missing the point entirely. People in the 19th century
didn't give a flying fuck about whale watching. For them, whale
oil was an industrial resource like any other. The holy whale
religion is a rather recent invention.
> > There is absolutely no reason to worry about it.
> ...
> > Incidentally, despite all the gloomy predictions of
> > environmentalists, or the Club of Rome that claimed in
> > ``Limits to Growth�� we'd run out of oil in the early 1980s,
> > nothing like that happened so far.
>
> You must be joking. It's happening all over. Perhaps because
> I live in Los Angeles it's a little more obvious to me, but
> we're running out of nearly everything.
Yeah, but only in California for some reason...
> We're running out of water. We're running out of clean air.
First, the air quality in California is better than in most
European cities, so this is pure FUD. Second, there might indeed
be water shortages in California, but just why is it always and
only California that is running out of things like water and
electric power? West Berlin was completely surrounded by the
communist GDR for decades, but miraculously we always had enough
water, even without any Pacific Oceans nearby. Every other
American state, in fact, even the most piss-poor third world
countries are miraculously capable of providing enough electric
power and water for their people (even the Soviet Union was).
Only California can't. Did it ever occur to you that this might
be solely the government of California's fault? Or do you think:
``I voted for those pinkos, so they can't be wrong.��?
> We're running out of space to put people.
Oh, give me a break. First, until the environmentalist nuts have
their way, people are not ``put�� anywhere. People /come/ to
California because they want to live there. If it was so
horribly overcrowded as you say, people would stop coming. So,
how overcrowded is it really? In California, there live about
220 people per square mile. In the German state I live in, the
number is about 10090 people per square mile. And we even get
lots of tourists each year! If you a value of 220 is already
that horrible, I suppose we should start shooting people very
soon now ;-)
> We're running out of fish. There is a good chance that we
> could hunt certain food species to extinction. We did it with
> the Dodo and the Carrier Pigeon. No reason we couldn't do it
> with tuna and swordfish.
But so far, we didn't.
> And we are running out of oil. The predictions of exactly when
> this would happen are a little off,
A little? I was talking about the predictions in ``Limits to
Growth��, and they were not just a little off -- they were
insanely and totally off! The apocalypse would have happened
long ago if they had been only /remotely/ correct.
> but if you consume a non-renewable resource at an exponentially
> growing rate it is inevitable that 1) you will run out and 2)
> this will not become apparent until very shortly before it
> happens. The predictions may be off by twenty years or even a
> hundred years, but there is little doubt that we will run out
> of oil, and probably sooner rather than later. (The only hope
> for avoiding this is if it turns out that certain radical
> theories about the source of oil being the earth's mantle
> rather than decayed dinosaurs turn out to be true. Personally
> I wouldn't bet my life savings on it.)
If you really believe we are running out of so many things,
including air and water, you could start hoarding things. I
could sell you some good German air in huge bags and drinking
water, for instance, for a fair price like, say, $1 per bottle?
> > If you look at the inflation-adjusted prices of any commodity
> > during the last decades, you'll see that /every single one of
> > them/, including oil, is falling
>
> Yes. Why is this? According to your theory above resources
> ought to be getting more expensive as they become scarcer.
So, they are obviously /not/ becoming scarcer, so far. New
sources are found, methods for retrieving them improve, in some
cases even demand falls, and the result is that prices fall, not
rise. We don't have to use oil for driving cars. But so far it
is the best and cheapest way, so we do it. Worrying so much
about oil reserves being finite is simply insane! As is
extrapolating so much. If somebody in the 60s had extrapolated
population curves in industrial countries, he had arrived at
absolutely laughable values that have nothing at all to do with
reality. All of a sudden, population growth pretty much stopped,
without any catastrophies whatsoever. Who would have thought
that? But environmentalists say we have to ration our usage of
commodities like, say, copper. What a stupid idea. So, we have
to ration copper in a way that copper won't ``run out�� in 5
years (remembering that the environmentalist's get corrected
every few years), but only in 20 years. Great, and what then?
So, let's ration them that they will only run out in 50 years.
But, let's see, shouldn't we rather ration them such they won't
run out until a million years from now? How about a billion?
The only answer is stop using copper altogether. And this is
exactly what these anti-human people want: That all economic
activity (and hence all human activity and human life) comes to a
halt, and the world is left for the holy whales.
> Could it be that the policies of certain governments is keeping
> the price of oil artificially low?
> Wouldn't this encourage consumption and discourage the
> development of alternatives? Wouldn't that hasten the day when
> we do run out, and increase the likelihood that we will meet
> that day with our technological pants down, without an
> alternative ready to take its place?
Only that no government I know of does such a thing. In Germany,
a liter of gas costs about twice as much as in the US. Almost
all of the price is taxes only. It's not the US that keeps
prices ``artificially low��, it's the German government that
keeps them artificially high for all kinds of stupid reasons.
There is no reason at all to keep gas prices artificially high,
as you seem to believe. Oil reserves are going to last for a lot
of time yet, and once they are gone we'll use something else,
again. You can buy cars with hydrogen motors already today, you
know? But I suppose then environmentalists will argue that
producing hydrogen is immoral for all kinds of reasons... But
ok, I remember, by then the Californians will have drunk empty
all of the Pacific and other oceans and we won't have any water
left to produce hydrogen, is that your theory?
> > Why so many people, especially at colleges and universities,
> > still believe those environmentalist nuts is beyond me.
>
> Because it is obivous to anyone with half a brain that in the
> long run 1) the environmentalist nuts are almost certainly
> right
The flat-earthers are saying the same thing...
> and 2) even if they are wrong, Pascal's Wager argues for their
> position. It is far better to be wrong assuming that you will
> run out of a critical resource than assuming that you will not.
No. If you ruin everybody's life because of bogus theories and
assumptions when doing nothing at all about it would have been
the right thing, you are not only an idiot but outright evil.
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID #xD26EF2A0
In article <··············@darkstar.cartan>, Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> wrote:
> > Your optimism is charming. What if we run out of whales? What
> > will we replace them with? Whales are good for more than just
> > whale oil, you know.
>
> I hear they also make for excellent steaks.
Do you think Irish children make excellent steaks too?
> > > This will happen gradually and automatically when X's price grows.
> >
> > No. You may be able to come up with a replacement for whale
> > oil, but you will never come up with a replacement for whales
> > (particularly if you hunt them to extinction).
>
> You are missing the point entirely. People in the 19th century
> didn't give a flying fuck about whale watching. For them, whale
> oil was an industrial resource like any other. The holy whale
> religion is a rather recent invention.
No, you are missing my point entirely. I know that 19th century people
didn't care about watching whales. But (some) 21st century people do, and
they (we) would have counted the extinction of whales as a great loss,
notwithstanding the development of oil as a replacement for whale blubber
and Ahi tuna (or Irish children) as a replacement for whale steaks.
The point is that the true magnitidue of the loss of a resource is not
always apparent at the time that you're consuming it.
> > > There is absolutely no reason to worry about it.
> > ...
> > > Incidentally, despite all the gloomy predictions of
> > > environmentalists, or the Club of Rome that claimed in
> > > ``Limits to Growth�� we'd run out of oil in the early 1980s,
> > > nothing like that happened so far.
> >
> > You must be joking. It's happening all over. Perhaps because
> > I live in Los Angeles it's a little more obvious to me, but
> > we're running out of nearly everything.
>
> Yeah, but only in California for some reason...
Excuse me? Have you been to Nigeria lately? Or Bangladesh? Egypt?
Iraq? Afghanistan? Ivory Coast? Mexico? Chechnya? India? China? The
list of places where people are running up hard against resource limits is
much longer than the places where they aren't.
> > We're running out of water. We're running out of clean air.
>
> First, the air quality in California is better than in most
> European cities, so this is pure FUD.
No, it's a sad commentary on the quality of the air in most European
cities. My wife and I love Europe but for one thing: we dread having to
try to breathe there. Between the cigarette smoke and the diesel fumes
trying to get a breath of air can become a real chore. (And we live on
Los Angeles!)
You've probably been wallowing in that filthy air for so long you've
forgotten what clean air smells like.
> Second, there might indeed
> be water shortages in California, but just why is it always and
> only California that is running out of things like water and
> electric power?
You obviously have no clue about what's going on outside of Germany. I
have news for you: Germany is not and never has been representative of the
state of the world. (Neither is Los Angeles. Most of the world is much,
much worse off than we are in LA.)
> West Berlin was completely surrounded by the
> communist GDR for decades, but miraculously we always had enough
> water, even without any Pacific Oceans nearby.
It rains in Germany on occasion, no? You have rivers that don't go dry on
a regular basis? Duh!
> Every other
> American state, in fact, even the most piss-poor third world
> countries are miraculously capable of providing enough electric
> power and water for their people (even the Soviet Union was).
I guess that depends on what you consider to be "enough", and what price
you're willing to pay. The Soviet Union gots its electricity in part by
building a nuclear reactor at Chernobyl. We all know how well that turned
out.
> > We're running out of space to put people.
>
> Oh, give me a break. First, until the environmentalist nuts have
> their way, people are not ``put�� anywhere. People /come/ to
> California because they want to live there.
Yes, that's because despite how bad things are in LA, things are much,
much worse across the border in Mexico. And it is not in fact true that
we don't "put" people in places. We "put" people (so-called "illegal
aliens") back in Mexico all the time.
> If it was so
> horribly overcrowded as you say, people would stop coming.
Why do you say that? People have been moving to horribly overcrowded
places since the dawn of civilization. That doesn't change the fact that
they are in fact horribly overcrowded, and getting more horribly
overcrowded all the time.
> So,
> how overcrowded is it really? In California, there live about
> 220 people per square mile. In the German state I live in, the
> number is about 10090 people per square mile. And we even get
> lots of tourists each year!
Calcutta and Cairo get tourists too, but I count my lucky stars that I
don't have to live there.
> > We're running out of fish. There is a good chance that we
> > could hunt certain food species to extinction. We did it with
> > the Dodo and the Carrier Pigeon. No reason we couldn't do it
> > with tuna and swordfish.
>
> But so far, we didn't.
Give it time.
> > And we are running out of oil. The predictions of exactly when
> > this would happen are a little off,
>
> A little?
Yes, a little. A few decades, perhaps a century at most. A century is a
blip in the grand and glorious scheme of things. If it is not us who have
to deal with the consequences of our shortsightedness it will be our
grandchildren.
> I was talking about the predictions in ``Limits to
> Growth��, and they were not just a little off -- they were
> insanely and totally off! The apocalypse would have happened
> long ago if they had been only /remotely/ correct.
We seem to have a different perspective on time. Humans have been on this
planet for millions of years. Civilization has existed barely ten
thousand. The industrial revolution happened less then three hundred
years ago. On these time scales, a few decades is *nothing*.
> > but if you consume a non-renewable resource at an exponentially
> > growing rate it is inevitable that 1) you will run out and 2)
> > this will not become apparent until very shortly before it
> > happens. The predictions may be off by twenty years or even a
> > hundred years, but there is little doubt that we will run out
> > of oil, and probably sooner rather than later. (The only hope
> > for avoiding this is if it turns out that certain radical
> > theories about the source of oil being the earth's mantle
> > rather than decayed dinosaurs turn out to be true. Personally
> > I wouldn't bet my life savings on it.)
>
> If you really believe we are running out of so many things,
> including air and water, you could start hoarding things. I
> could sell you some good German air in huge bags and drinking
> water, for instance, for a fair price like, say, $1 per bottle?
Couple of problems with that.
First, hoarding requires resources. You have to have somewhere to put the
things you are hoarding, you need containers, etc. If you want to hoard
fish there's the problem of shelf life.
Second, air and water are renewable resources. That changes the economics
of hoarding. You have to have not the resource itself, but the rights to
the source of the resource. Alas, those were all snapped up a century
ago. (Los Angeles owes its existence to precisely this. Look up William
Mulholland on Google some time.)
Third, the consequences of running out of resources globally will not
likely be felt by me personally, but rather by those lower down in the
economic pecking order and by their descendents. And my hoarding won't
help them.
> > > If you look at the inflation-adjusted prices of any commodity
> > > during the last decades, you'll see that /every single one of
> > > them/, including oil, is falling
> >
> > Yes. Why is this? According to your theory above resources
> > ought to be getting more expensive as they become scarcer.
>
> So, they are obviously /not/ becoming scarcer, so far. New
> sources are found, methods for retrieving them improve, in some
> cases even demand falls, and the result is that prices fall, not
> rise. We don't have to use oil for driving cars. But so far it
> is the best and cheapest way, so we do it. Worrying so much
> about oil reserves being finite is simply insane!
Not worrying about it at all is equally insane.
Yes, there are alternative technologies available for cars. What about
airplanes?
> As is
> extrapolating so much. If somebody in the 60s had extrapolated
> population curves in industrial countries, he had arrived at
> absolutely laughable values that have nothing at all to do with
> reality. All of a sudden, population growth pretty much stopped,
> without any catastrophies whatsoever.
Yes, and that is one of the things that gives me great hope for the
future. I see the future history of the world as a race between the
stabilizing influences of industrialization and the destabilizing
influences of its lack. It is not clear yet which side will win.
Hopefully one day the entire planet will be as prosperous and stable as
the United States and Western Europe are today. But until that happens I
think it's unwise to bury our head in the sand and just assume that it's
all going to turn out OK.
BTW, Europe is stable, but certain aspects of it are hardly paradisical.
Try finding a secluded beach on the Riviera. We still have a few of them
here in California, thanks largely to the efforts of fellow
environmentalist nuts.
> Who would have thought
> that? But environmentalists say we have to ration our usage of
> commodities like, say, copper. What a stupid idea.
Copper is a straw man. Copper is recoverable in ways that oil isn't.
> > Could it be that the policies of certain governments is keeping
> > the price of oil artificially low?
>
> > Wouldn't this encourage consumption and discourage the
> > development of alternatives? Wouldn't that hasten the day when
> > we do run out, and increase the likelihood that we will meet
> > that day with our technological pants down, without an
> > alternative ready to take its place?
>
> Only that no government I know of does such a thing.
You really need to start reading the newspaper. Our government just
started a war over it. (And if you doubt this, see
http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.b_PR.shtml)
> > and 2) even if they are wrong, Pascal's Wager argues for their
> > position. It is far better to be wrong assuming that you will
> > run out of a critical resource than assuming that you will not.
>
> No. If you ruin everybody's life because of bogus theories and
> assumptions when doing nothing at all about it would have been
> the right thing, you are not only an idiot but outright evil.
Can we tone down the epithets a bit? It's a little early in the
discussion to be invoking Godwin's law.
E.
From: Nils Goesche
Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Environmentalist nuts (was: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL])
Date:
Message-ID: <lyfzkxi4n4.fsf@cartan.de>
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> In article <··············@darkstar.cartan>, Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> wrote:
>
> > > Your optimism is charming. What if we run out of whales? What
> > > will we replace them with? Whales are good for more than just
> > > whale oil, you know.
> >
> > I hear they also make for excellent steaks.
>
> Do you think Irish children make excellent steaks too?
A bit skinny, don't you think? Maybe if we feed them up with lots of
Guinness, first ;-) Seriously: That's precisely what I'm talking
about: You are irrationally talking about whales like they were men or
gods and not animals. A whale is an animal like any other. We eat
pigs, too, for instance. Only that pigs have not been awarded divine
status yet, so people don't go on pig watching expeditions or buy CDs
with the ``Songs of the Domestic Pig��. And people don't claim that
pigs are more intelligent than men, either, although they make that
claim about whales. (If whales are so damn smart, why don't they
catch the whaler next time they stupidly go up right next to his
boat?) There is one exception, of course: People who have been
granted divine status by the New Age Left, like the Eskimos: /They/
are allowed to catch whales, only the Norwegians and Japanese are not.
It is as if University people have stopped talking about Marx and
Lenin all day only to become even /more/ irrational and insane! Back
when they were communists, they'd at least claim that they wanted to
save at least some people (the proletarians) from extinction, now they
declare man per se to be the ``skin desease of earth�� and want to
kill pretty much /everyone/ by removing industry and technology.
> > You are missing the point entirely. People in the 19th century
> > didn't give a flying fuck about whale watching. For them, whale
> > oil was an industrial resource like any other. The holy whale
> > religion is a rather recent invention.
>
> No, you are missing my point entirely. I know that 19th century
> people didn't care about watching whales. But (some) 21st century
> people do, and they (we) would have counted the extinction of whales
> as a great loss, notwithstanding the development of oil as a
> replacement for whale blubber and Ahi tuna (or Irish children) as a
> replacement for whale steaks.
Still, whale oil was an example for a resource that was once used
widely in the industry and isn't anymore, without any catastrophies
for the economy, so what you're saying is besides the point. But what
you're saying is irrational, too :-) We cannot possibly make
everything we do depend on whether some people in the 23rd century
will approve of it! That argumentation, too, would lead to an
immediate stop of all activity, once again, and we see, once again,
where the environmentalists are heading at, once again.
> The point is that the true magnitidue of the loss of a resource is
> not always apparent at the time that you're consuming it.
The exact consequences of anything we do are /never/ fully known,
especially not the consequences 300 years from now! That's a trivial
fact of life. Stopping all activity whatsoever because of that is an
idiotic and neurotic reaction, though. The people who made the
industrial revolution didn't know, either, whether the consequences
would be all great. At the time, there were nay-sayers and worryers,
too. They'd say that after a short time, machines would do all the
work, everybody would be workless and everybody will die. (Could it
be that their offspring is populating our Universities now?) What
happened was the exact opposite, as usual. In the long run, things
are getting better and better and better. Normal people enjoy things
now that only a few decades, let alone centuries, ago only kings could
afford. Even things in the third world are getting better. Sure,
they are still pretty poor there, but a bit less so every decade.
Many even drive their own cars already. Sure, the rich Western
tourist is shocked if they don't shine as beautifully as they use to
back at home, but not so long ago, people were walking on foot there,
and frequently starving to death on the way!
> > Yeah, but only in California for some reason...
>
> Excuse me? Have you been to Nigeria lately? Or Bangladesh? Egypt?
> Iraq? Afghanistan? Ivory Coast? Mexico? Chechnya? India?
> China? The list of places where people are running up hard against
> resource limits is much longer than the places where they aren't.
But it's not ``resource limits�� they are running up against. Japan
has absolutely no resources worth speaking of, for instance. That
didn't stop them from becoming incredibly rich, though. People in
Afghanistan used to live just fine until the Communists came and
everything drowned in Civil War since. India is a good example, too.
For several decades after the war, India was ruled by an elite trained
in Western Universities who believed all the nonsense that was taught
there: That it's capitalism that makes them poor, that trade with evil
capitalist countries will only make them poorer, and in order to get
better they'd only have to put tight controls on the economy and
restrict export/import as much as possible. The result was that
people died in famines all the time. In the seventies, India easened
up those restrictions somewhat, and look: Now famines anymore, since.
People used to die in Ethopia and China of hunger, too, millions of
people. But with a communist government that is not something to be
surprised of. All those extremely poor countries are ruled by thugs
and/or socialists and often wrecked by civil wars that go on forever.
There isn't any lack of resources -- it's the rulers who take
everything they can get, sell it, buy weapons and fill their Swiss
bank accounts who are to blame for their poverty (or stupid
socialists). Whenever a poor country behaved rationally, i.e.,
secured private property, free trade and everything, things began to
improve quickly and people get richer every year. In short: If you
don't have enough resources, you /buy/ them, or do something else with
what you have.
> > > We're running out of water. We're running out of clean air.
> >
> > First, the air quality in California is better than in most
> > European cities, so this is pure FUD.
>
> No, it's a sad commentary on the quality of the air in most European
> cities. My wife and I love Europe but for one thing: we dread
> having to try to breathe there. Between the cigarette smoke and the
> diesel fumes trying to get a breath of air can become a real chore.
> (And we live on Los Angeles!)
>
> You've probably been wallowing in that filthy air for so long you've
> forgotten what clean air smells like.
Mind you, I have lived in West Berlin back when it was surrounded by
the Communist GDR. We'd have SMOG alarm every summer. /That/ was bad
air. One or two years after the communists and their sorry excuses
for cars were gone, so were the SMOG alarms, and now I can't complain
about air quality anymore: As far as I am concerned, it's just fine.
Nobody complains but American tourists (so I light up a cigarette as
soon as any approach).
> > Second, there might indeed be water shortages in California, but
> > just why is it always and only California that is running out of
> > things like water and electric power?
>
> You obviously have no clue about what's going on outside of Germany.
> I have news for you: Germany is not and never has been
> representative of the state of the world. (Neither is Los Angeles.
> Most of the world is much, much worse off than we are in LA.)
It's an /example/! You say it's impossible to provide California with
water, I say that's a ridiculous claim! West Berlin was an example of
a region where it might seem pretty hard to provide people with enough
water.
> > West Berlin was completely surrounded by the communist GDR for
> > decades, but miraculously we always had enough water, even without
> > any Pacific Oceans nearby.
>
> It rains in Germany on occasion, no?
Not very often in Berlin. Certainly not enough...
> You have rivers that don't go dry on a regular basis? Duh!
The toxic fluid in those rivers only superficially resembled water.
Where do you think those rivers came from? West Berlin was completely
surrounded! The rivers ran through the GDR and Czechoslovakia, where
the just, rational, cooperative people's governments led their
non-capitalist societies that University heros like Angela Davis and
Susan Sontag were so much in favor of, and decided that those rivers
were a great place to put all kinds of toxic waste. We certainly
couldn't use /that/! There is a bit of ground water and lots of
sewage plants.
If your Californian Department of Water Resources is not capable of
providing enough water, how about privatizing water supply? If water
is /really/ becoming so scarce as you say, companies could make a nice
profit there! Of course, that is out of the question in a state like
California with its leftist government. But the great Iron Lady of
Great Britain did just that in England and Wales in 1989. As usual,
the leftist nuts predicted that shortly only the rich will be able to
afford washing their hands, let alone shower. And as usual, the exact
opposite happened. Scotland and Northern Ireland remained state run.
By now, water is cheapest in England, much more expensive in Northern
Ireland and Scotland, whereas water quality is best in England, as is
the leakage rate.
Whenever a government department is responsible for providing X, and
people complain there isn't enough of X, it is usually the government
department who is to blame, not the environment or overpopulation.
That it should be an impossible task of engineering to provide
/California/ with good and cheap water is a ridiculous notion.
> > Every other American state, in fact, even the most piss-poor third
> > world countries are miraculously capable of providing enough
> > electric power and water for their people (even the Soviet Union
> > was).
>
> I guess that depends on what you consider to be "enough", and what
> price you're willing to pay. The Soviet Union gots its electricity
> in part by building a nuclear reactor at Chernobyl. We all know how
> well that turned out.
As you should know, you can build nuclear power plants where an
accident like that (the severity was wastly exaggerated, as usual) is
/physically impossible/ (the pebble-bed reactor, for instance).
Nuclear power plants are used all over Japan and Western Europe, too.
It is certainly not a coincidence that such an accident happened in
the Soviet Union; the great socialist government that was so popular
among Western University circles had simply decided that making really
secure power plants wasn't necessary.
> > > We're running out of space to put people.
> >
> > Oh, give me a break. First, until the environmentalist nuts have
> > their way, people are not ``put�� anywhere. People /come/ to
> > California because they want to live there.
>
> Yes, that's because despite how bad things are in LA, things are
> much, much worse across the border in Mexico.
It's not only Mexicans who go to L.A.
> And it is not in fact true that we don't "put" people in places. We
> "put" people (so-called "illegal aliens") back in Mexico all the
> time.
But they are free to go whereever they want in Mexico, at least.
Illegal aliens are put back pretty much everywhere.
> > If it was so horribly overcrowded as you say, people would stop
> > coming.
>
> Why do you say that? People have been moving to horribly
> overcrowded places since the dawn of civilization. That doesn't
> change the fact that they are in fact horribly overcrowded, and
> getting more horribly overcrowded all the time.
Or that the place isn't as horribly overcrowded as you seem to
believe. The people who move there obviously think that the situation
is better than where they are coming from (or else they wouldn't
come). So, it's /you/ who disagree with them. /You/ want to keep
people out because you can't stand having 220 people per square mile
around you. Well, that's too bad: Things change. Sometimes to your
liking, sometimes not. If California is becoming too crowded for your
taste, you'll have to move somewhere else (granted: if I had 219
Californian punks in my neighborhood, I'd probably go nuts myself in
no time at all). Tough luck. You could buy a boat and live among
whales, for instance. Or if that is not practical, how about Ohio?
Or no, much better: Move to Texas!
Just think about it: After some numbers I found, there live 20851820
people on 261,914 square miles there, that's about 80 people per
square mile. So, you wouldn't have to live among 219 drug dealers,
crack whores and brain-dead ex-hippies, but among only 79 nice, well
mannered conservatives who are not only in favor of school prayers but
also sport a cute, funny accent that is a pleasure for the ear. That
might really do you some good, I bet. You'd drive around in your
pickup truck all day on your own land, a can of Budweiser in your
hand, a shotgun between your knees (to get them crop-stealin
animals!), your favorite Kris Kristofferson song blasting on the
stereo, and if one of those LA gangsters gets lost on his way to New
York and is stupid enough to show up on your ground and give you funny
looks, you can simply run him over with your car, draw your Peacemaker
and shoot him in self-defense! Legally!
Hmm, come to think of it, life in Texas must be /great/! Why don't we
all move there? Suppose all those people you hate so much, let's say,
about 6 billion people, all move to Texas /now/. What density would
we get? About 22900 people per square mile. That's not so bad: Only
8850 people per square kilometer means that there is 113 square meters
for everyone! There is enough space in Texas alone to build a nice
little house for /everyone in the whole world/! People tend to live
in families, so we can even put a lawn in front of every house. And I
will get filthy rich by selling cute little German garden gnomes to
everyone! (See http://www.gartenzwerg.de/Seite4.html for reference)
See? Once you engage with some rational thought, the future doesn't
look so gloomy anymore. There is no such thing as an overpopulation
problem.
> > > And we are running out of oil. The predictions of exactly when
> > > this would happen are a little off,
> >
> > A little?
>
> Yes, a little. A few decades, perhaps a century at most. A century
> is a blip in the grand and glorious scheme of things. If it is not
> us who have to deal with the consequences of our shortsightedness it
> will be our grandchildren.
It is not only a little off if those people make predictions naming
the exact year when things are going to happen. These people call
themselves scientists, and if they make predictions like that which
fail to deliver, they must be regarded as crackpots, not scientists.
> > I was talking about the predictions in ``Limits to Growth��, and
> > they were not just a little off -- they were insanely and totally
> > off! The apocalypse would have happened long ago if they had been
> > only /remotely/ correct.
>
> We seem to have a different perspective on time. Humans have been
> on this planet for millions of years. Civilization has existed
> barely ten thousand. The industrial revolution happened less then
> three hundred years ago. On these time scales, a few decades is
> *nothing*.
But we cannot possibly compute the consequences of everything we do
until 300 years from now. We do not even know what people want or
need, then. We don't know what technology they are going to have,
only that it certainly won't be ours, unless the environmentalists
have their way, that is.
> > We don't have to use oil for driving cars. But so far it is the
> > best and cheapest way, so we do it. Worrying so much about oil
> > reserves being finite is simply insane!
>
> Not worrying about it at all is equally insane.
So leave worrying about it to the market. If oil ever becomes really
scarce (which is not certain at all. Maybe demand vanishes
altogether, or somebody finds a way to make it, who knows?), the price
will go up gradually and people can start looking for other ways.
That's how it has always worked, and will continue to do so in the
future. All the environmentalists are doing is raising the prices
artificially, for no rational reason at all.
> Yes, there are alternative technologies available for cars. What
> about airplanes?
What do I know. Something. As oil resources didn't run out when the
environmentalists predicted they would, it looks as if we still have
quite a lot of time to find other ways of driving planes. Hydrogen is
a powerful substance, why shouldn't we be able to drive planes with
them? Who knows? That's a problem for future engineers, and there is
no reason to believe they won't solve it.
> > As is extrapolating so much. If somebody in the 60s had
> > extrapolated population curves in industrial countries, he had
> > arrived at absolutely laughable values that have nothing at all to
> > do with reality. All of a sudden, population growth pretty much
> > stopped, without any catastrophies whatsoever.
>
> Yes, and that is one of the things that gives me great hope for the
> future. I see the future history of the world as a race between the
> stabilizing influences of industrialization and the destabilizing
> influences of its lack.
For the first time, I tend to agree :-)
> It is not clear yet which side will win.
I think it is: More and more countries will realize that trying it the
Japan way instead of the Mao or Idi Amin way is going to make them
rich.
> BTW, Europe is stable, but certain aspects of it are hardly
> paradisical.
You can say that about pretty much every place in the world :-)
> Try finding a secluded beach on the Riviera. We still have a few of
> them here in California, thanks largely to the efforts of fellow
> environmentalist nuts.
What do they do? Shoot at bathers? ;-) If you hate crowded beaches,
you might try Denmark instead, next time (in certain months). Or
Poland.
> > Who would have thought that? But environmentalists say we have to
> > ration our usage of commodities like, say, copper. What a stupid
> > idea.
>
> Copper is a straw man. Copper is recoverable in ways that oil
> isn't.
But copper is a favorite example used by people who are worrying so
much about finite resources. They regularly predict that prices of
copper will rise in the next few years (and are wrong every time, as
usual). I think it was the notorious Paul Ehrlich (``The Population
Bomb��) himself who even made a public bet about that with some
economist (and lost, of course).
> > > Could it be that the policies of certain governments is keeping
> > > the price of oil artificially low?
> >
> > > Wouldn't this encourage consumption and discourage the
> > > development of alternatives? Wouldn't that hasten the day when
> > > we do run out, and increase the likelihood that we will meet
> > > that day with our technological pants down, without an
> > > alternative ready to take its place?
> >
> > Only that no government I know of does such a thing.
>
> You really need to start reading the newspaper. Our government just
> started a war over it. (And if you doubt this, see
> http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.b_PR.shtml)
I /still/ don't believe it :-) That evil capitalist countries start
wars because of natural resources is a very old and ridiculous Marxist
fairy tale that has nothing to do with reality. Much of the gas price
in the US is taxes, too! If the US government really believed that
lowering oil prices will have such a great effect on the economy, they
could simply cut those taxes. Same, and much more so, in Europe, of
course. It was particularly ridiculous when the German government
blamed the evil Americans for the sorry state of our economy saying
that the Americans caused higher oil prices because of the war in
Iraq, when it was in fact our own government that had just before
sharply raised oil taxes themselves (and called them Eco-taxes)!
> > > and 2) even if they are wrong, Pascal's Wager argues for their
> > > position. It is far better to be wrong assuming that you will
> > > run out of a critical resource than assuming that you will not.
> >
> > No. If you ruin everybody's life because of bogus theories and
> > assumptions when doing nothing at all about it would have been the
> > right thing, you are not only an idiot but outright evil.
>
> Can we tone down the epithets a bit? It's a little early in the
> discussion to be invoking Godwin's law.
I am using the word ``you�� in exactly the same way as it is used in
the paragraph I quoted, so I don't think there is a problem with what
I wrote.
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x0655CFA0
From: Thaddeus L Olczyk
Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Environmentalist nuts (was: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL])
Date:
Message-ID: <mfithv0bl1uad7h5jblv2eat01fj6otjmd@4ax.com>
On 23 Jul 2003 18:34:07 +0200, Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> wrote:
>It is as if University people have stopped talking about Marx and
>Lenin all day only to become even /more/ irrational and insane! Back
>when they were communists, they'd at least claim that they wanted to
>save at least some people (the proletarians) from extinction, now they
>declare man per se to be the ``skin desease of earth?? and want to
>kill pretty much /everyone/ by removing industry and technology.
I remember often overhearing such arguing in the student union
during the times I went to study there, usually who was right Lenin
or Trotsky. I was always impressed that I wanted to study, and
they wanted to argue about Lenin and Trotsky. Of course being
academics and communists, I believe they felt working for a
living was beneath them, so they didn't need to study.
Of course since the Soviet Union died I suspect these people
feel that man is just too stupid and thus not worthy of being on
this planet. So wipe out man and save the rest of the world.
--------------------------------------------------
Thaddeus L. Olczyk, PhD
Think twice, code once.
In article <··············@cartan.de>, Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> wrote:
> ···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
>
> > In article <··············@darkstar.cartan>, Nils Goesche
<···@cartan.de> wrote:
> >
> > > > Your optimism is charming. What if we run out of whales? What
> > > > will we replace them with? Whales are good for more than just
> > > > whale oil, you know.
> > >
> > > I hear they also make for excellent steaks.
> >
> > Do you think Irish children make excellent steaks too?
>
> A bit skinny, don't you think? Maybe if we feed them up with lots of
> Guinness, first ;-) Seriously: That's precisely what I'm talking
> about: You are irrationally talking about whales like they were men or
> gods and not animals.
When have I said that a whale is like a person or a god?
> A whale is an animal like any other. We eat
> pigs, too, for instance.
Who is "we"? Some societies eat pigs, yes. So what? Some societies eat
dogs. Some eat ants. Some eat grubs. Some eat horses. And some even
eat people (at least in the past).
For all of these dietary practices there are also societies that consider
the practice abhorrent.
What's your point?
> We cannot possibly make
> everything we do depend on whether some people in the 23rd century
> will approve of it!
Why not? Those "some people in the 23rd century" will be our children's
children. I think it's not at all unreasonable to take (our best guess
at) their opinions into consideration.
> That argumentation, too, would lead to an
> immediate stop of all activity
Oh? You think that's what our descendents want, an immediate stop of all
activity? And you know this how?
> > The point is that the true magnitidue of the loss of a resource is
> > not always apparent at the time that you're consuming it.
>
> The exact consequences of anything we do are /never/ fully known,
That is no excuse for burying your head in the sand.
> especially not the consequences 300 years from now!
At least some of the consequences of causing a species to go extinct can
be predicted with very high precision for extremely long periods of time.
For example, it is very likely that there will not be mamoths or dodo
birds 300 years from now. (And the way things are going, there's a really
good chance that there will not be tuna.)
> That's a trivial
> fact of life. Stopping all activity whatsoever because of that is an
> idiotic and neurotic reaction, though. The people who made the
> industrial revolution didn't know, either, whether the consequences
> would be all great. At the time, there were nay-sayers and worryers,
> too. They'd say that after a short time, machines would do all the
> work, everybody would be workless and everybody will die. (Could it
> be that their offspring is populating our Universities now?) What
> happened was the exact opposite, as usual. In the long run, things
> are getting better and better and better. Normal people enjoy things
> now that only a few decades, let alone centuries, ago only kings could
> afford. Even things in the third world are getting better. Sure,
> they are still pretty poor there, but a bit less so every decade.
> Many even drive their own cars already. Sure, the rich Western
> tourist is shocked if they don't shine as beautifully as they use to
> back at home, but not so long ago, people were walking on foot there,
> and frequently starving to death on the way!
Many still starve to death along the way. But your point is well taken.
The industrial revolution has been a net win for the world despite the
naysayers. But (and this is important) 1) it didn't necessarily have to
turn out that way. It might have been a disaster. It's possible that we
just got lucky. And 2) things might have been even better than they are
now if we'd been a little more careful and forsightful about how we
conducted the industrial revolution.
A lot of people were better off in the 90's because they bought Internet
stocks. It does not follow (and did not follow, even (perhaps especially)
in 1999) that buying Internet stocks is always the best thing to do to
increase prosperity.
> > > Yeah, but only in California for some reason...
> >
> > Excuse me? Have you been to Nigeria lately? Or Bangladesh? Egypt?
> > Iraq? Afghanistan? Ivory Coast? Mexico? Chechnya? India?
> > China? The list of places where people are running up hard against
> > resource limits is much longer than the places where they aren't.
>
> But it's not ``resource limits�� they are running up against. Japan
> has absolutely no resources worth speaking of, for instance. That
> didn't stop them from becoming incredibly rich, though.
Non-sequitur. Japan's being rich has nothing to do with the fact that
there are many places more resource-constrained than California.
> In short: If you
> don't have enough resources, you /buy/ them, or do something else with
> what you have.
How do you buy clean air exactly? Where can you buy a pristine forest to
go hiking in? Where do you go to trade your old dirty river in for a nice
new clean one?
> > You've probably been wallowing in that filthy air for so long you've
> > forgotten what clean air smells like.
>
> Mind you, I have lived in West Berlin back when it was surrounded by
> the Communist GDR. We'd have SMOG alarm every summer. /That/ was bad
> air. One or two years after the communists and their sorry excuses
> for cars were gone, so were the SMOG alarms, and now I can't complain
> about air quality anymore: As far as I am concerned, it's just fine.
So I was right: you have forgotten what clean air smells like.
There are two ways to get what you want, and one of them is to want less.
That's fine if it works for you, but I don't think it is right for you to
want less on other people's behalf.
> > > Second, there might indeed be water shortages in California, but
> > > just why is it always and only California that is running out of
> > > things like water and electric power?
> >
> > You obviously have no clue about what's going on outside of Germany.
> > I have news for you: Germany is not and never has been
> > representative of the state of the world. (Neither is Los Angeles.
> > Most of the world is much, much worse off than we are in LA.)
>
> It's an /example/! You say it's impossible to provide California with
> water,
I never said that.
> I say that's a ridiculous claim!
It is indeed, but you are the one who made it, not me.
> The toxic fluid in those rivers only superficially resembled water.
> Where do you think those rivers came from? West Berlin was completely
> surrounded! The rivers ran through the GDR and Czechoslovakia, where
> the just, rational, cooperative people's governments led their
> non-capitalist societies that University heros like Angela Davis and
> Susan Sontag were so much in favor of, and decided that those rivers
> were a great place to put all kinds of toxic waste.
Goodness, so many non-sequiturs! First, we're talking about environmental
policy here, not economic policy. The communists may well have been just,
rational, and cooperative, but they were not environnmentalists.
I think you are making the mistake of assuming that everyone on the Left
agrees about everything. They (we?) don't. I am an environmentalist. I
am also a capitalist (in part because capitalism has a much better record
of, and better mechanisms for, protecting the environment than communism
does).
> If your Californian Department of Water Resources is not capable of
> providing enough water, how about privatizing water supply?
The problem with privatizing things like water is that capitalism doesn't
work very well when you have inelastic demand. It's really hard to get by
without water.
> If water
> is /really/ becoming so scarce as you say, companies could make a nice
> profit there! Of course, that is out of the question in a state like
> California with its leftist government.
You really can be a moron, Nils. Earlier you wrote:
> just why is it always and
> only California that is running out of things like water and
> electric power?
Well, Nils, the reason we ran out of electricity is precisely because we
privatized the electricity supply. And (some of) the electricity
companies did indeed make a nice profit, and will continue to make a nice
profit for years into the future thanks to the absolutely inept
negotiating skills of our governor. But I think most Californians would
agree that we are not on the whole better off for having tried that
experiment.
What this has to do with the environment escapes me.
> > > Every other American state, in fact, even the most piss-poor third
> > > world countries are miraculously capable of providing enough
> > > electric power and water for their people (even the Soviet Union
> > > was).
> >
> > I guess that depends on what you consider to be "enough", and what
> > price you're willing to pay. The Soviet Union gots its electricity
> > in part by building a nuclear reactor at Chernobyl. We all know how
> > well that turned out.
>
> As you should know, you can build nuclear power plants where an
> accident like that (the severity was wastly exaggerated, as usual) is
> /physically impossible/ (the pebble-bed reactor, for instance).
Yes, I do indeed know that this is possible. Many things are possible.
What does that have to do with the topic at hand?
> > > > We're running out of space to put people.
> > >
> > > Oh, give me a break. First, until the environmentalist nuts have
> > > their way, people are not ``put�� anywhere. People /come/ to
> > > California because they want to live there.
> >
> > Yes, that's because despite how bad things are in LA, things are
> > much, much worse across the border in Mexico.
>
> It's not only Mexicans who go to L.A.
It's mostly Mexicans, but that's a moot point. The point is that just
because people move to LA doesn't mean LA is wonderful (or that it isn't
overcrowded).
> > And it is not in fact true that we don't "put" people in places. We
> > "put" people (so-called "illegal aliens") back in Mexico all the
> > time.
>
> But they are free to go whereever they want in Mexico, at least.
I suppose. A prisoner is also free to stand anywhere in his jail cell he
chooses. It's a poor sort of freedom IMHO.
> > > If it was so horribly overcrowded as you say, people would stop
> > > coming.
> >
> > Why do you say that? People have been moving to horribly
> > overcrowded places since the dawn of civilization. That doesn't
> > change the fact that they are in fact horribly overcrowded, and
> > getting more horribly overcrowded all the time.
>
> Or that the place isn't as horribly overcrowded as you seem to
> believe. The people who move there obviously think that the situation
> is better than where they are coming from (or else they wouldn't
> come).
No. It just means that enough aspects of the situation are better that
they outweigh the other aspects. For most people who come here the aspect
of the situation that outweighs all the others is the availability of work
at wages that are high compared to where they came from. All other
considerations are secondary.
> So, it's /you/ who disagree with them.
Whether or not a place is "overcrowded" is indeed a judgement call, but I
doubt you'd find one Angelino in ten who didn't think it was overcrowded
here.
> /You/ want to keep people out
No, I do not want to keep anybody out.
> See? Once you engage with some rational thought, the future doesn't
> look so gloomy anymore. There is no such thing as an overpopulation
> problem.
I'm still waiting to see you to engage in some rational thought. All I've
seen from you so far is non-sequiturs and knocking down straw men.
> It is not only a little off if those people make predictions naming
> the exact year when things are going to happen. These people call
> themselves scientists, and if they make predictions like that which
> fail to deliver, they must be regarded as crackpots, not scientists.
Just because they're crackpots doesn't mean that they are wrong. More to
the point, it doesn't mean that the diametric opposite of their position
is right. Gat's first law applies: all extreme positions are wrong.
> But we cannot possibly compute the consequences of everything we do
> until 300 years from now.
That's no excuse to bury your head in the sand.
> We do not even know what people want or need, then.
We have a pretty good idea. Food. Shelter. Clean water. Security.
Heat in winter, air conditioning in summer. Liesure activities. I think
it's a safe bet that people in the 24th century will want these things.
> We don't know what technology they are going to have,
> only that it certainly won't be ours
Some of it will be. The technology of, say, irrigation hasn't changed
fundamentally in thousands of years. Just because some technology changes
doesn't mean it all changes.
And we also know that whatever technology they have will be constrained by
the laws of physics. They won't have anti-gravity boots. And they won't
have passenger pigeons. And they won't have tuna if we allow tuna to go
extinct.
> > > We don't have to use oil for driving cars. But so far it is the
> > > best and cheapest way, so we do it. Worrying so much about oil
> > > reserves being finite is simply insane!
> >
> > Not worrying about it at all is equally insane.
>
> So leave worrying about it to the market.
Like I said, the market only works when supply and demand are elastic.
There are strong non-linearities in the dynamics of, say, whale
populations (like once they go to zero they stay there forever). The
market fails in such cases.
> If oil ever becomes really
> scarce (which is not certain at all. Maybe demand vanishes
> altogether, or somebody finds a way to make it, who knows?), the price
> will go up gradually
What makes you think the price will go up gradually? The price of oil is
highly volatile even in the absence of real shortages. What makes you
sure that when the oil really does start to run out that the fallout will
be slow and gentle?
> What do I know. Something.
I'm not convinced.
> > It is not clear yet which side will win.
>
> I think it is: More and more countries will realize that trying it the
> Japan way instead of the Mao or Idi Amin way is going to make them
> rich.
I don't think so. Look at what's happening in Iraq. The problem is
precisely what you pointed out earlier: not everyone in the world cares
about the same things. Not everyone wants to be rich. Not everyone wants
the world to be rich. There is, for example, a significant population who
would prefer that the world be Islamic than rich.
You can actually see this dynamic at work in microcosm in programming
languages. Not everyone wants to have the power that Lisp gives you. Not
everyone wants other people to have the power that Lisp gives you. There
is a significant population (the C++ Ayatollahs) who would rather the
entire world believe in the C++ religion from which they derive their
power. That industry will conquer the planet is no more certain than that
Lisp will.
> > BTW, Europe is stable, but certain aspects of it are hardly
> > paradisical.
>
> You can say that about pretty much every place in the world :-)
You've obviously never been to Hawaii.
> > Try finding a secluded beach on the Riviera. We still have a few of
> > them here in California, thanks largely to the efforts of fellow
> > environmentalist nuts.
>
> What do they do? Shoot at bathers? ;-) If you hate crowded beaches,
> you might try Denmark instead, next time (in certain months). Or
> Poland.
You try Poland. I'll try Waikoloa, thank you very much.
> > > Who would have thought that? But environmentalists say we have to
> > > ration our usage of commodities like, say, copper. What a stupid
> > > idea.
> >
> > Copper is a straw man. Copper is recoverable in ways that oil
> > isn't.
>
> But copper is a favorite example used by people who are worrying so
> much about finite resources.
But you are not having this conversation with them, you are having this
conversation with me. And I haven't said a thing about copper.
E.
From: Erann Gat
Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Environmentalist nuts (was: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL])
Date:
Message-ID: <gat-2307032303360001@192.168.1.51>
In article <··············@mycroft.actrix.gen.nz>, Paul Foley
<·······@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> That's your argument, isn't it -- we have to stop using oil because
> someone might want some in 300 years
No, that is not my argument. Obviously, stopping the use of oil
altogether would be no different than running out.
Gat's first law: all extreme positions are wrong. We should not stop the
use of oil altogether. Neither should we use it - or any other resource -
casually with no regard for the future.
> And they wouldn't notice the lack of tuna any more than we notice the
> lack of brontosauri.
Eventually perhaps, but it will take a long, long time before the memory
of tuna fades to the same extent as the memory of brontasori.
E.
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Erann Gat wrote:
> Gat's first law: all extreme positions are wrong.
Corollary: for any position, you can define an axis on which it is
extreme. You extreme moderate you.
In article
<·······································@gwen.sixfingeredman.net>, Adrian
Kubala <······@sixfingeredman.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Erann Gat wrote:
> > Gat's first law: all extreme positions are wrong.
>
> Corollary: for any position, you can define an axis on which it is
> extreme. You extreme moderate you.
Extremism in the defense of moderation is no vice ;-)
E.
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> Gat's first law: all extreme positions are wrong.
this is at best a heuristic, sometimes useful when first approaching a
debate where you don't know enough of the background to employ logic
effectively.
if the issue in question is of importance to you, you should strive to
think logically about it.
a person sticking to the heuristic when talking about an issue about
which he claims to know/care a lot is a sure sign that the person in
question doesn't value logical thinking much, preferring instead to
make himself feel good whenever possible.
--
All ITS machines now have hardware for a new machine instruction --
BAH
Branch And Hang.
Please update your programs.
In article <··············@laredo.verisity.com.cmm>, Michael Livshin
<······@cmm.kakpryg.net> wrote:
> ···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
>
> > Gat's first law: all extreme positions are wrong.
>
> this is at best a heuristic
Yes, of course. (It is also, in case you hadn't noticed, an extreme
position, and therefore wrong by Gat's First Law.)
> a person sticking to the heuristic when talking about an issue about
> which he claims to know/care a lot is a sure sign that the person in
> question doesn't value logical thinking much
This is at best a heuristic. :-)
E.
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> In article <··············@laredo.verisity.com.cmm>, Michael Livshin
> <······@cmm.kakpryg.net> wrote:
>
>> ···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
>>
>> > Gat's first law: all extreme positions are wrong.
>>
>> this is at best a heuristic
>
> Yes, of course. (It is also, in case you hadn't noticed, an extreme
> position, and therefore wrong by Gat's First Law.)
I noticed, but considered the bait too obvious. :)
>> a person sticking to the heuristic when talking about an issue about
>> which he claims to know/care a lot is a sure sign that the person in
>> question doesn't value logical thinking much
>
> This is at best a heuristic. :-)
no. I've not arrived at my conclusion by guessing what the missing
data should look like, I have enough data at hand. hence I didn't
need to use any heuristics.
hth,
--m
--
Paranoid schizophrenics outnumber their enemies at least two to one.
From: Russell McManus
Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Environmentalist nuts (was: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL])
Date:
Message-ID: <87brvkymk3.fsf@thelonious.dyndns.org>
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> Well, Nils, the reason we ran out of electricity is precisely
> because we privatized the electricity supply. And (some of) the
> electricity companies did indeed make a nice profit, and will
> continue to make a nice profit for years into the future thanks to
> the absolutely inept negotiating skills of our governor. But I
> think most Californians would agree that we are not on the whole
> better off for having tried that experiment.
Power companies were restricted by government fiat from buying
electricity on the futures markets to lock in prices over time.
Instead they had to buy power on the spot market.
This is dumb in general, but really really dumb for a commodity like
electricity that can not be stored, with predictable results. Poor
government policies botched the privatization plan.
I hasten to add that electicity deregulation has worked OK in other
parts of the country, which is further evidence that "privatization"
in a general sense is not the problem. The privatization plan was
drafted by folks who didn't understand (or didn't care about) the
economics of the electricity business.
How was the crisis finally addressed? By signing long term power
supply agreements. Go figure.
[Please note that the above is not a claim that private power is
uniformly cheaper than public power. It is simply a claim that the
blackouts and resulting fiscal crisis are the result of foolish
government policies, not privatization as a concept.]
-russ
Russell McManus wrote:
> ···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
>
>
>>Well, Nils, the reason we ran out of electricity is precisely
>>because we privatized the electricity supply. And (some of) the
>>electricity companies did indeed make a nice profit, and will
>>continue to make a nice profit for years into the future thanks to
>>the absolutely inept negotiating skills of our governor. But I
>>think most Californians would agree that we are not on the whole
>>better off for having tried that experiment.
>
>
> Power companies were restricted by government fiat from buying
> electricity on the futures markets to lock in prices over time.
> Instead they had to buy power on the spot market.
>
> This is dumb in general, but really really dumb for a commodity like
> electricity that can not be stored, with predictable results. Poor
> government policies botched the privatization plan.
There's only one problem with this formulation, namely that the
legislative records reflects that energy-industry lobbyists wrote the
privatization plan. It wasn't "government fiat" that prevented futures
purchases (which, by the way, were forbidden primarily to the state's
power clearinghouse rather than the suppliers themselves), it was the
consensus of energy-company lobbyists. The system was highly profitable
for all concerned until some parties figured out how to create
fraudulent transactions, at which point it became highly profitable only
for those parties. So the "poor government policy" has little to do with
the details of privatization, and far more to do with taking the advice
of entities lobbying for privatization in the first place.
paul
"Paul Wallich" <··@panix.com> wrote in message
·················@reader1.panix.com...
> Russell McManus wrote:
> > ···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> >
> >
> >>Well, Nils, the reason we ran out of electricity is precisely
> >>because we privatized the electricity supply. And (some of) the
> >>electricity companies did indeed make a nice profit, and will
> >>continue to make a nice profit for years into the future thanks to
> >>the absolutely inept negotiating skills of our governor. But I
> >>think most Californians would agree that we are not on the whole
> >>better off for having tried that experiment.
> >
> >
> > Power companies were restricted by government fiat from buying
> > electricity on the futures markets to lock in prices over time.
> > Instead they had to buy power on the spot market.
> >
> > This is dumb in general, but really really dumb for a commodity like
> > electricity that can not be stored, with predictable results. Poor
> > government policies botched the privatization plan.
>
> There's only one problem with this formulation, namely that the
> legislative records reflects that energy-industry lobbyists wrote the
> privatization plan. It wasn't "government fiat" that prevented futures
> purchases (which, by the way, were forbidden primarily to the state's
> power clearinghouse rather than the suppliers themselves), it was the
> consensus of energy-company lobbyists. The system was highly profitable
> for all concerned until some parties figured out how to create
> fraudulent transactions, at which point it became highly profitable only
> for those parties. So the "poor government policy" has little to do with
> the details of privatization, and far more to do with taking the advice
> of entities lobbying for privatization in the first place.
>
> paul
>
It really does not matter who "wrote" the text of the law. Only our elected
officials and, unfortunately, other legislators have the right to pass laws.
We (the public) have given them the responsibility for doing that and the
power to do that. As such, we must hold them accountable for their actions.
They should be smart enough to take the advice of opposing views, supposedly
unbiased views, and make informed decisions.
If any of these people knew even a little about finance or economics they
would have understood the huge risks of not investing in energy future
contracts. (If they did not have this knowledge they should have consulted
knowledgeable uninterested parties.) The building industry does this for
lumber and the airline industry does this for jet fuel. Such future
contracts allow business to control risk. Naturally, the energy industry
would prefer the public to assume risk just like the mortgage lenders prefer
borrowers to assume interest rate risk, which prompted the creation of
adjustable rate mortgages in the early 1980s. Is it any surprise that the
energy industry acted in their own self interest? That's like letting the
wolf guard the hen house.
Kirk Kandt wrote:
> It really does not matter who "wrote" the text of the law. Only our elected
> officials and, unfortunately, other legislators have the right to pass laws.
> We (the public) have given them the responsibility for doing that and the
> power to do that. As such, we must hold them accountable for their actions.
> They should be smart enough to take the advice of opposing views, supposedly
> unbiased views, and make informed decisions.
There are many good ways to identify aliens passing for humans, one of
the best being people who take seriously the way government is
/supposed/ to work--obviously a recent arrival on this planet.
Is it a coincidence you work for NASA? I think not!
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
http://www.tilton-technology.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Everything is a cell." -- Alan Kay
Paul Wallich <··@panix.com> writes:
> There's only one problem with this formulation, namely that the
> legislative records reflects that energy-industry lobbyists wrote the
> privatization plan. It wasn't "government fiat" that prevented futures
> purchases (which, by the way, were forbidden primarily to the state's
> power clearinghouse rather than the suppliers themselves), it was the
> consensus of energy-company lobbyists. The system was highly
> profitable for all concerned until some parties figured out how to
> create fraudulent transactions, at which point it became highly
> profitable only for those parties. So the "poor government policy" has
> little to do with the details of privatization, and far more to do
> with taking the advice of entities lobbying for privatization in the
> first place.
I was not aware that the power companies themselves argued for such
dumb policies. And I certainly agree that serious fraud was involved
in the fiasco. No matter what a company advocates, the government has
the responsiblity to avoid dumb policies. Privatization can work
given the right sort of goverment regulation.
-russ
Russell McManus wrote:
> Paul Wallich <··@panix.com> writes:
>
>
>>There's only one problem with this formulation, namely that the
>>legislative records reflects that energy-industry lobbyists wrote the
>>privatization plan. It wasn't "government fiat" that prevented futures
>>purchases (which, by the way, were forbidden primarily to the state's
>>power clearinghouse rather than the suppliers themselves), it was the
>>consensus of energy-company lobbyists. The system was highly
>>profitable for all concerned until some parties figured out how to
>>create fraudulent transactions, at which point it became highly
>>profitable only for those parties. So the "poor government policy" has
>>little to do with the details of privatization, and far more to do
>>with taking the advice of entities lobbying for privatization in the
>>first place.
>
>
> I was not aware that the power companies themselves argued for such
> dumb policies. And I certainly agree that serious fraud was involved
> in the fiasco. No matter what a company advocates, the government has
> the responsiblity to avoid dumb policies. Privatization can work
> given the right sort of goverment regulation.
Of course it can. The world is Turing-complete, so any regime can work
given the "right" implementing regulations and degree of co-operation
among the involved parties. The question is (as wth language design)
which overall architecture is most conducive to your goals.
CL, of course, is somewhere toward the socialist end of the gamut...
paul
From: Nils Goesche
Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Environmentalist nuts (was: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL])
Date:
Message-ID: <lyptjzhhau.fsf@cartan.de>
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> In article <··············@cartan.de>, Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> wrote:
>
> > But it's not ``resource limits�� they are running up against.
> > Japan has absolutely no resources worth speaking of, for instance.
> > That didn't stop them from becoming incredibly rich, though.
>
> Non-sequitur. Japan's being rich has nothing to do with the fact
> that there are many places more resource-constrained than
> California.
Yes, Japan for instance. So?
> > Mind you, I have lived in West Berlin back when it was surrounded
> > by the Communist GDR. We'd have SMOG alarm every summer. /That/
> > was bad air. One or two years after the communists and their
> > sorry excuses for cars were gone, so were the SMOG alarms, and now
> > I can't complain about air quality anymore: As far as I am
> > concerned, it's just fine.
>
> So I was right: you have forgotten what clean air smells like.
>
> There are two ways to get what you want, and one of them is to want
> less. That's fine if it works for you, but I don't think it is
> right for you to want less on other people's behalf.
I want all kinds of things. If I wanted cleaner air, I'd move
somewhere else. We can't have everything, you know? Most people
think the air quality in Berlin is just fine (now). If anybody still
thinks it isn't good enough he can move somewhere else. Superclean
air is a luxury not everybody is willing to pay for. It's a tradeoff,
like so many things.
> > It's an /example/! You say it's impossible to provide California
> > with water,
>
> I never said that.
You said ``We are running out of water.�� What's that supposed to
mean, then?
> > The toxic fluid in those rivers only superficially resembled
> > water. Where do you think those rivers came from? West Berlin
> > was completely surrounded! The rivers ran through the GDR and
> > Czechoslovakia, where the just, rational, cooperative people's
> > governments led their non-capitalist societies that University
> > heros like Angela Davis and Susan Sontag were so much in favor of,
> > and decided that those rivers were a great place to put all kinds
> > of toxic waste.
>
> Goodness, so many non-sequiturs! First, we're talking about
> environmental policy here, not economic policy. The communists may
> well have been just, rational, and cooperative, but they were not
> environnmentalists.
Any idea why they weren't?
> I think you are making the mistake of assuming that everyone on the
> Left agrees about everything. They (we?) don't.
They disagree about some minor points, and always have. If you live
among leftists (in California, for instance :-), these differences
look greater to you than to a non-leftist like me. They also change
their opinions every few years, as is to be expected given that they
are so much in conflict with reality...
> I am an environmentalist. I am also a capitalist (in part because
> capitalism has a much better record of, and better mechanisms for,
> protecting the environment than communism does).
Maybe you think you are, but I wouldn't call your kind of
interventionist socialism ``capitalism�� at all :-)
> > If your Californian Department of Water Resources is not capable
> > of providing enough water, how about privatizing water supply?
>
> The problem with privatizing things like water is that capitalism
> doesn't work very well when you have inelastic demand. It's really
> hard to get by without water.
Sure, as it is hard to get by without food. Are you seriously saying
that the food industry should be run by the government? There is /no/
reason at all the water supply cannot be privatized. Didn't you read
what I wrote about Great Britain?
> > If water is /really/ becoming so scarce as you say, companies
> > could make a nice profit there! Of course, that is out of the
> > question in a state like California with its leftist government.
>
> You really can be a moron, Nils. Earlier you wrote:
We'll see in a moment who is being a moron here :-)
> > just why is it always and only California that is running out of
> > things like water and electric power?
>
> Well, Nils, the reason we ran out of electricity is precisely
> because we privatized the electricity supply.
No, the reason you ran out of electricity is that you didn't /really/
privatize it :-) There were all kinds of stupid regulations by
environmentalists that made it impossible for companies to build
really powerful power plants. And there were idiotic price controls
on electricity. That's /not/ how you properly privatize things. It
was clear right from start that you'd run out of electricity that
way. In exactly the same way that you run out of apartments if you
introduce rent controls, and create worklessness if you introduce
minimum wages. You call yourself a ``capitalist�� and don't even know
that? You are a goddamn socialist, and you don't even know it :-)
> > See? Once you engage with some rational thought, the future
> > doesn't look so gloomy anymore. There is no such thing as an
> > overpopulation problem.
>
> I'm still waiting to see you to engage in some rational thought.
> All I've seen from you so far is non-sequiturs and knocking down
> straw men.
I have given you some numbers that should convince pretty much anyone
with some capability of rational thought that there is no such thing
as an overpopulation problem. If you still don't understand it, I
must give up and rest my case.
> > So leave worrying about it to the market.
>
> Like I said, the market only works when supply and demand are
> elastic.
That's absolute nonsense. How many phones do you have? How many
cars?
> > I think it is: More and more countries will realize that trying it
> > the Japan way instead of the Mao or Idi Amin way is going to make
> > them rich.
>
> I don't think so. Look at what's happening in Iraq. The problem is
> precisely what you pointed out earlier: not everyone in the world
> cares about the same things.
Of course not. The nice thing about free markets and capitalism is
that they can provide people with what they want. If they want to go
on a mountain and meditate for years, capitalism or free trade will
certainly not stop them.
> Not everyone wants to be rich.
Sure, there are some crazy people in the world. But if they become
rich without wanting it, there is an easy solution: Transfer all the
money to my bank account, and we'll all be fine.
> Not everyone wants the world to be rich. There is, for example, a
> significant population who would prefer that the world be Islamic
> than rich.
So? So let those nutjobs create their own little world, like they did
in Afghanistan, for instance. Hadn't they supported Al Qaida who
attacked the US, they'd still be in power there and get happy starving
and executing each other. (Although -- a significant part of the
population there seems to be quite happy that the Taliban is gone...)
> > > BTW, Europe is stable, but certain aspects of it are hardly
> > > paradisical.
> >
> > You can say that about pretty much every place in the world :-)
>
> You've obviously never been to Hawaii.
I get sick when I see people running around in shorts...
> > What do they do? Shoot at bathers? ;-) If you hate crowded
> > beaches, you might try Denmark instead, next time (in certain
> > months). Or Poland.
>
> You try Poland. I'll try Waikoloa, thank you very much.
Hey, Poland is a nice place, really! :-)
> > But copper is a favorite example used by people who are worrying
> > so much about finite resources.
>
> But you are not having this conversation with them, you are having
> this conversation with me. And I haven't said a thing about copper.
I am talking about environmentalists in general. They say a lot about
copper.
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x0655CFA0
In article <··············@cartan.de>, Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> wrote:
> I want all kinds of things. If I wanted cleaner air, I'd move
> somewhere else.
And what if there was no place left to move to that had clean air?
> We can't have everything, you know? Most people
> think the air quality in Berlin is just fine (now). If anybody still
> thinks it isn't good enough he can move somewhere else. Superclean
> air is a luxury not everybody is willing to pay for. It's a tradeoff,
> like so many things.
Yes. Trouble is, it's very hard to divvy up the air into "my air" and
"your air" and arrange for your pollution to remain in your air so that I
can keep my air clean if I want to. When it comes to some things (like
air) we're all in this together whether we like it or not.
> > > It's an /example/! You say it's impossible to provide California
> > > with water,
> >
> > I never said that.
>
> You said ``We are running out of water.�� What's that supposed to
> mean, then?
Just what it says. We are (in the process of) running out of water.
"Running out" is perhaps putting it a bit strongly. Water is becoming
scarcer relative to demand. But that is certainly not to say that it is
"impossible to provide California with (any? enough?) water".
> > I think you are making the mistake of assuming that everyone on the
> > Left agrees about everything. They (we?) don't.
>
> They disagree about some minor points, and always have. If you live
> among leftists (in California, for instance :-), these differences
> look greater to you than to a non-leftist like me. They also change
> their opinions every few years, as is to be expected given that they
> are so much in conflict with reality...
As opposed to those on the right who cling to the same old mistaken
beliefs year after year despite all evidence. Where is this getting us?
> > I am an environmentalist. I am also a capitalist (in part because
> > capitalism has a much better record of, and better mechanisms for,
> > protecting the environment than communism does).
>
> Maybe you think you are, but I wouldn't call your kind of
> interventionist socialism ``capitalism�� at all :-)
I don't really care what you would call it.
> > > If your Californian Department of Water Resources is not capable
> > > of providing enough water, how about privatizing water supply?
> >
> > The problem with privatizing things like water is that capitalism
> > doesn't work very well when you have inelastic demand. It's really
> > hard to get by without water.
>
> Sure, as it is hard to get by without food. Are you seriously saying
> that the food industry should be run by the government?
Yes. Here is the U.S. farmers are subsidized heavily by the government,
and I believe that is in part responsible for the fact that our food
supply is consistently overabundant and food is artificially cheap. We
haven't had a famine here for very, very long time. I think that's a good
thing.
> There is /no/
> reason at all the water supply cannot be privatized. Didn't you read
> what I wrote about Great Britain?
Of course there's no reason why it couldn't, but one very good reason why
it shouldn't: if you privatize it you run a greater risk of (literally
this time) running out of water one day, that is, turning on the tap and
having nothing come out. That's exactly what happened when we tried it
with electricity. There's no reason to believe the same thing couldn't
happen with water.
> > Well, Nils, the reason we ran out of electricity is precisely
> > because we privatized the electricity supply.
>
> No, the reason you ran out of electricity is that you didn't /really/
> privatize it :-)
It's true that our attempt to privatize was botched. But 1) there's no
reason to believe that any attempt to privatize anything will not be
similarly botched. Privatization is a process conducted by humans, and as
such it is subject to being implemented imperfectly. That is one the
risks you have to take into account when you decide whether to advocate
privatization. And 2) there is no reason to believe that the situation
would have turned out any better if we had "really" privatized (whatever
that means). In fact, one can point to other industries (like, oh, the
software industry) where things are "really" privatized and observe that
things are not exactly idyllic there either. Imagine getting utility
bills from Microsoft Water and Power.
> You are a goddamn socialist, and you don't even know it :-)
And you're a goddamn annoying twit and you don't even know it. Advocating
socialist policies in certain situations and being a socialist are not the
same thing.
> I have given you some numbers that should convince pretty much anyone
> with some capability of rational thought that there is no such thing
> as an overpopulation problem.
Not yet. But we have not yet arrived at the end of history.
> > > So leave worrying about it to the market.
> >
> > Like I said, the market only works when supply and demand are
> > elastic.
>
> That's absolute nonsense. How many phones do you have? How many
> cars?
I have two cars and more phones than I can count. But I could survive
with one car and one phone. If I had zero cars and zero phones in LA life
would become extremely difficult. (Many people do live in LA without
cars, and their lives are pretty miserable.)
> > > I think it is: More and more countries will realize that trying it
> > > the Japan way instead of the Mao or Idi Amin way is going to make
> > > them rich.
> >
> > I don't think so. Look at what's happening in Iraq. The problem is
> > precisely what you pointed out earlier: not everyone in the world
> > cares about the same things.
>
> Of course not. The nice thing about free markets and capitalism is
> that they can provide people with what they want. If they want to go
> on a mountain and meditate for years, capitalism or free trade will
> certainly not stop them.
Of course it will stop them! Capitalism is already stopping people from
going to the beach in Malibu despite the fact that the beaches are all
theoretically public property. The rich people wall the beaches off and
just pay the fines.
(I don't know whether the beaches on the Riviera are osentibly public or
not, but in some places, like Cannes, if you want to sit on the beach you
have to rent a spot by the hour!)
All over California rich people are building private "gated communities."
These aren't being built by the government, they're being built in the
best traditions of capitalism (and the builders make handsome profits).
Those gates aren't there for show. They are there precisely to keep
people out. And, of course, these communities are being built in all the
best locations: on the beach, near the mountains. You are absolutely,
100% dead wrong when you say that capitalism will not stop people from
meditating on mountains. It will. It does.
See http://www.nindy.com/chw/gated/
> > Not everyone wants the world to be rich. There is, for example, a
> > significant population who would prefer that the world be Islamic
> > than rich.
>
> So? So let those nutjobs create their own little world, like they did
> in Afghanistan, for instance.
We tried that. The problem is they don't stay in their own little world.
(Also, they tend to ensnare a lot of people who'd rather not live that
way.)
You can also look at the Palestinian situation to see that it's not always
so easy to just let a group of people create their own little world.
> > You try Poland. I'll try Waikoloa, thank you very much.
>
> Hey, Poland is a nice place, really! :-)
Well, you just go have yourself a dandy time there.
E.
From: Nils Goesche
Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Environmentalist nuts (was: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL])
Date:
Message-ID: <873cgvs98d.fsf@darkstar.cartan>
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> In article <··············@cartan.de>, Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> wrote:
>
> > I want all kinds of things. If I wanted cleaner air, I'd
> > move somewhere else.
>
> And what if there was no place left to move to that had clean
> air?
There is no reason at all to believe that this is going to
happen. Much more likely, air quality will improve in most
places.
> > We can't have everything, you know? Most people think the
> > air quality in Berlin is just fine (now). If anybody still
> > thinks it isn't good enough he can move somewhere else.
> > Superclean air is a luxury not everybody is willing to pay
> > for. It's a tradeoff, like so many things.
>
> Yes. Trouble is, it's very hard to divvy up the air into "my
> air" and "your air" and arrange for your pollution to remain in
> your air so that I can keep my air clean if I want to. When it
> comes to some things (like air) we're all in this together
> whether we like it or not.
That's why we vote about such things.
> > You said ``We are running out of water.�� What's that
> > supposed to mean, then?
>
> Just what it says. We are (in the process of) running out of
> water. "Running out" is perhaps putting it a bit strongly.
> Water is becoming scarcer relative to demand. But that is
> certainly not to say that it is "impossible to provide
> California with (any? enough?) water".
Why would anyone give a fuck, then? Why make such an alarming
statement?
> > > I think you are making the mistake of assuming that
> > > everyone on the Left agrees about everything. They (we?)
> > > don't.
> >
> > They disagree about some minor points, and always have. If
> > you live among leftists (in California, for instance :-),
> > these differences look greater to you than to a non-leftist
> > like me. They also change their opinions every few years, as
> > is to be expected given that they are so much in conflict
> > with reality...
>
> As opposed to those on the right who cling to the same old
> mistaken beliefs year after year despite all evidence.
Let's see: /You/ said communism was more efficient and would
shortly reign over the whole world. /We/ said they'd go
bankrupt. /You/ said the Soviet Union was a worker's paradise,
/we/ said people are piss-poor there and are murdered by the
millions. /You/ said Pol Pot was a great friend of the people,
/we/ said he was an evil bastard. /You/ said (in the 1970s), we
are closely before a new Ice Age, and we'll all die if we don't
do X right now. /We/ said hogwash. Now /you/ say, you know what
the whether will be 50 years from now and the world is not going
to be icy cold but horribly hot in no time, and if we don't do
the exact same thing, X, right now, that you earlier claimed
would make the world warmer, will in fact make the world colder
instead, and if we don't do X /now/, we're all going to die.
/We/ say, hogwash, if you could compute the weather 50 years from
now, your models should also be able to compute the weather 50
years ago, but unfortunately your models only yield ridiculous
results then. /You/ said, inflation was a great way to get the
economy going, /we/ said, if you go on with those inflationist
policies, the whole world will go into a horrible recession.
/You/ said, the price of copper will go up in the next ten years.
/We/ said it will go down. Our list is endless. Yours is empty.
If our beliefs are all mistaken, how come /you/ turn out to be
wrong, whereas /we/ turn out to be right all the time? We could
as well start saying right and wrong instead of right and left...
> Where is this getting us?
Maybe you'll see a pattern and start using your brain some day.
> > Sure, as it is hard to get by without food. Are you
> > seriously saying that the food industry should be run by the
> > government?
>
> Yes. Here is the U.S. farmers are subsidized heavily by the
> government, and I believe that is in part responsible for the
> fact that our food supply is consistently overabundant and food
> is artificially cheap. We haven't had a famine here for very,
> very long time. I think that's a good thing.
You are absolutely insane. The government is keeping food prices
/up/, not /down/! Only the part of our stuff that gets sold in
the third world is very cheap because of those utterly idiotic
subsidies, and guess what -- they /hate/ you (and us in Europe)
for that because it ruins them!
> > There is /no/ reason at all the water supply cannot be
> > privatized. Didn't you read what I wrote about Great
> > Britain?
>
> Of course there's no reason why it couldn't, but one very good
> reason why it shouldn't: if you privatize it you run a greater
> risk of (literally this time) running out of water one day,
> that is, turning on the tap and having nothing come out.
Absolute nonsense: The exact opposite is true! There is lots of
data about this to check that claim, I provided some (but there
is much more). The Economist is writing a lot about it these
weeks, incidentally.
> That's exactly what happened when we tried it with electricity.
> There's no reason to believe the same thing couldn't happen
> with water.
Only if you pseudo-privatize it in the idiotic way you did it
with electricity.
> > You are a goddamn socialist, and you don't even know it :-)
>
> And you're a goddamn annoying twit and you don't even know it.
Oh, I do know that. But it was /you/ who started talking to me
in this thread, remember?
> Advocating socialist policies in certain situations and being a
> socialist are not the same thing.
I haven't seen any situation yet where you would advocate any
other policies.
> > > Like I said, the market only works when supply and demand
> > > are elastic.
> >
> > That's absolute nonsense. How many phones do you have? How
> > many cars?
>
> I have two cars and more phones than I can count. But I could
> survive with one car and one phone. If I had zero cars and
> zero phones in LA life would become extremely difficult. (Many
> people do live in LA without cars, and their lives are pretty
> miserable.)
So I suppose the car industry and the telecommunications industry
should better be nationalized, too, because otherwise the
industry might some day be unable to deliver enough cars and
phones.
> > Of course not. The nice thing about free markets and
> > capitalism is that they can provide people with what they
> > want. If they want to go on a mountain and meditate for
> > years, capitalism or free trade will certainly not stop them.
>
> Of course it will stop them! Capitalism is already stopping
> people from going to the beach in Malibu despite the fact that
> the beaches are all theoretically public property. The rich
> people wall the beaches off and just pay the fines.
There are lots of beaches and mountains. If you can't climb one,
you choose another. How hard is that? Ah, I already know what
you're going to say: In no time at all, Bill Gates will have
bought /every/ mountain and people can't find any to meditate on
anymore.
> (I don't know whether the beaches on the Riviera are osentibly
> public or not, but in some places, like Cannes, if you want to
> sit on the beach you have to rent a spot by the hour!)
So? What's wrong with that?
> All over California rich people are building private "gated
> communities." These aren't being built by the government,
> they're being built in the best traditions of capitalism (and
> the builders make handsome profits). Those gates aren't there
> for show. They are there precisely to keep people out.
Criminals, for instance? What's wrong if people want some
privacy on their own land?
> And, of course, these communities are being built in all the
> best locations: on the beach, near the mountains. You are
> absolutely, 100% dead wrong when you say that capitalism will
> not stop people from meditating on mountains. It will. It
> does.
That is so ludicrous that all I can say is: ``Wait and see. It's
not going to happen��. It's on record on Google. I'll remind
you in ten years or so. ``That wasn't me who said that.�� ``I
meant something utterly different.�� ``Wait another ten years.��
How many times have I heard that in my life already? *sigh*
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID #xD26EF2A0
From: Erann Gat
Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Environmentalist nuts (was: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL])
Date:
Message-ID: <gat-2407032204310001@192.168.1.51>
In article <··············@darkstar.cartan>, Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> wrote:
> Let's see: /You/ said...
[Much nonsense snipped.]
No, I never said any of those things.
> You are absolutely insane. The government is keeping food prices
> /up/, not /down/!
The government is keeping prices stable. If the government stopped
subsidizing farmers to artifically reduce production prices would drop --
temporarily. Just long enough for most farmers to go out of business and
be bought up by a few giant corporate conglomerates who would then do
exactly what the government does now: reduce production to drive up prices
and make a profit.
> > Of course there's no reason why it couldn't, but one very good
> > reason why it shouldn't: if you privatize it you run a greater
> > risk of (literally this time) running out of water one day,
> > that is, turning on the tap and having nothing come out.
>
> Absolute nonsense: The exact opposite is true! There is lots of
> data about this to check that claim, I provided some (but there
> is much more). The Economist is writing a lot about it these
> weeks, incidentally.
Let me be more precise: you run a greater risk of running out of water
because some corporate executive decided they'd make more money if they
turned the tap off for a while and put the fear of shortages into you --
just like they did with the electricity. Having the electricity off in
the summer was unpleasant enough. Having the water turned off would be a
lot worse.
> > That's exactly what happened when we tried it with electricity.
> > There's no reason to believe the same thing couldn't happen
> > with water.
>
> Only if you pseudo-privatize it in the idiotic way you did it
> with electricity.
Like I said, these are all human activities. They all have the risk of
running afoul of human foibles. One could just as easily argue that
Communism failed not because the theory was flawed but because it wasn't
executed properly.
> > > You are a goddamn socialist, and you don't even know it :-)
> >
> > And you're a goddamn annoying twit and you don't even know it.
>
> Oh, I do know that.
Oh, OK. Well, as long as we're clear on that.
> But it was /you/ who started talking to me in this thread, remember?
True, but that doesn't alter the fact.
Truthfully, my target audience here is not so much you as any lurkers who
might be following this thread. You are obviously beyond redemption. But
I didn't want anyone to get the idea that you might be right simply
because no one challenged you.
> > Advocating socialist policies in certain situations and being a
> > socialist are not the same thing.
>
> I haven't seen any situation yet where you would advocate any
> other policies.
So... anything that Nils Goesche has not seen does not exist?
> So I suppose the car industry and the telecommunications industry
> should better be nationalized, too, because otherwise the
> industry might some day be unable to deliver enough cars and
> phones.
No. I think these markets are being reasonably well served by private
enterprise (with a few notable exceptions, like the recent demise of the
EV1.) (Also, I would like to see the reinstatement of more stringent
fleet mileage requirements, and more stringent emission controls.)
> There are lots of beaches and mountains. If you can't climb one,
> you choose another. How hard is that?
It's harder today than it was ten years ago. It will harder ten years
from now than it is today. When you run out of cars you can make more.
When you run out of beaches and mountains (and whales) it's really hard to
make more. That's why free enterprise works better for cars than it does
for beaches.
> Ah, I already know what
> you're going to say: In no time at all, Bill Gates will have
> bought /every/ mountain and people can't find any to meditate on
> anymore.
Well, if you already know the answer why ask the question? It (probably)
won't be Bill Gates, at least not singlehandedly, and it probably will be
a bit longer than "no time at all", but yes, that is in essence precisely
my concern.
> > (I don't know whether the beaches on the Riviera are osentibly
> > public or not, but in some places, like Cannes, if you want to
> > sit on the beach you have to rent a spot by the hour!)
>
> So? What's wrong with that?
Nothing -- unless you happen to be one of the unfortunate people who can't
afford it.
> That is so ludicrous that all I can say is: ``Wait and see. It's
> not going to happen��. It's on record on Google. I'll remind
> you in ten years or so.
Ten years? You are utterly short-sighted. I'm looking ahead 100 years,
and I consider that the short term.
E.
From: Marc Spitzer
Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Environmentalist nuts (was: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL])
Date:
Message-ID: <86y8ymt1jp.fsf@bogomips.optonline.net>
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> In article <··············@darkstar.cartan>, Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> wrote:
> > > That's exactly what happened when we tried it with electricity.
> > > There's no reason to believe the same thing couldn't happen
> > > with water.
> >
> > Only if you pseudo-privatize it in the idiotic way you did it
> > with electricity.
>
> Like I said, these are all human activities. They all have the risk of
> running afoul of human foibles. One could just as easily argue that
> Communism failed not because the theory was flawed but because it wasn't
> executed properly.
I was honestly trying not to get involved but the above comment is
just too good to pass up. Any political theory that claims to be for
governing human beings and does not even seem to consider basic human
nature is not flawed it is flat out wrong. It works for bees and ants
is an excellent counter argument for thinking it will work, at all,
with people. We do not behave like bees or ants.
Nils keep up the good work and I leave the rest to you.
marc
From: Coby Beck
Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Environmentalist nuts (was: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL])
Date:
Message-ID: <bfpu5l$1d58$1@otis.netspace.net.au>
"Nils Goesche" <······@cartan.de> wrote in message
···················@cartan.de...
> I have given you some numbers that should convince pretty much anyone
> with some capability of rational thought that there is no such thing
> as an overpopulation problem. If you still don't understand it, I
> must give up and rest my case.
Oh, yes. That was that convincing little bit where you concluded that the
entire world population can live in Texas and each have a nice lawn, right?
Incredible.
> I am talking about environmentalists in general. They say a lot about
> copper.
I truly wish the world were as simple a place as it is in your mind. Only
two points of view to worry about, right and left. Only two kinds of
people, rational and nut-jobs. It does ease the normal conversational
burden of actually thinking about what other people say.
Seriously, though, you may have well reasoned opinions, but if so you are
not doing them much justice here but not addressing the content of what you
argue against.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ big pond . com")
From: Nils Goesche
Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Environmentalist nuts (was: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL])
Date:
Message-ID: <87y8ynqt3a.fsf@darkstar.cartan>
"Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> writes:
> "Nils Goesche" <······@cartan.de> wrote in message
> ···················@cartan.de...
> > I have given you some numbers that should convince pretty
> > much anyone with some capability of rational thought that
> > there is no such thing as an overpopulation problem. If you
> > still don't understand it, I must give up and rest my case.
>
> Oh, yes. That was that convincing little bit where you
> concluded that the entire world population can live in Texas
> and each have a nice lawn, right? Incredible.
Most people who believe that earth is horribly overcrowded
already have absolutely no idea what those numbers really mean.
``6 billion people. Wow, that's a lot, isn't it?�� Making
some computations like that is a first step to put such numbers
into perspective.
> > I am talking about environmentalists in general. They say a
> > lot about copper.
>
> I truly wish the world were as simple a place as it is in your
> mind. Only two points of view to worry about, right and left.
> Only two kinds of people, rational and nut-jobs. It does ease
> the normal conversational burden of actually thinking about
> what other people say.
As leftist opinions are prevalent and omnipresent, people who
disagree with them are /forced/ to think about them all the time.
I have read huge piles of leftist books. Most leftists I met,
OTOH, have never read a /single/ political book written by a
non-leftist like, say, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig
von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Thomas Sowell, David Horowitz,
Phyllis Schlafly, Ann Coulter, Barbara Olson, Tammy Bruce, Larry
Elder, or /any/ other. Of course there are many different
political points of view, among those I listed, too, but it is
pretty rare that they don't roughly fit into either ``left�� or
``right��. And so, since I don't have hundreds of pages of
space, I'll simplify things a bit to make a clear point. There
is nothing wrong with that, I think. BTW, I had never thought of
myself or most of the people in that list as ``right-wingers��
until so many leftist English-speakers started calling me that.
I'd rather call myself a classical liberal, but as not so many
people know what that is, fine, call me a right-winger if it
makes you happy.
> Seriously, though, you may have well reasoned opinions, but if
> so you are not doing them much justice here but not addressing
> the content of what you argue against.
I am saying quite clearly what I am arguing against. I don't
care if Erann Gat doesn't share all opinions most leftists and
environmentalists have. It is not the bad influence of Erann
Gat's opinions I am concerned about but the bad influence of the
general lot of leftists and environmentalists out there :-) If he
thinks I am right when I say ``such and such popular claim is
ludicrous��, he might simply agree, for a change.
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID #xD26EF2A0
From: Erann Gat
Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Environmentalist nuts (was: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL])
Date:
Message-ID: <gat-2407032214210001@192.168.1.51>
In article <··············@darkstar.cartan>, Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> wrote:
> As leftist opinions are prevalent and omnipresent, people who
> disagree with them are /forced/ to think about them all the time.
Maybe in Germany. Here in the US the exact opposite is true. There are
*no* liberal voices in the popular media (by which I mean radio and
television). None. Zero. The closest thing we have to a popular liberal
voice is Gary Trudeau.
> I am saying quite clearly what I am arguing against. I don't
> care if Erann Gat doesn't share all opinions most leftists and
> environmentalists have. It is not the bad influence of Erann
> Gat's opinions I am concerned about but the bad influence of the
> general lot of leftists and environmentalists out there :-) If he
> thinks I am right when I say ``such and such popular claim is
> ludicrous��, he might simply agree, for a change.
You haven't yet said anything that I agree with. If you do I'll let you
know. (You have said a lot of things about which I have no opinion, like
whether or not there's a problem with the copper supply.)
E.
From: Nils Goesche
Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Environmentalist nuts (was: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL])
Date:
Message-ID: <lyispqhga6.fsf@cartan.de>
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> In article <··············@darkstar.cartan>, Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> wrote:
>
> > As leftist opinions are prevalent and omnipresent, people who
> > disagree with them are /forced/ to think about them all the time.
>
> Maybe in Germany. Here in the US the exact opposite is true.
Somebody once said: ``We don't know who discovered water, but we're
certain it wasn't a fish.�� Liberals have always denied any liberal
bias in the media. I don't think they're lying -- they just don't
realize it :-) Ann Coulter proved it beyond refutation, though, in her
book ``Slander��. Goldberg's ``Bias�� is also worth reading.
> There are *no* liberal voices in the popular media (by which I mean
> radio and television). None. Zero. The closest thing we have to a
> popular liberal voice is Gary Trudeau.
I honestly pity you for having to endure such right-wing icons as Dan
Rather all the time ;-) You recently got Fox News, that's all. I wish
we had anything like it here.
> You haven't yet said anything that I agree with.
Not even the numbers? :-)
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x0655CFA0
From: Erann Gat
Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Environmentalist nuts (was: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL])
Date:
Message-ID: <gat-2507030932070001@192.168.1.51>
In article <··············@cartan.de>, Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> wrote:
> Ann Coulter proved it beyond refutation, though, in her
> book ``Slander��.
That you could even consider it possible to prove such a thing beyond
refutation proves beyond refutation that you are beyond reason. There is
no objective measure of what is liberal and what is conservative. Anyone
can "prove" any kind of bias in a subjective assessment simply by
introducing the opposite bias into the assessment. Draw the line between
liberal and conservative far enough to the left and everyone looks like a
conservative. Far enough to the right and everyone looks like a liberal
-- except Ann Coulter. No one can draw a line far enough to the right to
make her look like a liberal. That's why no rational person takes her
seriously. (This is the same person who wrote that we should forcibly
convert all Afghanis to Christianity. 'nuf said.)
> > You haven't yet said anything that I agree with.
>
> Not even the numbers? :-)
The numbers you cited are irrelevant. Those numbers are about the
present. I am talking about the future. If the population of the world
could be stabilized at 6 billion or even 10 billion I would agree with you
that there is no population problem. But the population of the world is
not stable at 6 billion and it is not at all clear that it will be stable
at 10 billion.
Or are you going to start arguing that whether or not there "is" a
population problem depends on what the definition of the word "is" is?
E.
From: Nils Goesche
Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Environmentalist nuts (was: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL])
Date:
Message-ID: <ly4r1ah298.fsf@cartan.de>
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> In article <··············@cartan.de>, Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> wrote:
>
> > Ann Coulter proved it beyond refutation, though, in her book
> > ``Slander��.
>
> That you could even consider it possible to prove such a thing
> beyond refutation proves beyond refutation that you are beyond
> reason. There is no objective measure of what is liberal and what
> is conservative.
Not like there are ``objective measures�� in, say, physics, that's
true. But that doesn't mean we can't make definite statements about
politics at all.
> Anyone can "prove" any kind of bias in a subjective assessment
> simply by introducing the opposite bias into the assessment.
/If/ it is as ``subjective�� as you say. I don't think it is.
> Draw the line between liberal and conservative far enough to the
> left and everyone looks like a conservative. Far enough to the
> right and everyone looks like a liberal -- except Ann Coulter.
No, I don't think that's true. Who in his right mind would ever
regard someone like, say, Thomas Sowell or Larry Elder as a leftist or
liberal? Or me? :-)
> No one can draw a line far enough to the right to make her look like
> a liberal. That's why no rational person takes her seriously.
> (This is the same person who wrote that we should forcibly convert
> all Afghanis to Christianity. 'nuf said.)
Heh :-) That's not quite what she actually said. She wrote this
article
http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter091301.shtml
shortly after her friend Barbara Olsen was murdered in the 9/11
attacks. She was pretty pissed off. Many people were. You'll find
the actual wording in there. I didn't find anything wrong with it
when I read it at the time.
Ann Coulter is a good polemic, that's all. That's why I like her so
much -- because she says things that I just find hilarious but that
regularly drive the leftists nuts (that's why it's so funny). If you
look behind the polemic at what she actually says, she doesn't look
all that radical anymore. Just a normal conservative (but certainly
not a classical liberal ;-). And her book ``Slander�� is definitely
worth reading.
> > > You haven't yet said anything that I agree with.
> >
> > Not even the numbers? :-)
>
> The numbers you cited are irrelevant. Those numbers are about the
> present. I am talking about the future. If the population of the
> world could be stabilized at 6 billion or even 10 billion I would
> agree with you that there is no population problem. But the
> population of the world is not stable at 6 billion and it is not at
> all clear that it will be stable at 10 billion.
No, but the numbers I gave show that 10 billion, and even much more,
wouldn't be a problem at all. And I thought we had already agreed
that simply extrapolating the population curve far into the future
will quite possibly give you vastly incorrect figures.
> Or are you going to start arguing that whether or not there "is" a
> population problem depends on what the definition of the word "is"
> is?
No, I leave that to bad ex-presidents ;-)
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x0655CFA0
In article <··············@cartan.de>, Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> wrote:
> > Draw the line between liberal and conservative far enough to the
> > left and everyone looks like a conservative. Far enough to the
> > right and everyone looks like a liberal -- except Ann Coulter.
>
> No, I don't think that's true. Who in his right mind would ever
> regard someone like, say, Thomas Sowell or Larry Elder as a leftist or
> liberal? Or me? :-)
Well, you called yourself a "classical liberal" in an earlier post. Oh,
wait, you asked "who in his right mind..." Never mind.
>
> > No one can draw a line far enough to the right to make her look like
> > a liberal. That's why no rational person takes her seriously.
> > (This is the same person who wrote that we should forcibly convert
> > all Afghanis to Christianity. 'nuf said.)
>
> Heh :-) That's not quite what she actually said.
The exact quote is, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders
and convert them to Christianity."
I believe what I wrote was a fair paraphrase.
> She was pretty pissed off.
To my knowledge she has never retracted that remark, so as far as I'm
concerned she still stands by it. Whether she was pissed off when she
wrote it is irrelevant.
> No, but the numbers I gave show that 10 billion, and even much more,
> wouldn't be a problem at all.
They show no such thing. They only show that 10 billion would not push
certain resources to their limits. That does not prove that it wouldn't
be a problem.
You can never "prove" something is or is not a problem with numbers
because whether or not something is a problem depends on subjective
judgements about what one considers a problem. I can "prove" that there
is a problem by "proving" that billions of people live in poverty, but
that depends on 1) an arbitrary definition of poverty and 2) and arbitrary
judgement as to whether the "fact" that people live in poverty constitutes
a problem.
Conservatives "prove" that conservative policies "work" by simply defining
whatever situation arises from the application of conservative policies to
be free of problems. They get away with this because conservative
policies tend to make a select few rich enough that they can afford to
build walls around their little enclaves, where they look around and say,
"Hey, everything looks hunky dory to me." A lot of poor people buy into
this because the system holds out the (mostly false) hope that some day
they too might become rich if they work hard enough, or if they buy enough
Internet stocks, or lottery tickets. (Actually, a lot of rich people buy
into this myth too, and harden their hearts against poor people on the
grounds that they wouldn't be poor if they just worked a little harder.)
Conservatism seems to work because it allows a large enough fraction of
people to get rich enough that they can afford not to give a damn any more
what happens to everyone else. Conservatism does indeed work for them.
It doesn't work so well for a middle class person who wants to go whale
watching when the whales are extinct. Is that a "problem"? <shrug> Not
if you're rich.
E.
From: Nils Goesche
Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Environmentalist nuts (was: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL])
Date:
Message-ID: <87u19auq8b.fsf@darkstar.cartan>
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> In article <··············@cartan.de>, Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> wrote:
>
> > Who in his right mind would ever regard someone like, say,
> > Thomas Sowell or Larry Elder as a leftist or liberal? Or me?
> > :-)
>
> Well, you called yourself a "classical liberal" in an earlier
> post. Oh, wait, you asked "who in his right mind..." Never
> mind.
LOL, you /do/ have some sense of humor, after all; keep up the
good work :-) That's what I meant when I said that hardly anybody
knows anymore what a classical liberal is. In German, I always
call myself a ``liberal�� and most people know what I mean. In
English, however, this word has changed its meaning, sadly.
That's why you nowadays have to say ``classical liberal��. Some
people say ``libertarian��, but I don't like to be called a
libertarian for several reasons that are probably uninteresting
now. Anyway, the point is that ``liberal�� is just another word
for ``leftist�� in modern English, and a ``classical liberal�� is
something /entirely/ different, as you can see :-)
> > Heh :-) That's not quite what she actually said.
>
> The exact quote is, "We should invade their countries, kill
> their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
>
> I believe what I wrote was a fair paraphrase.
Ok, maybe. I just think it should be considered in context.
> > She was pretty pissed off.
>
> To my knowledge she has never retracted that remark, so as far
> as I'm concerned she still stands by it. Whether she was
> pissed off when she wrote it is irrelevant.
I don't think it's irrelevant at all. She was sad, shocked and
angry and expressed that very effectively. Why should she
retract that? Of /course/ she was angry! I was, too, even more
so when I saw those TV pictures of cheering Palestinians after
the attacks. I find her reaction very understandable. Mine was
similar, even though I didn't lose anyone close to me. Besides,
I also think the remark is very funny!
> > No, but the numbers I gave show that 10 billion, and even
> > much more, wouldn't be a problem at all.
>
> They show no such thing. They only show that 10 billion would
> not push certain resources to their limits. That does not
> prove that it wouldn't be a problem.
>
> You can never "prove" something is or is not a problem with
> numbers because whether or not something is a problem depends
> on subjective judgements about what one considers a problem.
There is some truth in this. However your ``never�� is not quite
right here (just think about it as being a violation of Gat's
first law ;-). It doesn't prove there wouldn't be a problem?
Maybe not. But it shows that if there /will/ be a problem, the
problem won't be that people won't find a place to stand freely
in the world anymore. Most people who talk about overpopulation
always mention Kalkutta as an example (because Paul Ehrlich did).
As if we're shortly before a situation where every square inch on
earth is as densely populated as in Kalkutta! You said yourself
``We are running out of space to put people.�� or something like
that. Didn't I effectively refute at least that with my numbers?
Whether there are enough resources on earth to feed that many
people is an entirely different question, but before we can
attack that problem, let's solve at least the space problem,
first. How about it, Erann? Can you at least admit having been
wrong in a single, little point like this one?
> I can "prove" that there is a problem by "proving" that
> billions of people live in poverty, but that depends on 1) an
> arbitrary definition of poverty and 2) and arbitrary judgement
> as to whether the "fact" that people live in poverty
> constitutes a problem.
Come on. We are in total agreement on that point. What on earth
made you think we weren't?
> Conservatives "prove" that conservative policies "work" by
> simply defining whatever situation arises from the application
> of conservative policies to be free of problems.
LOL! You're right: You and us are often in disagreement about
what is a problem and what isn't. But we aren't redefining
anything. Classical liberals have been saying for centuries that
they don't consider envy to be a virtue, for instance, unlike
you. You make it look as if we are /redefining/ anything, when
in fact we're only repeating ourselves on most points. When we
add something to our theory, we /refine/ what's already there,
instead of claiming something entirely different, much like
mathematicians and economists in that regard (it is impossible
indeed to seperate classical liberalism from theoretical
economics (sometimes called ``political economics��). The latter
is something like a subfield of the former, in a way). It's /you
guys/ who always come up with some new insanity every decade (and
drop the one from the decade before and get angry when we remind
you of it (``I never said that.��) :-) What I find so fascinating
about the left is how the very same thinking patterns can form so
many different shapes. That's why I have read pretty much every
leftist idea ever written since Plato :-) Thomas Sowell wrote an
/excellent/ book about these different ways of thinking:
``The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation As a Basis for
Social Policy��
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/046508995X/qid=1059175294/sr=2-3/ref=sr_2_3/002-3741569-0886410
Yes, you certainly won't enjoy Ann Coulter's ``Slander��, maybe
you shouldn't read it (unless you really want to know whether
there is a liberal bias in the media or not) but maybe you can
get something out of this one. Although it is written by someone
on my side, not yours, he is really doing a great job trying to
identify just what it is that makes us think in such different
ways. Incidentally, he doesn't talk about ``left�� and
``right��. He calls it the ``Anointed�� and the ``Benighted��
vision. You can read the first few pages at amazon.com.
> Conservatism seems to work because it allows a large enough
> fraction of people to get rich enough that they can afford not
> to give a damn any more what happens to everyone else.
> Conservatism does indeed work for them.
Great. Now make just one more step: Drop envy and realize that
even the poor ones are much better of with free capitalism than
with socialism or anything else, and you'll be on our side in no
time at all :-)
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID #xD26EF2A0
From: Erann Gat
Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Environmentalist nuts (was: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL])
Date:
Message-ID: <gat-2607031019160001@192.168.1.51>
In article <··············@darkstar.cartan>, Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> wrote:
> > > She was pretty pissed off.
> >
> > To my knowledge she has never retracted that remark, so as far
> > as I'm concerned she still stands by it. Whether she was
> > pissed off when she wrote it is irrelevant.
>
> I don't think it's irrelevant at all. She was sad, shocked and
> angry and expressed that very effectively. Why should she
> retract that? Of /course/ she was angry! I was, too, even more
> so when I saw those TV pictures of cheering Palestinians after
> the attacks. I find her reaction very understandable.
So do I. The point is that her being angry *then* does not justify her
continuing (implicitly) to stand by her remarks *now*. That is why it is
impossible to take Ann Coulter seriously, because either 1) she still
advocates the forcible conversion of Muslims to Christianity (in which
case she's just a nut case) or 2) you have to when reading her filter out
what she really means from what she writes in the heat of passion that
isn't meant to be taken seriously, but that she never retracts.
> I also think the remark is very funny!
That's one the reasons I find it impossible to take you seriously also.
One of the campaign slogans of Liberian president Charles Taylor was "He
killed my father, he killed my mother, but I'm going to vote for him
anyway." Do you think that's funny?
> > > No, but the numbers I gave show that 10 billion, and even
> > > much more, wouldn't be a problem at all.
> >
> > They show no such thing. They only show that 10 billion would
> > not push certain resources to their limits. That does not
> > prove that it wouldn't be a problem.
> >
> > You can never "prove" something is or is not a problem with
> > numbers because whether or not something is a problem depends
> > on subjective judgements about what one considers a problem.
>
> There is some truth in this. However your ``never�� is not quite
> right here (just think about it as being a violation of Gat's
> first law ;-). It doesn't prove there wouldn't be a problem?
> Maybe not. But it shows that if there /will/ be a problem, the
> problem won't be that people won't find a place to stand freely
> in the world anymore.
Granted. The limiting factor will not be physical space. Something else
will forcibly limit population growth long before we start having to stack
people up like cordwood.
Is that supposed to make me feel better?
> Most people who talk about overpopulation
> always mention Kalkutta as an example (because Paul Ehrlich did).
> As if we're shortly before a situation where every square inch on
> earth is as densely populated as in Kalkutta! You said yourself
> ``We are running out of space to put people.�� or something like
> that. Didn't I effectively refute at least that with my numbers?
Yes, but you claimed that your numbers proved that "there is no population
problem" and they prove no such thing.
> Whether there are enough resources on earth to feed that many
> people is an entirely different question, but before we can
> attack that problem, let's solve at least the space problem,
> first. How about it, Erann? Can you at least admit having been
> wrong in a single, little point like this one?
<shrug> I think it was pretty clear that statement was intended to be
hyperbole, but very well, I concede that we are not in danger of literally
running out of physical space to store human bodies.
> > I can "prove" that there is a problem by "proving" that
> > billions of people live in poverty, but that depends on 1) an
> > arbitrary definition of poverty and 2) and arbitrary judgement
> > as to whether the "fact" that people live in poverty
> > constitutes a problem.
>
> Come on. We are in total agreement on that point. What on earth
> made you think we weren't?
Because you claimed to have presented data that "proved" that there "is no
population problem."
> > Conservatives "prove" that conservative policies "work" by
> > simply defining whatever situation arises from the application
> > of conservative policies to be free of problems.
>
> LOL! You're right: You and us are often in disagreement about
> what is a problem and what isn't. But we aren't redefining
> anything. Classical liberals have been saying for centuries that
> they don't consider envy to be a virtue, for instance, unlike
> you.
You keep trying to argue with me as if I were a proxy for left-wing
extremists. I'm not. I never said envy was a virtue.
> You make it look as if we are /redefining/ anything
You (meaning Nils Goesche, not right-wingers in general) are implicitly
redefining the word "problem" when you claim to have proven that there is
no population problem. (Either that or you're simply wrong. You choose.)
> Yes, you certainly won't enjoy Ann Coulter's ``Slander��, maybe
> you shouldn't read it (unless you really want to know whether
> there is a liberal bias in the media or not)
There is nothing Ann Coulter could possibly say that would convince me
that there is a liberal bias in the American popular (note that qualifier)
media because it is clearly not true. You might as well try to convince
me that the sky isn't blue; I can look at it myself and see that it
clearly is.
What Coulter shows (and I know this not from having read the book but from
having read reviews) is that the *people* in the media are mostly
liberal. However, this does not translate into an actual bias in
reportage because of one very simple fact: liberalism ain't selling. Yes,
you will find isolated pockets of liberal reporting, but overall the
American popular media are overwhelmingly conservative, even reactionary.
People, for reasons passing understanding, just like to listen to Rush
Limbaugh more than they like to listen to Bill Press. (I'll bet you've
never even heard of Bill Press. I had to struggle to come up with his
name, it's been so long since I've actually seen him appear anywhere.)
BTW, maybe the reason that there is a liberal bias in the media is not so
much because there's an actual bias, but because being well informed (as
most media people tend to become over time) tends to cause one to
gravitate towards liberal views, because extreme conservatism is not
tenable when one decides to pull one's head out of the sand.
> > Conservatism seems to work because it allows a large enough
> > fraction of people to get rich enough that they can afford not
> > to give a damn any more what happens to everyone else.
> > Conservatism does indeed work for them.
>
> Great. Now make just one more step: Drop envy and realize that
> even the poor ones are much better of with free capitalism than
> with socialism or anything else, and you'll be on our side in no
> time at all :-)
LOL! Drop the envy? I don't think you quite understand. I am not a
victim of the world's economic injustices, I am one of its beneficiaries.
I live in a gated community. I'm one of the rich people. I arrive at my
position not out of envy but out of compassion. The reason I know that
the conservative position is mostly a lie is not because I'm struggling to
climb the economic ladder, but because I'm at the top of the economic
ladder watching other people struggle. Have you never wondered why there
are so many liberals (and rich liberals in particular) in California?
It's because the idea that hard work will make you rich is untenable in
the face of so many hard-working poor people in our daily lives.
E.
From: Russell McManus
Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Environmentalist nuts (was: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL])
Date:
Message-ID: <87ispnisms.fsf@thelonious.dyndns.org>
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> Maybe in Germany. Here in the US the exact opposite is true. There
> are *no* liberal voices in the popular media (by which I mean radio
> and television). None. Zero. The closest thing we have to a
> popular liberal voice is Gary Trudeau.
NPR. As you like to say, nuff said.
-russ
From: Erann Gat
Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Environmentalist nuts (was: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL])
Date:
Message-ID: <gat-2707031510320001@192.168.1.51>
In article <··············@thelonious.dyndns.org>, Russell McManus
<···············@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
>
> > Maybe in Germany. Here in the US the exact opposite is true. There
> > are *no* liberal voices in the popular media (by which I mean radio
> > and television). None. Zero. The closest thing we have to a
> > popular liberal voice is Gary Trudeau.
>
> NPR. As you like to say, nuff said.
Whether NPR has a liberal bias is debatable, though you did remind me that
there is (or at least was) Pacifica Radio, which is definitely liberal.
But I don't think anyone actually listens to them :-)
E.
From: Russell McManus
Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Environmentalist nuts (was: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL])
Date:
Message-ID: <87ptjv4bzg.fsf@thelonious.dyndns.org>
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> Whether NPR has a liberal bias is debatable, though you did remind
> me that there is (or at least was) Pacifica Radio, which is
> definitely liberal. But I don't think anyone actually listens to
> them :-)
Does this count as a retraction of your sweeping claim? If not, I was
unaware that I should have used Erann Gat's yardstick to determine
whether a media outlet has a liberal bias! Foolish me, I was relying
on common perception.
You don't hear me claiming that it is debatable whether Rush Limbaugh
or O'Reilly exhibit conservative bias, quite the opposite. Why are
you so loathe to admit the obvious?
Many liberals don't see their political opinions as one set of
choices among other valid alternatives; instead they perceive their
point of view as fundamentally right, and other points of view as
fundamentally wrong.
Therefore commentators that espouse views consonant with their own are
not biased, but instead are merely correct. Your comments suggest
that you may have fallen into this trap.
-russ
From: Erann Gat
Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Environmentalist nuts (was: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL])
Date:
Message-ID: <gat-2807030051470001@192.168.1.51>
In article <··············@thelonious.dyndns.org>, Russell McManus
<···············@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
>
> > Whether NPR has a liberal bias is debatable, though you did remind
> > me that there is (or at least was) Pacifica Radio, which is
> > definitely liberal. But I don't think anyone actually listens to
> > them :-)
>
> Does this count as a retraction of your sweeping claim?
Yes. I claimed there were no liberal voices in the popular media and I
was wrong. There is one: Pacifica Radio.
Pacifica Radio is as far to the left as Rush Limbaugh is to the right. I
can't stand to listen to either one of them.
> You don't hear me claiming that it is debatable whether Rush Limbaugh
> or O'Reilly exhibit conservative bias, quite the opposite. Why are
> you so loathe to admit the obvious?
Because it isn't obvious to me. I think NPR is centrist. Perhaps a
little left of center, but certainly centrist by comparison to the likes
of Rush Limbaugh. If they appear to be biased to the left it's only
because there are so many voices on the right and almost nothing on the
left (except, as noted above, Pacifica Radio). When there's nothing to
mark one end of the scale things in the middle appear more biased than
they really are.
Most conservatives see it like this:
NPR ------------------------- Rush Limbaugh
I see it like this:
Pacifica Radio ---------------- NPR ---------------------- Rush Limbaugh et al.
(Imagine "Pacifica Radio" in very tiny letters :)
> Many liberals don't see their political opinions as one set of
> choices among other valid alternatives; instead they perceive their
> point of view as fundamentally right, and other points of view as
> fundamentally wrong.
The same can be said of many conservatives.
> Therefore commentators that espouse views consonant with their own are
> not biased, but instead are merely correct. Your comments suggest
> that you may have fallen into this trap.
I agree with Gary Trudeau most of the time, and he's clearly biased to the left.
I agree with Dr. Laura Schlessinger a lot of the time (modulo her rampant
homophobia) and she's clearly biased to the right.
So there are two counterexamples of commentators I often agree with whom I
consider to be biased, one in each direction.
E.
From: Thomas F. Burdick
Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Environmentalist nuts (was: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL])
Date:
Message-ID: <xcv7k628pku.fsf@famine.OCF.Berkeley.EDU>
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> In article <··············@thelonious.dyndns.org>, Russell McManus
> <···············@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > You don't hear me claiming that it is debatable whether Rush Limbaugh
> > or O'Reilly exhibit conservative bias, quite the opposite. Why are
> > you so loathe to admit the obvious?
>
> Because it isn't obvious to me. I think NPR is centrist. Perhaps a
> little left of center, but certainly centrist by comparison to the likes
> of Rush Limbaugh. If they appear to be biased to the left it's only
> because there are so many voices on the right and almost nothing on the
> left (except, as noted above, Pacifica Radio). When there's nothing to
> mark one end of the scale things in the middle appear more biased than
> they really are.
The best way to try to evaluate the bias of a news source, IMO, is to
see who they crticize, and from what perspective. NPR spends probably
as much time criticizing centrist Democrats from the right as they do
from the left.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
From: Gareth McCaughan
Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Environmentalist nuts (was: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL])
Date:
Message-ID: <87y8ypvu3j.fsf@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com>
Erann Gat wrote:
> Yes, a little. A few decades, perhaps a century at most. A century is a
> blip in the grand and glorious scheme of things. If it is not us who have
> to deal with the consequences of our shortsightedness it will be our
> grandchildren.
Well, thank goodness our children at least are safe. :-)
--
Gareth McCaughan
From: Larry Clapp
Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Environmentalist nuts (was: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL])
Date:
Message-ID: <slrnbhrm2p.g0s.larry@theclapp.ddts.net>
Just a few points about water & electricity ...
In article <··············@darkstar.cartan>, Nils Goesche wrote:
> ···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
>> > There is absolutely no reason to worry about it.
>> ...
>> > Incidentally, despite all the gloomy predictions of
>> > environmentalists, or the Club of Rome that claimed in ``Limits
>> > to Growth�� we'd run out of oil in the early 1980s, nothing like
>> > that happened so far.
>>
>> You must be joking. It's happening all over. Perhaps because I
>> live in Los Angeles it's a little more obvious to me, but we're
>> running out of nearly everything.
>
> Yeah, but only in California for some reason...
False. I live in Florida, and have all my life. (I'm 34.) We've
rationed our water for *at least* the last fifteen years.
>> We're running out of water. We're running out of clean air.
>
> First, the air quality in California is better than in most European
> cities so this is pure FUD.
So because *your* shit-pot stinks worse than *our* shit-pot, *neither*
of us actually have any shit in our pots?
I really can't argue for the air quality in either place; the very
short time I was in LA in 2001, the air seemed okay to me, and the
rest of my trip (along the coast, to San Francisco) the air seemed
quite pleasant. And I've never been to Europe.
But I really don't care for your, ahem, logic.
> Second, there might indeed be water shortages in California, but
> just why is it always and only California that is running out of
> things like water and electric power?
False.
> West Berlin was completely surrounded by the communist GDR for
> decades, but miraculously we always had enough water, even without
> any Pacific Oceans nearby. Every other American state
False.
> , in fact, even the most piss-poor third world countries are
> miraculously capable of providing enough electric power and water
> for their people (even the Soviet Union was).
Really? You mean I imagined all those famine victims from /drought/
on TV a few years ago?
Oh and, by the way, define "enough".
--
Larry Clapp / ·····@theclapp.org
Use Lisp from Vim: VILisp: http://vim.sourceforge.net/script.php?script_id=221
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
From: Nils Goesche
Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Environmentalist nuts (was: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL])
Date:
Message-ID: <87wue92b16.fsf@darkstar.cartan>
Larry Clapp <·····@theclapp.org> writes:
> Just a few points about water & electricity ...
>
> In article <··············@darkstar.cartan>, Nils Goesche wrote:
> > Yeah, but only in California for some reason...
>
> False. I live in Florida, and have all my life. (I'm 34.)
> We've rationed our water for *at least* the last fifteen years.
Sorry, didn't make headlines here. I don't know anything about
the water supply in Florida, but if water is /rationed/ there,
there are obviously government price controls on water (if you
think this doesn't follow, ask yourself why there aren't any
rations on diamonds, for instance); I guess the whole water
supply is managed by government there, too. Thanks for
supporting my point.
> >> We're running out of water. We're running out of clean air.
> >
> > First, the air quality in California is better than in most
> > European cities so this is pure FUD.
>
> So because *your* shit-pot stinks worse than *our* shit-pot,
> *neither* of us actually have any shit in our pots?
A > B, and in my opinion A is quite small, implies that B is even
smaller. Need a lesson in logic? Call any time, I'll make you a
fair price.
> I really can't argue for the air quality in either place; the
> very short time I was in LA in 2001, the air seemed okay to me,
> and the rest of my trip (along the coast, to San Francisco) the
> air seemed quite pleasant.
All I've been saying. Why are you complaining, then?
> But I really don't care for your, ahem, logic.
Maybe you should :-)
> > , in fact, even the most piss-poor third world countries are
> > miraculously capable of providing enough electric power and
> > water for their people (even the Soviet Union was).
>
> Really? You mean I imagined all those famine victims from
> /drought/ on TV a few years ago?
They died of hunger, not of thirst, or because their TV sets went
black.
> Oh and, by the way, define "enough".
I'll leave that to Webster's. I am sure you have your own copy.
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID #xD26EF2A0
In article <··············@darkstar.cartan>, Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> wrote:
> ask yourself why there aren't any
> rations on diamonds, for instance)
There are. Look up "DeBeers monopoly".
E.
From: Nils Goesche
Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Environmentalist nuts (was: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL])
Date:
Message-ID: <877k683cte.fsf@darkstar.cartan>
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> In article <··············@darkstar.cartan>, Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> wrote:
>
> > ask yourself why there aren't any rations on diamonds, for
> > instance)
>
> There are. Look up "DeBeers monopoly".
I haven't got my ration so far. Where is it? Until now, I have
paid many thousands of dollars for my wife's diamonds. Are you
telling me there is some socialist's people's government that
will give me some under market value? Where?
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID #xD26EF2A0
From: Kristoffer Kvello
Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Environmentalist nuts (was: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL])
Date:
Message-ID: <h6gshvglmlm829m2hc6dro9ntdijounrtf@4ax.com>
On 22 Jul 2003 22:23:43 +0200, Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> wrote:
>···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
>> Your optimism is charming. What if we run out of whales? What
>> will we replace them with? Whales are good for more than just
>> whale oil, you know.
>
>I hear they also make for excellent steaks.
They don't. They taste like cod-liver oil. I've never eaten anything
more awful.
From: Thaddeus L Olczyk
Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Environmentalist nuts (was: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL])
Date:
Message-ID: <d41uhv0d1h8j0vpvrl7f31lmc3nhkov2gd@4ax.com>
aOn Wed, 23 Jul 2003 10:04:48 +0200, Kristoffer Kvello
<·························@mindless.com> wrote:
>On 22 Jul 2003 22:23:43 +0200, Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> wrote:
>
>>···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
>
>
>>> Your optimism is charming. What if we run out of whales? What
>>> will we replace them with? Whales are good for more than just
>>> whale oil, you know.
>>
>>I hear they also make for excellent steaks.
>
>They don't. They taste like cod-liver oil. I've never eaten anything
>more awful.
>
>
Which is why they are nearly extinct. If whales were tasty, there
would be no way that they would be endangered.
--------------------------------------------------
Thaddeus L. Olczyk, PhD
Think twice, code once.
In article <··································@4ax.com>,
······@interaccess.com wrote:
> aOn Wed, 23 Jul 2003 10:04:48 +0200, Kristoffer Kvello
> <·························@mindless.com> wrote:
>
> >On 22 Jul 2003 22:23:43 +0200, Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> wrote:
> >
> >>···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> >
> >
> >>> Your optimism is charming. What if we run out of whales? What
> >>> will we replace them with? Whales are good for more than just
> >>> whale oil, you know.
> >>
> >>I hear they also make for excellent steaks.
> >
> >They don't. They taste like cod-liver oil. I've never eaten anything
> >more awful.
> >
> >
> Which is why they are nearly extinct. If whales were tasty, there
> would be no way that they would be endangered.
And if Lisp were really a good programming language it would have won in
the market. (Hey, what do you know, I actually brought this conversation
back on topic. Who'd've thunk?)
Swordfish. Tuna. Salmon. Rockfish (a.k.a. Snapper). All tasty. All
endangered. Or is is something about marine mammals in particular that
would cause an improvement in their flavor to protect them in a way that
doesn't apply to fish?
E.
From: Nils Goesche
Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Environmentalist nuts (was: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL])
Date:
Message-ID: <87n0f43mj0.fsf@darkstar.cartan>
Thaddeus L Olczyk <······@interaccess.com> writes:
> aOn Wed, 23 Jul 2003 10:04:48 +0200, Kristoffer Kvello
> <·························@mindless.com> wrote:
> >They don't. They taste like cod-liver oil. I've never eaten
> >anything more awful.
> >
> Which is why they are nearly extinct. If whales were tasty,
> there would be no way that they would be endangered.
Behind this is a very good point, indeed: It is only the
Norwegians and the Japanese who have any /real, rational/
incentive for protecting whales from extinction: They like eating
them!
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID #xD26EF2A0
In article <··············@darkstar.cartan>, Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> wrote:
> Thaddeus L Olczyk <······@interaccess.com> writes:
>
> > aOn Wed, 23 Jul 2003 10:04:48 +0200, Kristoffer Kvello
> > <·························@mindless.com> wrote:
>
> > >They don't. They taste like cod-liver oil. I've never eaten
> > >anything more awful.
> > >
> > Which is why they are nearly extinct. If whales were tasty,
> > there would be no way that they would be endangered.
>
> Behind this is a very good point, indeed: It is only the
> Norwegians and the Japanese who have any /real, rational/
> incentive for protecting whales from extinction: They like eating
> them!
Ah, now I understand your logic. We don't need to conserve oil because no
one like to eat it.
Well, hey, that makes about as much sense as anything you've said on this topic.
E.
From: Nils Goesche
Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Environmentalist nuts (was: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL])
Date:
Message-ID: <87brvk3gad.fsf@darkstar.cartan>
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> Well, hey, that makes about as much sense as anything you've
> said on this topic.
Well, we'll see: Do you dare answering to
<··············@cartan.de>
? :-)
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID #xD26EF2A0
From: Takehiko Abe
Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Environmentalist nuts (was: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL])
Date:
Message-ID: <keke-2407032352210001@solg4.keke.org>
In article <··············@darkstar.cartan>, Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> wrote:
> Behind this is a very good point, indeed: It is only the
> Norwegians and the Japanese who have any /real, rational/
> incentive for protecting whales from extinction: They like eating
> them!
Only a small minority of Japanese like to eat whales. The majority
rather likes to watch them alive in the open sea. And most of those
minority who are crying for whale meat are doing so as a political
statement. That is, they are conservative nuts with full of hatred
towards anything remotely progressive.
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Environmentalist nuts (was: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL])
Date:
Message-ID: <3F20035F.5020606@nyc.rr.com>
Takehiko Abe wrote:
> In article <··············@darkstar.cartan>, Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> wrote:
>
>
>>Behind this is a very good point, indeed: It is only the
>>Norwegians and the Japanese who have any /real, rational/
>>incentive for protecting whales from extinction: They like eating
>>them!
>
>
> Only a small minority of Japanese like to eat whales. The majority
> rather likes to watch them alive in the open sea. And most of those
> minority who are crying for whale meat are doing so as a political
> statement. That is, they are conservative nuts with full of hatred
> towards anything remotely progressive.
You have conservative nuts full of hatred in your country? Thank god we
don't have anything like that.... uh, never mind.
:)
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
http://www.tilton-technology.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Everything is a cell." -- Alan Kay
Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> wrote in message news:<··············@darkstar.cartan>...
>
> Behind this is a very good point, indeed: It is only the
> Norwegians and the Japanese who have any /real, rational/
> incentive for protecting whales from extinction: They like eating
> them!
Well, for limited definitions of real and rational. Why is the pleasure
of eating a luxury like whale more rational than the pleasure of just knowing
that the whales are swimming about? Neither the Japanese nor the Norwegians
are going hungry.
Also, one could argue that people with real rational interests often
fail to manage a resource effectively. The whalers of the 19th and 20th
enturies had a very rational economic interest in protecting whale populations,
yet they almost drove several species to extinction. Similar
arguments hold for cod - fishermen have a real interest in protecting them,
but they are the ones to scream the loudest when scientists suggest quotas.
Insert buzzwords about game theory and the tragedy of the commons.
Short term gains often come before 'real, rational' long term interests,
or perhaps 'real, rational' interests favour short-term gains at the expense
of economic sustainability, or perhaps some resources are profitable only
when exploited at a destructive rate, and become unprofitable when sustainably
managed.
From: Paul F. Dietz
Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Environmentalist nuts (was: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL])
Date:
Message-ID: <hm2dneYcX5tciryiU-KYvw@dls.net>
John Klein wrote:
> Well, for limited definitions of real and rational. Why is the pleasure
> of eating a luxury like whale more rational than the pleasure of just knowing
> that the whales are swimming about? Neither the Japanese nor the Norwegians
> are going hungry.
>
> Also, one could argue that people with real rational interests often
> fail to manage a resource effectively. The whalers of the 19th and 20th
> enturies had a very rational economic interest in protecting whale populations,
> yet they almost drove several species to extinction. Similar
> arguments hold for cod - fishermen have a real interest in protecting them,
> but they are the ones to scream the loudest when scientists suggest quotas.
> Insert buzzwords about game theory and the tragedy of the commons.
>
> Short term gains often come before 'real, rational' long term interests,
> or perhaps 'real, rational' interests favour short-term gains at the expense
> of economic sustainability, or perhaps some resources are profitable only
> when exploited at a destructive rate, and become unprofitable when sustainably
> managed.
Three comments:
(1) If a resource reproduces slowly enough, the present value of immediate
100% extraction (and extinction) can exceed the present value of indefinite
sustained production.
(2) The whalers in the 19th and 20th centuries were in a 'tragedy of the commons'
situation. Individual rational actions in those situations can be collectively
suboptimal.
(3) Why is this in a lisp newsgroup?
Paul
In article <··································@4ax.com>,
Thaddeus L Olczyk <······@interaccess.com> wrote:
> aOn Wed, 23 Jul 2003 10:04:48 +0200, Kristoffer Kvello
> <·························@mindless.com> wrote:
>
> >On 22 Jul 2003 22:23:43 +0200, Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> wrote:
> >
> >>···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> >
> >
> >>> Your optimism is charming. What if we run out of whales? What
> >>> will we replace them with? Whales are good for more than just
> >>> whale oil, you know.
> >>
> >>I hear they also make for excellent steaks.
> >
> >They don't. They taste like cod-liver oil. I've never eaten anything
> >more awful.
>
> Which is why they are nearly extinct. If whales were tasty, there
> would be no way that they would be endangered.
Good point, just like sheep and cows and pigs and chickens. Or wheat
and corn, for that matter.
There is one other *necessary* condition for survival though: private
ownership. A commons situation won't protect them. That's the main
diferennce between tuna on the one hand, and salmon and trout on the
other.
-- Bruce
From: Erann Gat
Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Environmentalist nuts (was: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL])
Date:
Message-ID: <gat-2307032236470001@192.168.1.51>
In article <···························@copper.ipg.tsnz.net>, Bruce Hoult
<·····@hoult.org> wrote:
> In article <··································@4ax.com>,
> Thaddeus L Olczyk <······@interaccess.com> wrote:
>
> > aOn Wed, 23 Jul 2003 10:04:48 +0200, Kristoffer Kvello
> > <·························@mindless.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On 22 Jul 2003 22:23:43 +0200, Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> wrote:
> > >
> > >>···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> > >
> > >
> > >>> Your optimism is charming. What if we run out of whales? What
> > >>> will we replace them with? Whales are good for more than just
> > >>> whale oil, you know.
> > >>
> > >>I hear they also make for excellent steaks.
> > >
> > >They don't. They taste like cod-liver oil. I've never eaten anything
> > >more awful.
> >
> > Which is why they are nearly extinct. If whales were tasty, there
> > would be no way that they would be endangered.
>
> Good point, just like sheep and cows and pigs and chickens. Or wheat
> and corn, for that matter.
How do you explain lima beans then?
:-)
E.
From: Thomas F. Burdick
Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Environmentalist nuts (was: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL])
Date:
Message-ID: <xcv1xwfkijz.fsf@famine.OCF.Berkeley.EDU>
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> How do you explain lima beans then?
>
> :-)
The same as the others -- if you don't take the Anglo "boil until they
fall apart" approach to all vegetables, they're really good. Or wait,
maybe you mean lima beans grow in commons? :-)
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
In article <····················@192.168.1.51>,
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) wrote:
> > > Which is why they are nearly extinct. If whales were tasty, there
> > > would be no way that they would be endangered.
> >
> > Good point, just like sheep and cows and pigs and chickens. Or wheat
> > and corn, for that matter.
>
> How do you explain lima beans then?
>
> :-)
Don't recall coming across them.
-- Bruce
From: Nils Goesche
Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Environmentalist nuts (was: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL])
Date:
Message-ID: <871xwh3rt2.fsf@darkstar.cartan>
Kristoffer Kvello <·························@mindless.com> writes:
> On 22 Jul 2003 22:23:43 +0200, Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> wrote:
>
> >···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
>
> >> Your optimism is charming. What if we run out of whales?
> >> What will we replace them with? Whales are good for more
> >> than just whale oil, you know.
> >
> >I hear they also make for excellent steaks.
>
> They don't. They taste like cod-liver oil. I've never eaten
> anything more awful.
Unfortunately, I haven't tried one, yet. I have met people
saying what you say, and people saying it was the best meat they
ever ate!
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID #xD26EF2A0
Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> writes:
> Unfortunately, I haven't tried one, yet. I have met people
> saying what you say, and people saying it was the best meat they
> ever ate!
Stale whale meat tastes like cod-liver oil; fresh whale meat doesn't.
And if you'd like to try some, travelling to .no would seem to be the
simplest option; we can't legally (export 'whale-meat).
--
(let (hh mm ss)
(do () (nil) (multiple-value-setq (ss mm hh) (get-decoded-time))
(format t ····@R ·@R ·@R "
#\return hh mm ss) (sleep 1)))
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 07:08:59 GMT, Arvid Gr�tting <······@netfonds.no>
wrote:
>Stale whale meat tastes like cod-liver oil; fresh whale meat doesn't.
That's what they want you to believe. But even straight off the
whaling boat it still tastes cod-liver oil. And not the
orange-flavored acceptable cod-liver oil either, but the nasty
naturelle variant.
Kristoffer Kvello <·························@mindless.com> writes:
> That's what they want you to believe. But even straight off the
> whaling boat it still tastes cod-liver oil.
Well, the meat could be stale straight off the boat, you know. FWIW,
I can't recall having eaten any whale meat that *did* taste of
cod-liver oil.
> And not the orange-flavored acceptable cod-liver oil either, but the
> nasty naturelle variant.
Now there's a thought: Orange-marinated whale steak. Added to my
must-try list.
--
(let (hh mm ss)
(do () (nil) (multiple-value-setq (ss mm hh) (get-decoded-time))
(format t ····@R ·@R ·@R "
#\return hh mm ss) (sleep 1)))
Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> wrote in message news:<··············@darkstar.cartan>...
>
> You are missing the point entirely. People in the 19th century
> didn't give a flying fuck about whale watching. For them, whale
> oil was an industrial resource like any other. The holy whale
> religion is a rather recent invention.
>
Random note: I just read in a BBC story [1] that Antarctic blue whale
populations are slowly recovering. Today there are some thousands
of them, from a low of 500 (!) when whaling stopped in the 1960s.
According to this article, 30,000 (!) blue whales were killed in 1930 alone.
You don't have to a tree-hugging, granola-eating, Nader-voting hippie
to be appalled by this slaughter, all in the age of petroleum when
whale oil was not all that terribly necessary. That the population
of the largest animal ever to inhabit the planet was reduced to
500 individuals is ghastly even for someone who hasn't got the whalesong
religion.
[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2998120.stm
From: Nils Goesche
Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Environmentalist nuts (was: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL])
Date:
Message-ID: <87smox2aou.fsf@darkstar.cartan>
········@yahoo.com (John Klein) writes:
> You don't have to a tree-hugging, granola-eating, Nader-voting
> hippie to be appalled by this slaughter, all in the age of
> petroleum when whale oil was not all that terribly necessary.
> That the population of the largest animal ever to inhabit the
> planet was reduced to 500 individuals is ghastly even for
> someone who hasn't got the whalesong religion.
Well, maybe. It is indeed an open question how to effectively
prevent man from exterminating all kinds of fish (the main
difficulty lies in the fact that nobody /owns/ those fishes.
There are experiments conducted in some countries that try to
change this). This was never the point, however. The sole
question was whether running out of a certain resource (like
copper) that's currently needed by industry will cause economic
catastrophies. It should be quite obvious to anyone who doesn't
go nuts whenever the word ``whale�� is said aloud, that whale oil
is a nice example for such a thing. Is abstract thinking really
so hard?
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID #xD26EF2A0
In article <··············@darkstar.cartan>,
Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> wrote:
>········@yahoo.com (John Klein) writes:
>
>> You don't have to a tree-hugging, granola-eating, Nader-voting
>> hippie to be appalled by this slaughter, all in the age of
>> petroleum when whale oil was not all that terribly necessary.
>> That the population of the largest animal ever to inhabit the
>> planet was reduced to 500 individuals is ghastly even for
>> someone who hasn't got the whalesong religion.
>
>Well, maybe. It is indeed an open question how to effectively
>prevent man from exterminating all kinds of fish
Nils,
Since you've offered elsewhere in this thread fairly-priced
logic lessons:
Is the set of whales
(1) a subset of
(2) disjoint from
the set of fish?
;-)
From: Thomas Stegen
Subject: Re: [Off-topic] Environmentalist nuts (was: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL])
Date:
Message-ID: <3f20588a$1@nntphost.cis.strath.ac.uk>
sv0f wrote:
> Is the set of whales
> (1) a subset of
> (2) disjoint from
> the set of fish?
>
Disjoint, they are mammals.
Of course, if you want to use a different criteria for fishness
then you might disagree. But then the whole thing gets fishy.
--
Thomas.
"What is the future c existence which does not do in all languages"
Thomas Stegen <·······@cis.strath.ac.uk> writes:
> Of course, if you want to use a different criteria for fishness
> then you might disagree. But then the whole thing gets fishy.
Sounds like so much piscine in the wind to me.
-dan
--
http://www.cliki.net/ - Link farm for free CL-on-Unix resources
Daniel Barlow <···@telent.net> writes:
> Thomas Stegen <·······@cis.strath.ac.uk> writes:
>
> > Of course, if you want to use a different criteria for fishness
> > then you might disagree. But then the whole thing gets fishy.
>
> Sounds like so much piscine in the wind to me.
Try looking at it from a different angle.
"Nils Goesche" <······@cartan.de> wrote in message
···················@cartan.de...
> ······@yahoo.com (thomas) writes:
>
> > ······@online.no (H�kon Alstadheim) wrote in message
news:<··············@alstadhome.dyndns.org>...
> >
> > Not least the accounting fallacy that considers non-renewable
> > resources as 'income' rather than 'capital', so that trusting to the
> > expansion of our economy to solve the world's problems is worse than
> > visiting a loan-shark to meet the payments on your mortgage [1].
>
> Oh my gawd, an environmentalist nut. You know, until the 19th
> century, one very important industrial ``resource�� was whale oil.
> Whale oil was used for all kinds of things in industry, and no
> substitute was known. Imagine what would have happened if a
> contemporary environmentalist was transferred with a time machine back
> to the 19th century and came to power:
Um..we'd still have lots of whales today?
> He'd introduce quotas on whale
> oil and all other of resources of nature thus damaging the economy and
> bringing economic growth and progress to an instant halt.
[snip predictions of doom had we been forced to stop whaleing]
> Look, if we ever run out of resource X, we'll use something else.
So what is the difference between running out of it and just not using it?
Above you predict disaster if we allow protection of the environment, here
using it up means just move on to the next resource. At the very least you
have some faulty logic, more likely it is just self-serving argumentation.
> This will happen gradually and automatically when X's price grows.
> There is absolutely no reason to worry about it. That is, if you
> don't share the mythical Gaia faith of the environmentalists, who
> somehow believe that earth, ``Gaia��, is some sentient being that is
> suffering hard because evil man is stealing its copper.
At the risk of branding myself another "environmentalist nut", what if I
just liked when I could drink water straight from the rivers? What if I
think it is a shame we have decimated the global fish populations? That
doesn't require me worship Gaia.
> Incidentally, despite all the gloomy predictions of environmentalists,
> or the Club of Rome that claimed in ``Limits to Growth�� we'd run out
> of oil in the early 1980s, nothing like that happened so far. In
I'm sure it will never run out, then.
> Ah, that's better... So the economy in general and production in
> particular should be controlled by a ``few individuals�� who behave
> ``ethically��. If you ever meet a Russian, you should ask him how
> well that worked in the Soviet Union.
Ah the Cold War is over, but I'm glad we will never lose the ability to call
apon this widely shared and superlatively effective use of ad hominem (if
you allow the concept to extend from an individual to a single nation).
You're only missing the final "why don't you go live there?" line.
> And what is meant by ``ethically�� here, I wonder? Bringing
> production to a halt, again? You /do/ know that that means instant
> death of starvation for most of mankind? Bringing growth to a halt?
> Same thing, only slower.
How do you know all these things? You must have a development version of
the universe on which to test.
Is it GPL'ed? ;)
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ big pond . com")
From: David Steuber
Subject: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL]
Date:
Message-ID: <87he5cd98o.fsf@verizon.net>
"Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> writes:
> How do you know all these things? You must have a development version of
> the universe on which to test.
>
> Is it GPL'ed? ;)
That would allow forking clones. We couldn't have that.
Talk about a "when threads go horribly, horribly wrong" issue here.
With all the diatribes in such a contraversial group as cll, I am
rather glad that rec.guns is moderated.
--
One Editor to rule them all. One Editor to find them,
One Editor to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
(do ((a 1 b) (b 1 (+ a b))) (nil a) (print a))
From: Nikodemus Siivola
Subject: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL]
Date:
Message-ID: <bgalf9$vlh$1@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi>
David Steuber <·············@verizon.net> wrote:
> With all the diatribes in such a contraversial group as cll, I am
> rather glad that rec.guns is moderated.
Bah. We need comp.lang.lisp.guns ,)=
Cheers,
-- Nikodemus
In article <··············@alstadhome.dyndns.org>, H�kon Alstadheim
<······@online.no> wrote:
> [snip stuff about dumping practices]
>
> mikel <·····@evins.net> writes:
>
> > Certainly there are many anecdotes about it. It's not clear to me that
> > it actually works particularly well (for example, Standard Oil did it,
> > but the court testimony seems to indicate that it did not work), and
> > it's not clear to me that if it did work there would be anything
> > unethical about it.
>
> We have markets with competition so that demand can be met with as
> little resource consumption as possible. Using outside tools (such as
> a large cash box or other "offers you can't refuse") to gain a
> monopoly enables the monopolist to charge a premium.
But if the monopolist actually does charge a premium, then he raises
the price he charges, thus raising the cost to his customers above
market price, thereby creating an opportunity for a competitor to
undercut him, thereby destroying his monopoly. He can charge such a
premium without destroying his monopoly only if all potential
competitors are excluded by force--in other words, only if the monopoly
is maintained by law-enforcement.
> Said premium
> means that fewer items are made/sold than resources would allow. This
> is a net loss for society. This is why monopolies are bad. This is why
> exploiting a natural monopoly and creating artificial ones are
> illegal.
Natural monopolies exist only when the efficient size of a firm just
happens to exactly match the size of a particular market. That
situation is both rare and unstable, because the size of a market and
the efficient size of a firm depend on numerous independent and
variable factors (technological, demographic, climatic, geographic, and
so on), and so natural monopolies are rare. When a natural monopoly
does occur, the monopolist runs into the problem outlined above.
Artificial monopolies require the protection of law enforcement.
From: Paul Wallich
Subject: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL]
Date:
Message-ID: <bfk40n$mud$1@reader1.panix.com>
mikel wrote:
> In article <··············@alstadhome.dyndns.org>, H�kon Alstadheim
> <······@online.no> wrote:
>
>
>>[snip stuff about dumping practices]
>>
>>mikel <·····@evins.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>>Certainly there are many anecdotes about it. It's not clear to me that
>>>it actually works particularly well (for example, Standard Oil did it,
>>>but the court testimony seems to indicate that it did not work), and
>>>it's not clear to me that if it did work there would be anything
>>>unethical about it.
>>
>>We have markets with competition so that demand can be met with as
>>little resource consumption as possible. Using outside tools (such as
>>a large cash box or other "offers you can't refuse") to gain a
>>monopoly enables the monopolist to charge a premium.
>
>
> But if the monopolist actually does charge a premium, then he raises
> the price he charges, thus raising the cost to his customers above
> market price, thereby creating an opportunity for a competitor to
> undercut him, thereby destroying his monopoly. He can charge such a
> premium without destroying his monopoly only if all potential
> competitors are excluded by force--in other words, only if the monopoly
> is maintained by law-enforcement.
This is hogwash that's debunked in pretty much every introductory
microeconomics textbook. Although there is usually some price high
enough to spur the entry of competitors into a monopoly market, there
are lots of reasons why this price is well above the normal competitive
price. For example, the monopolist (who is sitting on a pile of excess
gains) can compete temporarily on the basis of price, driving
competitors out because they can't sustain unprofitable prices for as
long. The monopolist can make it very expensive for customers to switch
(because other products they own may work only with the monopoly
product). There may be natural barriers to market entry, such as large
amount of R&D and programming required before a single unit can be sold;
these will deter potential competitors from entering a market when they
know the monopolist will ocmpete agressively once they're in. There may
also be natural barriers to market exit (support contracts, liability
issues) that make potential competitors think twice about getting in,
for fear of being stuck in a money-losing business indefinitely.
There is generally a much larger incentive for companies to try and
build up a monopoly in some other area than waste money challenging
existing monopolies.
paul
In article <············@reader1.panix.com>, Paul Wallich
<··@panix.com> wrote:
> mikel wrote:
>
> > In article <··············@alstadhome.dyndns.org>, H�kon Alstadheim
> > <······@online.no> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>[snip stuff about dumping practices]
> >>
> >>mikel <·····@evins.net> writes:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Certainly there are many anecdotes about it. It's not clear to me that
> >>>it actually works particularly well (for example, Standard Oil did it,
> >>>but the court testimony seems to indicate that it did not work), and
> >>>it's not clear to me that if it did work there would be anything
> >>>unethical about it.
> >>
> >>We have markets with competition so that demand can be met with as
> >>little resource consumption as possible. Using outside tools (such as
> >>a large cash box or other "offers you can't refuse") to gain a
> >>monopoly enables the monopolist to charge a premium.
> >
> >
> > But if the monopolist actually does charge a premium, then he raises
> > the price he charges, thus raising the cost to his customers above
> > market price, thereby creating an opportunity for a competitor to
> > undercut him, thereby destroying his monopoly. He can charge such a
> > premium without destroying his monopoly only if all potential
> > competitors are excluded by force--in other words, only if the monopoly
> > is maintained by law-enforcement.
>
> This is hogwash that's debunked in pretty much every introductory
> microeconomics textbook.
Perhaps I should recommend some of those to my economist friends. Maybe
you could offer a recommendation?
> Although there is usually some price high
> enough to spur the entry of competitors into a monopoly market, there
> are lots of reasons why this price is well above the normal competitive
> price. For example, the monopolist (who is sitting on a pile of excess
> gains) can compete temporarily on the basis of price, driving
> competitors out because they can't sustain unprofitable prices for as
> long. The monopolist can make it very expensive for customers to switch
> (because other products they own may work only with the monopoly
> product). There may be natural barriers to market entry, such as large
> amount of R&D and programming required before a single unit can be sold;
> these will deter potential competitors from entering a market when they
> know the monopolist will ocmpete agressively once they're in. There may
> also be natural barriers to market exit (support contracts, liability
> issues) that make potential competitors think twice about getting in,
> for fear of being stuck in a money-losing business indefinitely.
>
> There is generally a much larger incentive for companies to try and
> build up a monopoly in some other area than waste money challenging
> existing monopolies.
Barriers to entry are equivalent to costs of entry. A barrier to entry
is a barrier only to the extent that the expected size of the market it
inadquate to support amortizing the cost of entry. The existnce of
barriers to entry means that there is some hysteresis in the price that
the market will bear, but does not mean that a natural monopolist has
unrestricted power to raise prices.
From: Thomas A. Russ
Subject: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL]
Date:
Message-ID: <ymismoyrzco.fsf@sevak.isi.edu>
mikel <·····@evins.net> writes:
>
> Barriers to entry are equivalent to costs of entry. A barrier to entry
> is a barrier only to the extent that the expected size of the market it
> inadquate to support amortizing the cost of entry. The existnce of
> barriers to entry means that there is some hysteresis in the price that
> the market will bear, but does not mean that a natural monopolist has
> unrestricted power to raise prices.
Actually, it is more than just the expected size of the market. If the
barriers to entry are non-trivial, then one can assume that any new
competitor will have to make a sizable investment in cash and time
before they are in a position to offer a competing product. During this
start-up time, the monopolist will be able to enjoy excess profits. By
saving enough of these excess profits, the monopolist will then be in a
position to drop prices below cost once the new competitor's products
become available. This means that the new competitor will not be able
to recoup the costs of entry.
As long as the monopolist can amass a sufficient bankroll to be able to
drive competitors out of business at will, it would be foolish for
competitors to try to enter the market. They can only succeed if their
source of financing is sufficient to let them bankrupt the monopolist
and force them to return to viable prices. Given that the competitor
doesn't have the advantage of having the higher monopoly profits to
begin with, it is unlikely that they will have the resources to do this.
Where this becomes particularly problematic is when a company is able to
use the monopoly profits from one line of business to subsidize an
attack on another line of business. If your competitor doesn't have to
make a profit, it is hard for you to compete with them on price.
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute
In article <···············@sevak.isi.edu>, Thomas A. Russ
<···@sevak.isi.edu> wrote:
> mikel <·····@evins.net> writes:
> >
> > Barriers to entry are equivalent to costs of entry. A barrier to entry
> > is a barrier only to the extent that the expected size of the market it
> > inadquate to support amortizing the cost of entry. The existnce of
> > barriers to entry means that there is some hysteresis in the price that
> > the market will bear, but does not mean that a natural monopolist has
> > unrestricted power to raise prices.
>
> Actually, it is more than just the expected size of the market. If the
> barriers to entry are non-trivial, then one can assume that any new
> competitor will have to make a sizable investment in cash and time
> before they are in a position to offer a competing product. During this
> start-up time, the monopolist will be able to enjoy excess profits. By
> saving enough of these excess profits, the monopolist will then be in a
> position to drop prices below cost once the new competitor's products
> become available. This means that the new competitor will not be able
> to recoup the costs of entry.
>
> As long as the monopolist can amass a sufficient bankroll to be able to
> drive competitors out of business at will, it would be foolish for
> competitors to try to enter the market. They can only succeed if their
> source of financing is sufficient to let them bankrupt the monopolist
> and force them to return to viable prices. Given that the competitor
> doesn't have the advantage of having the higher monopoly profits to
> begin with, it is unlikely that they will have the resources to do this.
>
> Where this becomes particularly problematic is when a company is able to
> use the monopoly profits from one line of business to subsidize an
> attack on another line of business. If your competitor doesn't have to
> make a profit, it is hard for you to compete with them on price.
Your argument amounts to the claim that a natural monopoly can persist
so long as the cost of entry for a competitor cannot be amortized over
the expected return on entry, leaving a positive expected economic
profit. That will be true if (1) there is no return on entry or (2) the
expected total return on entry is less than the total cost of entry or
(3) the expected marginal rate of return is less than or equal to the
expected amortized cost per unit time. It's reasonable to assume (1) if
the natural monopolist doesn't raise prices above market; it's
reasonable to assume (2) if the cost of entry is very high relative to
the difference between the expected size of the market and the
suppression of demand by the monopolist's premiums (in other words, if
there isn't a significant suppression of demand); it's reasonable to
assume (3) for the same circumstances as (1) or (2), or if interest
rates on borrowed capital are very high (though, barring regulation to
keep them artificially high, interest rates are driven by the same
forces as other prices).
Thus, the argument amounts to the claim that a natural monopolist can
raise prices *some* without competitors entering the market. As I said
before, it doesn't mean that such a monopolist has unlimited discretion
to raise prices. The monopolist's discretion is limited to the premium
he can reach before potential competitors estimate rightly that the
expected return on entry exceeds the expected cost of entry. Note also
that by raising the price, the monopolist suppresses demand, reducing
the size of his own market, but a competitor who enters at a lower
price increases the size of the market. That is good so long as each
sale is profitable; it is bad for a vendor selling at a loss. The
monopolist can only afford to sell at a loss at the cost of either
reducing his capital (which can go on only so long) or raising prices
elsewhere (at which point he runs into the same exact problem all over
again).
All of this discussion, by the way, assumes that the variables creating
the natural monopoly in the first place remain close to constant, which
they rarely do.
From: Paul Wallich
Subject: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL]
Date:
Message-ID: <bfkr32$16n$1@reader1.panix.com>
mikel wrote:
> In article <············@reader1.panix.com>, Paul Wallich
> <··@panix.com> wrote:
>
>
>>mikel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <··············@alstadhome.dyndns.org>, H�kon Alstadheim
>>><······@online.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>[snip stuff about dumping practices]
>>>>
>>>>mikel <·····@evins.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Certainly there are many anecdotes about it. It's not clear to me that
>>>>>it actually works particularly well (for example, Standard Oil did it,
>>>>>but the court testimony seems to indicate that it did not work), and
>>>>>it's not clear to me that if it did work there would be anything
>>>>>unethical about it.
>>>>
>>>>We have markets with competition so that demand can be met with as
>>>>little resource consumption as possible. Using outside tools (such as
>>>>a large cash box or other "offers you can't refuse") to gain a
>>>>monopoly enables the monopolist to charge a premium.
>>>
>>>
>>>But if the monopolist actually does charge a premium, then he raises
>>>the price he charges, thus raising the cost to his customers above
>>>market price, thereby creating an opportunity for a competitor to
>>>undercut him, thereby destroying his monopoly. He can charge such a
>>>premium without destroying his monopoly only if all potential
>>>competitors are excluded by force--in other words, only if the monopoly
>>>is maintained by law-enforcement.
>>
>>This is hogwash that's debunked in pretty much every introductory
>>microeconomics textbook.
>
>
> Perhaps I should recommend some of those to my economist friends. Maybe
> you could offer a recommendation?
They should probably start with Samuelson and work their way up -- I
know most economists of my acquaintance did, except for all the ones who
predated him.
>
>
>>Although there is usually some price high
>>enough to spur the entry of competitors into a monopoly market, there
>>are lots of reasons why this price is well above the normal competitive
>>price. For example, the monopolist (who is sitting on a pile of excess
>>gains) can compete temporarily on the basis of price, driving
>>competitors out because they can't sustain unprofitable prices for as
>>long. The monopolist can make it very expensive for customers to switch
>>(because other products they own may work only with the monopoly
>>product). There may be natural barriers to market entry, such as large
>>amount of R&D and programming required before a single unit can be sold;
>>these will deter potential competitors from entering a market when they
>>know the monopolist will ocmpete agressively once they're in. There may
>>also be natural barriers to market exit (support contracts, liability
>>issues) that make potential competitors think twice about getting in,
>>for fear of being stuck in a money-losing business indefinitely.
>>
>>There is generally a much larger incentive for companies to try and
>>build up a monopoly in some other area than waste money challenging
>>existing monopolies.
>
>
> Barriers to entry are equivalent to costs of entry. A barrier to entry
> is a barrier only to the extent that the expected size of the market it
> inadquate to support amortizing the cost of entry. The existnce of
> barriers to entry means that there is some hysteresis in the price that
> the market will bear, but does not mean that a natural monopolist has
> unrestricted power to raise prices.
Obviously not unrestricted -- see my first sentence. But, as an engineer
will tell you, the presence of a limit in the ideal case doesn't mean
the limit is in a place that does you any good. The part of barriers to
entry that you seem to be missing is the price-war one: armed with
accumulated rents, the monopolist can (temporarily) set prices at a
level that makes it impossible to amortize entry cost no matter how big
the market is.
You can see a good example of some of the forces at work in reactions
here to new Lisp dialects, of course.
paul
In article <············@reader1.panix.com>, Paul Wallich
<··@panix.com> wrote:
> mikel wrote:
>
> > Barriers to entry are equivalent to costs of entry. A barrier to entry
> > is a barrier only to the extent that the expected size of the market it
> > inadquate to support amortizing the cost of entry. The existnce of
> > barriers to entry means that there is some hysteresis in the price that
> > the market will bear, but does not mean that a natural monopolist has
> > unrestricted power to raise prices.
>
> Obviously not unrestricted -- see my first sentence. But, as an engineer
> will tell you, the presence of a limit in the ideal case doesn't mean
> the limit is in a place that does you any good. The part of barriers to
> entry that you seem to be missing is the price-war one: armed with
> accumulated rents, the monopolist can (temporarily) set prices at a
> level that makes it impossible to amortize entry cost no matter how big
> the market is.
>
> You can see a good example of some of the forces at work in reactions
> here to new Lisp dialects, of course.
Well, perhaps we don't disagree after all, at least about what the
edges are. The important question then is always how important the
natural monopolist's advantage is. Since our pet economists disagree
about that (as, indeed, professional economists do), I doubt we are
likely to strike on any blinding flashes of insight about it. :-)
mikel <·····@evins.net> writes:
> In article <··············@alstadhome.dyndns.org>, H�kon Alstadheim
> <······@online.no> wrote:
>
> > [snip stuff about dumping practices]
> >
> > mikel <·····@evins.net> writes:
> >
> > > Certainly there are many anecdotes about it. It's not clear to
> > > me that it actually works particularly well (for example,
> > > Standard Oil did it, but the court testimony seems to indicate
> > > that it did not work), and it's not clear to me that if it did
> > > work there would be anything unethical about it.
> >
> > We have markets with competition so that demand can be met with as
> > little resource consumption as possible. Using outside tools (such
> > as a large cash box or other "offers you can't refuse") to gain a
> > monopoly enables the monopolist to charge a premium.
>
> But if the monopolist actually does charge a premium, then he raises
> the price he charges, thus raising the cost to his customers above
> market price, thereby creating an opportunity for a competitor to
> undercut him, thereby destroying his monopoly. He can charge such a
> premium without destroying his monopoly only if all potential
> competitors are excluded by force--in other words, only if the
> monopoly is maintained by law-enforcement.
Well, there are certain barriers to entry, as most people who have
tried to face Microsoft head-on will testify.
>
> > Said premium means that fewer items are made/sold than resources
> > would allow. This is a net loss for society. This is why
> > monopolies are bad. This is why exploiting a natural monopoly and
> > creating artificial ones are illegal.
>
> Natural monopolies exist only when the efficient size of a firm just
> happens to exactly match the size of a particular market.
When the cost of producing one more installation of your software is
always less than the previous one (all shrink-wrapped software has
falling marginal costs), the efficient size of Microsoft is always
exactly the size of the world total software market at monopoly
prices.
> That situation is both rare and unstable, because the size of a
> market and the efficient size of a firm depend on numerous
> independent and variable factors (technological, demographic,
> climatic, geographic, and so on), and so natural monopolies are
> rare. When a natural monopoly does occur, the monopolist runs into
> the problem outlined above.
Nothing man-made is eternal, but some phenomena should be curtailed
rather than encouraged by society at large.
>
> Artificial monopolies require the protection of law enforcement.
Or maybe just dumb governments and a smart CEO. On second thought that
amounts to the same thing, seeing as the software industry are now
"auditing" private firms with local law-enforcers in tow.
Are all YOUR software licences current ?
--
H�kon Alstadheim, hjemmepappa.
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: ethics of business - [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL]
Date:
Message-ID: <3F193C66.8070605@nyc.rr.com>
Christopher C. Stacy wrote:
>>>>>>On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 00:49:42 -0400, Matt Curtin ("Matt") writes:
>>>>>
> Matt> There is nothing unethical about the willful exchange of a
> Matt> product or service under terms acceptable to all involved
> Matt> parties.
>
> How about when a company comes into a market and dumps their
> products (eg. sells at a loss) in order to drive the competition
> out of business?
That would never happen. Their name would be mud. Everyone involved in
that market would hate their guts and anyone who worked for them. The
leader of the company would become known as Satan. people would find
derisive ways to spell the company name. People would use alternative
products whenever possible. The Feds would drag them into court....
...oops. Never mind.
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
http://www.tilton-technology.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Everything is a cell." -- Alan Kay
Matt Curtin wrote:
> Sam Zoghaib <·····@zep.homedns.orgSPAM> writes:
>
>
>>As I corrected in a previous post, I of course meant I don't
>>consider *non*-free software for ethical reasons.
>
>
> Joe's point was that you cannot possibly object to "non-free" software
> on ETHICAL reasons, but PHILOSOPHICAL reasons.
>
> There is nothing unethical about the willful exchange of a product or
> service under terms acceptable to all involved parties.
The problem with that formulation is that you have to have a particular
(and some would say too narrow) definition of "all involved parties" for
it to be an accurate description of most commercial transactions. (I'm
rminded of the old punchline, "The chicken is involved, the pig is
committed.") There's an argument that many/most/all commercial
transactions in software have side-effects analagous to the production
of pollutants in industrial operations, which render apparently
innocuous transactions harmful. So _a priori_ defining the issuing as
not an ethical one means claiming a bunch of assumptions as fact.
Making explicit (and sometimes malleable) a bunch of assumptions that
others take as immutable (and usually invisible) is, of course, one of
the things that the CL standard and CL programming are all about...
paul
Matt Curtin wrote in article <··············@rowlf.interhack.net> on Saturday
19 July 2003 06:49 in comp.lang.lisp:
> There is nothing unethical about the willful exchange of a product or
> service under terms acceptable to all involved parties.
>
Basically, using non-free software means giving up on your freedom.
I find it unethical for an individual or a company to ask people to give up
their freedom.
By your rationale, there's nothing unethical in exploiting immigrants. We all
know how many new immigrants end up working in horrible conditions and
underpaid. Most of them are not forced; it is just their only solution.
Of course I'm not saying both issues are as grave, but I'm pointing out that
there is a flaw in your definition of ethical. You can always force people to
agree. In the case of proprietary software, it's through misinformation and
monopoly. Many people are not even aware they could have the freedom free
software give, and when they learn about it, it's often too late because
they're in a situation where they cannot afford to switch to free software.
Sam
--
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
- The Church of Emacs' Confession of Faith
Sam Zoghaib <·····@zep.homedns.orgSPAM> writes:
> Basically, using non-free software means giving up on your freedom.
> I find it unethical for an individual or a company to ask people to
> give up their freedom.
You are suggesting that it is unethical for a person to exercise his
freedom to purchase the product or service of his choice on an open
market because it means giving up his freedom.
That is a paradox.
--
Matt Curtin, CISSP, IAM, INTP. Keywords: Lisp, Unix, Internet, INFOSEC.
Founder, Interhack Corporation +1 614 545 HACK http://web.interhack.com/
Author of /Developing Trust: Online Privacy and Security/ (Apress, 2001)
Matt Curtin wrote:
> Sam Zoghaib <·····@zep.homedns.orgSPAM> writes:
>
>
>>Basically, using non-free software means giving up on your freedom.
>>I find it unethical for an individual or a company to ask people to
>>give up their freedom.
>
>
> You are suggesting that it is unethical for a person to exercise his
> freedom to purchase the product or service of his choice on an open
> market because it means giving up his freedom.
>
> That is a paradox.
>
Right:
"You are not free to be not free."
-- Jean-pail Sartre
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
http://www.tilton-technology.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Everything is a cell." -- Alan Kay
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> att Curtin wrote:
> > Sam Zoghaib <·····@zep.homedns.orgSPAM> writes:
> >
> >>Basically, using non-free software means giving up on your freedom.
> >>I find it unethical for an individual or a company to ask people to
> >>give up their freedom.
>
> > You are suggesting that it is unethical for a person to exercise his
> > freedom to purchase the product or service of his choice on an open
> > market because it means giving up his freedom.
> > That is a paradox.
Which just goes to show the bancrupcy of morality-based reasoning.
> Right:
>
> "You are not free to be not free."
> -- Jean-pail Sartre
[ Typo or juvenile joke? Honest question -- lord knows I make enough
jokes of this genre, if that's what it is. ]
And he also vigorously ridiculed people who claimed that the class
struggle was outmoded/outdated. In that context, the quote makes more
sense.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
Thomas F. Burdick wrote:
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
...
>>
>> "You are not free to be not free."
>> -- Jean-pail Sartre
>
>
> [ Typo or juvenile joke?
Typo, but a beaut. :)
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
http://www.tilton-technology.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Everything is a cell." -- Alan Kay
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> Matt Curtin wrote:
>> Sam Zoghaib <·····@zep.homedns.orgSPAM> writes:
>>
>>>Basically, using non-free software means giving up on your freedom.
>>>I find it unethical for an individual or a company to ask people to
>>>give up their freedom.
>> You are suggesting that it is unethical for a person to exercise his
>> freedom to purchase the product or service of his choice on an open
>> market because it means giving up his freedom.
>> That is a paradox.
>>
>
> Right:
>
> "You are not free to be not free."
> -- Jean-pail Sartre
"Come see the violence inherent in the system!"
-- Michael Palin
--
In many cases, writing a program which depends on supernatural insight
to solve a problem is easier than writing one which doesn't.
-- Paul Graham
Matt Curtin wrote in article <··············@rowlf.interhack.net> on Saturday
19 July 2003 21:34 in comp.lang.lisp:
> You are suggesting that it is unethical for a person to exercise his
> freedom to purchase the product or service of his choice on an open
> market because it means giving up his freedom.
>
No, I said it was unethical to ask people to surrender their freedom. It's not
unethical for one to accept to do so.
Sam
--
"People sometimes ask me if it is a sin in the Church of Emacs to use vi.
Using a free version of vi is not a sin; it's a penance".
- Richard Stallman
Sam Zoghaib <·····@zep.homedns.orgSPAM> wrote in message news:<············@news-reader6.wanadoo.fr>...
> Matt Curtin wrote in article <··············@rowlf.interhack.net> on Saturday
> 19 July 2003 21:34 in comp.lang.lisp:
>
> > You are suggesting that it is unethical for a person to exercise his
> > freedom to purchase the product or service of his choice on an open
> > market because it means giving up his freedom.
> >
> No, I said it was unethical to ask people to surrender their freedom.
It's unethical to coerce.
Asking is not coersion; it's free speech.
There are all kinds of circumstances in which people are asked to
surrender some of their freedom. This is fine when they have a choice
and are compensated. For example, engaging in employment is one such
circumstance. It's not unethical to offer an employment agreement
which asks the undersigned to be present on the company premises so
many hours a week.
Sam Zoghaib <·····@zep.homedns.orgSPAM> writes:
> Matt Curtin wrote in article <··············@rowlf.interhack.net> on Saturday
> 19 July 2003 06:49 in comp.lang.lisp:
>
> > There is nothing unethical about the willful exchange of a product or
> > service under terms acceptable to all involved parties.
> >
>
> Basically, using non-free software means giving up on your freedom.
> I find it unethical for an individual or a company to ask people to give up
> their freedom.
Please post what definition of freedom you are using and where you got
it from. If your apparent definition of freedom was applied to a car
for example you would be saying it was wrong to sell you a car without
giving you the factory that went with it and all engineering documents
>
> By your rationale, there's nothing unethical in exploiting immigrants. We all
> know how many new immigrants end up working in horrible conditions and
> underpaid. Most of them are not forced; it is just their only solution.
Well from personal experience a shitty job where I am being taken advantage
of beats the hell out of no job. Now what kind of job should someone be
offered who has no marketable skills and at what pay rate? The only thing
they are useful for is to do work that a machine can do but they can do it
cheaper.
>
> Of course I'm not saying both issues are as grave, but I'm pointing out that
> there is a flaw in your definition of ethical. You can always force people to
> agree. In the case of proprietary software, it's through misinformation and
> monopoly. Many people are not even aware they could have the freedom free
> software give, and when they learn about it, it's often too late because
> they're in a situation where they cannot afford to switch to free software.
Why must proprietary software always be linked with MicroSoft?
>
> Sam
> --
> "There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
> - The Church of Emacs' Confession of Faith
I guess that explains it.
marc
From: Artie Gold
Subject: Re: ethics of business [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL]
Date:
Message-ID: <3F19CD3A.20206@austin.rr.com>
Marc Spitzer wrote:
> Sam Zoghaib <·····@zep.homedns.orgSPAM> writes:
>
>
>>Matt Curtin wrote in article <··············@rowlf.interhack.net> on Saturday
>>19 July 2003 06:49 in comp.lang.lisp:
>>
>>
>>>There is nothing unethical about the willful exchange of a product or
>>>service under terms acceptable to all involved parties.
>>>
>>
>>Basically, using non-free software means giving up on your freedom.
>>I find it unethical for an individual or a company to ask people to give up
>>their freedom.
>
>
> Please post what definition of freedom you are using and where you got
> it from. If your apparent definition of freedom was applied to a car
> for example you would be saying it was wrong to sell you a car without
> giving you the factory that went with it and all engineering documents
Bad analogy. First of all, no one _sells_ you software, you buy a
_license_ to said software. So you don't really own it. The other point
is that it's more akin to selling you -- oops, selling you a license to
use, under specific limitations -- a car with the hood welded shut. You
can also only use one mechanic, who decides if and when they want to
make a repair available to you. And if you decide to try to figure out
how it works by prying open the welded hood, well.....
>
>
>>By your rationale, there's nothing unethical in exploiting immigrants. We all
>>know how many new immigrants end up working in horrible conditions and
>>underpaid. Most of them are not forced; it is just their only solution.
>
>
> Well from personal experience a shitty job where I am being taken advantage
> of beats the hell out of no job. Now what kind of job should someone be
> offered who has no marketable skills and at what pay rate? The only thing
> they are useful for is to do work that a machine can do but they can do it
> cheaper.
>
>
>>Of course I'm not saying both issues are as grave, but I'm pointing out that
>>there is a flaw in your definition of ethical. You can always force people to
>>agree. In the case of proprietary software, it's through misinformation and
>>monopoly. Many people are not even aware they could have the freedom free
>>software give, and when they learn about it, it's often too late because
>>they're in a situation where they cannot afford to switch to free software.
>
>
>
> Why must proprietary software always be linked with MicroSoft?
Because of the fact that much, if not most, of their growth has occurred
through the abuse of their power in the market, not due to either
quality of product nor quality of marketing.
[snip]
Just my 1/50th of a buck.
--ag
--
Artie Gold -- Austin, Texas
Artie Gold <·········@austin.rr.com> writes:
> Marc Spitzer wrote:
> > If your apparent definition of freedom was applied to a car
> > for example you would be saying it was wrong to sell you a car without
> > giving you the factory that went with it and all engineering documents
>
> Bad analogy. First of all, no one _sells_ you software, you buy a
> _license_ to said software.
Okay, so what about leasing a car?
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: ethics of business [was: GCL, CLISP and CMUCL]
Date:
Message-ID: <3F19F284.6070905@nyc.rr.com>
Thomas F. Burdick wrote:
> Artie Gold <·········@austin.rr.com> writes:
>
>
>>Marc Spitzer wrote:
>>
>>>If your apparent definition of freedom was applied to a car
>>>for example you would be saying it was wrong to sell you a car without
>>>giving you the factory that went with it and all engineering documents
>>
>>Bad analogy. First of all, no one _sells_ you software, you buy a
>>_license_ to said software.
>
>
> Okay, so what about leasing a car?
>
god, i love argument by analogy. it's like when... doh!
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
http://www.tilton-technology.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Everything is a cell." -- Alan Kay
Kenny Tilton wrote:
>
>
> Thomas F. Burdick wrote:
>
>> Artie Gold <·········@austin.rr.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>> Marc Spitzer wrote:
>>>
>>>> If your apparent definition of freedom was applied to a car
>>>> for example you would be saying it was wrong to sell you a car without
>>>> giving you the factory that went with it and all engineering documents
>>>
>>>
>>> Bad analogy. First of all, no one _sells_ you software, you buy a
>>> _license_ to said software.
>>
>>
>>
>> Okay, so what about leasing a car?
>>
>
> god, i love argument by analogy. it's like when... doh!
>
Wouldn't that be, like, a simile? <g,d&rvf>
--ag
--
Artie Gold -- Austin, Texas
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> god, i love argument by analogy. it's like when... doh!
/me wields the Blunt Rusty Saw of Analogy +2
-dan
--
http://www.cliki.net/ - Link farm for free CL-on-Unix resources
Thomas F. Burdick wrote:
> Artie Gold <·········@austin.rr.com> writes:
>
>
>>Marc Spitzer wrote:
>>
>>>If your apparent definition of freedom was applied to a car
>>>for example you would be saying it was wrong to sell you a car without
>>>giving you the factory that went with it and all engineering documents
>>
>>Bad analogy. First of all, no one _sells_ you software, you buy a
>>_license_ to said software.
>
>
> Okay, so what about leasing a car?
>
Oh, sure. Clip the good parts. ;-)
--ag
--
Artie Gold -- Austin, Texas
> Marc Spitzer wrote:
> > Why must proprietary software always be linked with MicroSoft?
Artie Gold <·········@austin.rr.com> writes:
> Because of the fact that much, if not most, of their growth has occurred
> through the abuse of their power in the market, not due to either quality
> of product nor quality of marketing.
You missed the direction of the question. You've explained why Microsoft
is clearly linked with proprietary software. But the question is the reverse.
There's lots of proprietary software that has nothing to do with Microsoft.
It's easily possible to support the idea of proprietary software, while at
the same time believing that Microsoft is bad for society (or for the
computer software industry, at least).
Thus, if you want to argue against proprietary software, you've got to do a
lot better than just saying "Microsoft is bad". Yes, but so what?
-- Don
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ ···@geddis.org
There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear.
-- Daniel Dennett
Marc Spitzer wrote in article <··············@bogomips.optonline.net> on
Sunday 20 July 2003 00:42 in comp.lang.lisp:
> If your apparent definition of freedom was applied to a car
> for example you would be saying it was wrong to sell you a car without
> giving you the factory that went with it and all engineering documents
Cars are not like software, because software can be passed along at no (or
very low) cost. Artie Gold has pretty well replied to the argument.
> Well from personal experience a shitty job where I am being taken advantage
> of beats the hell out of no job. Now what kind of job should someone be
> offered who has no marketable skills and at what pay rate?
My point was they are treated worse than natives from the country because they
are less protected by the State. That's unacceptable.
>
> Why must proprietary software always be linked with MicroSoft?
I am not linking it all with Microsoft (MIT's hacker paradise was destroyed
before the rise of Microsoft). However, Microsoft has the biggest monopoly
with proprietary software.
>> --
>> "There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
>> - The Church of Emacs' Confession of Faith
>
> I guess that explains it.
This quote is a joke. From Richard Stallman's site:
"Warning: taking the Church of Emacs (or any church) too seriously may be
hazardous to your health."
http://www.stallman.org/saint.html
Sam
--
"If sharing a thing in no way diminishes it, it is not rightly owned if it is
not shared."
- St Augustine
Sam Zoghaib <·····@zep.homedns.orgSPAM> writes:
> ...
I suggest that you stop to believe in Stallman in the way you do at the
moment. He has done quite some good, but his extreme position has also
lead to a lot of problems. You will probably learn that some time, but
better learn it now. The following (very unfair but amusing) post was for
me the first point to reconsider my view of RMS:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=slrn7d3bnp.b60.maynard%40mr-gateway.internal.net
It's most positive effect was that it stopped an endless thread on
gnu.misc.discuss very suddenly :-)
Nicolas.
Nicolas Neuss <·············@iwr.uni-heidelberg.de> writes:
> Sam Zoghaib <·····@zep.homedns.orgSPAM> writes:
>
> > ...
>
> I suggest that you stop to believe in Stallman in the way you do at the
> moment. He has done quite some good, but his extreme position has also
> lead to a lot of problems. You will probably learn that some time, but
> better learn it now. The following (very unfair but amusing) post was
> for
It is unfair, because it contains a severe personal attack - and I guess
that I should not have posted it because of that reason. On the other
hand, the poster very much honors the efforts of RMS and this fits quite
well with my opinion, too.
One simply should not choose him as an infallible guru.
Nicolas.
Nicolas Neuss wrote in article <··············@ortler.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de>
on Sunday 20 July 2003 18:20 in comp.lang.lisp:
>> I suggest that you stop to believe in Stallman in the way you do at the
>> moment.
I don"t believe in RMS because he's RMS. I believe in him because I agree with
his views on most points, and because he's always been consistent and honest
about these.
>
> It is unfair, because it contains a severe personal attack - and I guess
> that I should not have posted it because of that reason. On the other
> hand, the poster very much honors the efforts of RMS
I agree with your analysis of the post. What's the point in attacking the man
personally? It just shows lack of serious content.
> One simply should not choose him as an infallible guru.
>
He's not an infaillible guru to me. A lot of my signatures happen to be quotes
from him, because eitheir they are funny, or they convey the spirit of free
software in a short sentence.
Now, I'm sorry that my use of "cannot" in a sentence has entailed such a long
off-topic discussion. It was not my intention.
Sam
--
"Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is
free to use the results."
- Richard Stallman
Sam Zoghaib <·····@zep.homedns.orgSPAM> writes:
> Marc Spitzer wrote in article <··············@bogomips.optonline.net> on
> Sunday 20 July 2003 00:42 in comp.lang.lisp:
>
> > If your apparent definition of freedom was applied to a car
> > for example you would be saying it was wrong to sell you a car without
> > giving you the factory that went with it and all engineering documents
>
> Cars are not like software, because software can be passed along at no (or
> very low) cost. Artie Gold has pretty well replied to the argument.
not really. Your argument was that you wanted all the design/R&D work
on a product to be delivered with that product and you want to be able
to distribute it. My argument was that the access to the design/R&D
information(code) is worth much more then the right to run a binary
copy that just does the job.
>
> > Well from personal experience a shitty job where I am being taken advantage
> > of beats the hell out of no job. Now what kind of job should someone be
> > offered who has no marketable skills and at what pay rate?
>
> My point was they are treated worse than natives from the country
> because they are less protected by the State. That's unacceptable.
Are you talking about legal immigrants, illegal immigrants, or
contracted laborers? I can not speak about other countries but mine,
USA, says that legal immigrants have the same due process rights as
citizens. Now illegal immigrants are different, it is not that they
have no protection under the law, they have the same protection's that
I do. It is that if they go to the law they stand a good chance of
being deported because they have no legal right to be here so they do
not invoke those rights. Contract labors are brought in to do a job,
when the job stops they leave, but they still have full protection
under the law. But if they loose their job they go home.
>
> >
> > Why must proprietary software always be linked with MicroSoft?
>
> I am not linking it all with Microsoft (MIT's hacker paradise was destroyed
> before the rise of Microsoft). However, Microsoft has the biggest monopoly
> with proprietary software.
>
>
> >> --
> >> "There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
> >> - The Church of Emacs' Confession of Faith
> >
> > I guess that explains it.
>
> This quote is a joke. From Richard Stallman's site:
>
> "Warning: taking the Church of Emacs (or any church) too seriously may be
> hazardous to your health."
>
> http://www.stallman.org/saint.html
>
> Sam
> --
> "If sharing a thing in no way diminishes it, it is not rightly owned if it is
> not shared."
>
> - St Augustine
This does not apply, the reason for risking money on something new is
that it will make me more money. So by giving product away you are
adding to my risk that I will not recover my money, let alone make a
profit. This leads to no new investment in software development.
marc
Marc Spitzer wrote in article <··············@bogomips.optonline.net> on
Sunday 20 July 2003 20:42 in comp.lang.lisp:
> My argument was that the access to the design/R&D
> information(code) is worth much more then the right to run a binary
> copy that just does the job.
That's true; my point is that the sole right of running a binary copy is not
enough. Worse, some licenses only allow you to run the binary for some
specific purposes.
To me, software is more akin to a mathematical proof than a car. today, people
wouldn't accept being given only the results of theorems, not being given the
right to check the proof of the theorem, modify it (for instance to
generalize the theorem), ot even worse, being only allowed the right use the
theorem in specific purposes. Hey you! You used the Real Spectral Theorem
without my consent, and worse, you extended it to complex matrices! I'm gonna
put you in jail!
I consider software to be closer to a math proof because it is as intangible,
can be conceived as easily (you basically need an editor and compiler; in
case of math the compiler being the brain).
I know it is only *one* view of software; other people consider software an
industry and not a science (or an art) and therefore distribute software the
same way they would distribute cars. There's no point in trying to prove one
or the other view is false. None is. People make choices about what view they
adopt. People could have adopted the industry view about mathematics. I'm
happy we didn't.
Unfortunately for people who believe in free software, lots of people have
adopted the industry view about software.
> Are you talking about legal immigrants, illegal immigrants, or
> contracted laborers? I can not speak about other countries but mine,
> USA, says that legal immigrants have the same due process rights as
> citizens. Now illegal immigrants are different, it is not that they
> have no protection under the law, they have the same protection's that
> I do. It is that if they go to the law they stand a good chance of
> being deported because they have no legal right to be here so they do
> not invoke those rights. Contract labors are brought in to do a job,
> when the job stops they leave, but they still have full protection
> under the law. But if they loose their job they go home.
>
If we only consider legal immigrants and contract labors, from what I've seen,
they often have no choice but to accept to be treated poorly, because if they
complain, their emloyer can claim he cannot afford to treat them better and
thus revoke their contract (to them being exploited is better than no job).
Furthermore, and that was the point of the analogy with software, they often
are misinformed about their rights (especially when the' re not highly
educated). I guess we cannot extend the comparison much further.
Sam
--
"Giving the Linus Torvalds Award to the Free Software Foundation is a bit like
giving the Han Solo Award to the Rebel Alliance"
- Richard Stallman, August 1999
Sam Zoghaib <·····@zep.homedns.orgSPAM> writes:
> Marc Spitzer wrote in article <··············@bogomips.optonline.net> on
> Sunday 20 July 2003 20:42 in comp.lang.lisp:
>
> > My argument was that the access to the design/R&D
> > information(code) is worth much more then the right to run a binary
> > copy that just does the job.
>
> That's true; my point is that the sole right of running a binary
> copy is not enough. Worse, some licenses only allow you to run the
> binary for some specific purposes.
Sure it is, when you use a spreadsheet do you care about the
programming language or style it is written in or do you care that the
spreadsheet makes a nice chart to show your boss. And if you really
want the code then you can ask how much the vendor wants for it and
pay him for it.
>
> To me, software is more akin to a mathematical proof than a
> car. today, people wouldn't accept being given only the results of
> theorems, not being given the right to check the proof of the
> theorem, modify it (for instance to generalize the theorem), ot even
> worse, being only allowed the right use the theorem in specific
> purposes. Hey you! You used the Real Spectral Theorem without my
> consent, and worse, you extended it to complex matrices! I'm gonna
> put you in jail!
That is called an algorithm not an implamentation, there is a
difference.
>
> I consider software to be closer to a math proof because it is as
> intangible, can be conceived as easily (you basically need an editor
> and compiler; in case of math the compiler being the brain).
Um it is very tangible, just like the print on a books pages is
tangible.
>
> I know it is only *one* view of software; other people consider
> software an industry and not a science (or an art) and therefore
> distribute software the same way they would distribute cars. There's
I think that to build a successful car has a lot to do with science
and art.
> no point in trying to prove one or the other view is false. None
> is. People make choices about what view they adopt. People could
> have adopted the industry view about mathematics. I'm happy we
> didn't. Unfortunately for people who believe in free software, lots
> of people have adopted the industry view about software.
If you follow the FSF definition of free it contradicts the applicable
definitions I have read in dictionaries and what people generally take
free to mean, without cost and without encumbrance.
And you can patent mathmatical algorithms now. Also there are FSF/GNU
projects that use patented algorithms that can impact the ability to
use the software in question.
>
> > Are you talking about legal immigrants, illegal immigrants, or
> > contracted laborers? I can not speak about other countries but mine,
> > USA, says that legal immigrants have the same due process rights as
> > citizens. Now illegal immigrants are different, it is not that they
> > have no protection under the law, they have the same protection's that
> > I do. It is that if they go to the law they stand a good chance of
> > being deported because they have no legal right to be here so they do
> > not invoke those rights. Contract labors are brought in to do a job,
> > when the job stops they leave, but they still have full protection
> > under the law. But if they loose their job they go home.
> >
>
> If we only consider legal immigrants and contract labors, from what
> I've seen, they often have no choice but to accept to be treated
> poorly, because if they complain, their emloyer can claim he cannot
Where have you seen this? And contract labors are there to do a
specific job so when it goes away so do they. And it could be that
the shitty and abusive job he has "here" is much better in pay and
working conditions then the last job he had "there". One of the
reasons companies like contract labor is that they have much more real
power over the contractee then a normal employee, if they quit or are
fired they get to go home, something most do not want to do. But
this has nothing to do with the legal immigrant he can look for work
just like any other citizen, in the US anyway.
> afford to treat them better and thus revoke their contract (to them
> being exploited is better than no job). Furthermore, and that was
Have you ever been in the situation of "I need to pay rent and buy
food" and you have no idea where the money was coming from? When
that happens you will be happy to get that exploitive job where
you are treated like shit because it comes with a *check*.
> the point of the analogy with software, they often are misinformed
> about their rights (especially when the' re not highly educated). I
> guess we cannot extend the comparison much further.
So they can teach themselves, no I am not joking, and improve their
situation. There is absolutely nothing stopping them from learning
more to improve their situation. The absolute first thing is to
learn the dominant local language so you can get your own information.
This is hard work and if they are not willing to invest the time to
do this they deserve to get abused because they are doing everything
in their power to help the cycle to continue.
marc
"Matt Curtin" <········@interhack.net> wrote in message
···················@rowlf.interhack.net...
> There is nothing unethical about the willful exchange of a product or
> service under terms acceptable to all involved parties.
I think that is just an opinion (one I happen to share, though!) There are
many who would say prostitution is unethical, but it passes your test.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ big pond . com")
In article <·············@otis.netspace.net.au>,
"Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> writes:
>
> "Matt Curtin" <········@interhack.net> wrote in message
> ···················@rowlf.interhack.net...
>> There is nothing unethical about the willful exchange of a product or
>> service under terms acceptable to all involved parties.
>
> I think that is just an opinion (one I happen to share, though!) There are
> many who would say prostitution is unethical, but it passes your test.
depending on how you define "involved party" it might also apply to
buying stolen goods (the people the goods were stolen from usually
don't participate in those transactions)
hs
--
ceterum censeo SCO esse delendam
"Hartmann Schaffer" <··@heaven.nirvananet> wrote in message
·············@news.sentex.net...
> In article <·············@otis.netspace.net.au>,
> "Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> writes:
> >
> > "Matt Curtin" <········@interhack.net> wrote in message
> > ···················@rowlf.interhack.net...
> >> There is nothing unethical about the willful exchange of a product or
> >> service under terms acceptable to all involved parties.
> >
> > I think that is just an opinion (one I happen to share, though!) There
are
> > many who would say prostitution is unethical, but it passes your test.
>
> depending on how you define "involved party" it might also apply to
> buying stolen goods (the people the goods were stolen from usually
> don't participate in those transactions)
Yes, defining "involved party" becomes the critical piece now. If I might
represent views I don't agree with for the moment, it is easy to argue that
allowing prostitution effects the morality of society as a whole which then
effects everyone, hence we are all "involved" at that level. I guess this
is a fine view point, not really a matter for logical debate. We now have
to decide if laws should try to dictate morality. Which they shouldn't.
Law should be only about rights and obligations, freedoms and
responsibilities, not good and evil.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ big pond . com")
Janis Dzerins <·····@latnet.lv> wrote in message news:<···············@gulbis.latnet.lv>...
> Sam Zoghaib <·····@zep.homedns.orgSPAM> writes:
>
> > I'll look at ECL and SBCL. If by "commercial" you mean proprietary, I cannot
> > use them (I only use free software).
>
> The constraint is imposed by yourself, no? I don't want to start a
> new discussion of free/Free vs. proprietary, but why do you not want
> to consider the commercial alternatives? Are you afraid you might
> like them? Are you afraid to learn that they are in many ways better
> than the "free" alternatives?
>
> Rant follows:
>
> The biggest incentive for people to use "free" software is to fight
> the "bad" commercial software.
Hmm... I think there are several incentives...
> But commercial Common Lisp vendors are
> our friends! They make good software! And if I want them to make
> even better software I go and buy their products. It's that simple.
What do you mean by friends? So I have some friends that I didn't know
about? That's nice: Hello Roger Corman, would you mind if I come over
to lunch today?
CL vendors are businesses and they work for money, period!
Also the quality of software a company makes isn't necessary
correlated to the money they earn. Look at Micros**t for an example.
The reason for this is also the money:
Once your goal is to make money(which is the goal of most businesses)
you start deciding if you try to improve your product from a technical
viewpoint or if you try to raise your income by other means like:
marketing, customer lock in, etc...
>
> Same goes to improving the "free" CLs -- if you want them to become
> better, donate some money, hardware, or anything else the developers
> need. The model is quite the same -- people need to eat.
Yes, very true. But if you want free Software to become better the
best thing you can do is to start using it! More users means more
incentive to the developers, more users means more marketing by
example and by word of mouth and finally this means more potential
future developers, bug spotters etc...
Also in the case of programming languages more users means more
programs/packages/libraries developed for that system!
Use free software and the whole world benefits from it.
Use proprietary software and ONE COMPANY profits!
Have fun
·········@gmx.net (thelifter) writes:
> Once your goal is to make money(which is the goal of most
> businesses) you start deciding if you try to improve your product
> from a technical viewpoint or if you try to raise your income by
> other means like: marketing, customer lock in, etc...
Issues like achieving customer satisfaction and marketing are all
about a critical issue in any free market: total value proposition.
The computer industry is full of examples where superior technology
dies because the people behind it fail to recognize the most
fundamental principles of free market economics. If you have the
greatest stuff in the world but you can't manage to bring it to
customers, you have failed to bring your value to the people who need
it.
Companies need to make money so that they can operate as a going
conern, i.e., make more stuff for you to use. Contrary to what many
nitwits will tell you, profit is not the sole motivation for the
existence of many serious companies at all.
> Use free software and the whole world benefits from it.
> Use proprietary software and ONE COMPANY profits!
Don't be so na�ve. Even "one company" like Microsoft isn't really a
single entity that solely benefits. There are MILLIONS OF PEOPLE who
benefit from Microsoft. Many people are employed and many people own
shares of stock that grow in value over time (and will soon receive
dividends).
This "only one company benefits from proprietary software" nonsense is
utter propaganda perpetuated by people who understand not one whit of
the economic systems that ultimately decide what is and isn't used,
whether "proprietary" or "free".
And the world is no different one way or another for your USE of "free
software": the use of the tool alone does nothing to add value.
--
Matt Curtin, CISSP, IAM, INTP. Keywords: Lisp, Unix, Internet, INFOSEC.
Founder, Interhack Corporation +1 614 545 HACK http://web.interhack.com/
Author of /Developing Trust: Online Privacy and Security/ (Apress, 2001)
thelifter wrote:
> Janis Dzerins <·····@latnet.lv> wrote in message news:<···············@gulbis.latnet.lv>...
>
>>Sam Zoghaib <·····@zep.homedns.orgSPAM> writes:
>>
>>
>>>I'll look at ECL and SBCL. If by "commercial" you mean proprietary, I cannot
>>>use them (I only use free software).
>>
>>The constraint is imposed by yourself, no? I don't want to start a
>>new discussion of free/Free vs. proprietary, but why do you not want
>>to consider the commercial alternatives? Are you afraid you might
>>like them? Are you afraid to learn that they are in many ways better
>>than the "free" alternatives?
>>
>>Rant follows:
>>
>>The biggest incentive for people to use "free" software is to fight
>>the "bad" commercial software.
>
>
> Hmm... I think there are several incentives...
>
>
>>But commercial Common Lisp vendors are
>>our friends! They make good software! And if I want them to make
>>even better software I go and buy their products. It's that simple.
>
>
> What do you mean by friends? So I have some friends that I didn't know
> about? That's nice: Hello Roger Corman, would you mind if I come over
> to lunch today?
>
> CL vendors are businesses and they work for money, period!
Does it bother you that you have to get your food from businesses that
make money in the process. No fair pretending you are a farmer.
I could never afford to hire Duane Rettig or any of the other sterling
folk over at Franz or Digitool and I am sure other vendors, but thru
this filthy, unethical, abhorrent thing known as a free market (nice
word, "free") I am able to use his code.
Hellasweet!
Meanwhile, TeamKenny has scored a goal!!! Against itself unfortunately,
and purely by accident, but I got a huge kick out of the TeamKenny
goalie turning to look at the ball in his own goal with what seemed to
be palpable dismay. Mind you, that turning to observe the own goal was
just an emergent behavior, nothing I thought to have it do.
It's alive!!!!!!!!!!!!
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
http://www.tilton-technology.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Everything is a cell." -- Alan Kay
·········@gmx.net (thelifter) writes:
> Use free software and the whole world benefits from it.
> Use proprietary software and ONE COMPANY profits!
Once you realise that what capitalist economies depend on is not
/
|
| $ dt
|
/
but
d
-- $
dt
this argument gets a lot less persuasive.
Christophe
--
http://www-jcsu.jesus.cam.ac.uk/~csr21/ +44 1223 510 299/+44 7729 383 757
(set-pprint-dispatch 'number (lambda (s o) (declare (special b)) (format s b)))
(defvar b "~&Just another Lisp hacker~%") (pprint #36rJesusCollegeCambridge)
Christophe Rhodes <·····@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<··············@lambda.jcn.srcf.net>...
> ·········@gmx.net (thelifter) writes:
>
> > Use free software and the whole world benefits from it.
> > Use proprietary software and ONE COMPANY profits!
>
> Once you realise that what capitalist economies depend on is not
> this argument gets a lot less persuasive.
Leave it to a Lisp board to use ASCII-Math...
However, your argument is silly. Financial models are nice to a point,
but you have to consider the starting principles of a capitalistic
economy. First, capitalism is supposed to advance the common good. The
whole idea is that this model, while it may seem cut-throat and
unfair, will lead to the most growth, and the most efficient
companies, which benifets everyone in the long run. If a particular
situation fits with the letter of capitalism, but not this overall
spirit, then it has no place. Monopolies are a clear example of a
situation where economists realized that the letter of capitalism was
hurting the overall good, and put in extra restrictions.
Open Source is clearly in line with the spirit of capitalism. It
allows companies to be more efficient --- spend more of their money on
their core business (fueling their growth), and less on secondary
needs such as computers. The money still gets spent, what changes is
who gets it.
·······@mindspring.com (Rayiner Hashem) writes:
> Christophe Rhodes <·····@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<··············@lambda.jcn.srcf.net>...
>> ·········@gmx.net (thelifter) writes:
>>
>> > Use free software and the whole world benefits from it.
>> > Use proprietary software and ONE COMPANY profits!
>>
>> Once you realise that what capitalist economies depend on is not
>> [ accumulated wealth ] but [ flow of wealth ]
>> this argument gets a lot less persuasive.
> Leave it to a Lisp board to use ASCII-Math...
>
> However, your argument is silly.
I think as a rebuttal to the statement I was responding to, it was far
from silly.
I do not draw from this any conclusions, other than observing a
distressing tendency of arguments being started between camps who
can't even agree on axioms.
Christophe
--
http://www-jcsu.jesus.cam.ac.uk/~csr21/ +44 1223 510 299/+44 7729 383 757
(set-pprint-dispatch 'number (lambda (s o) (declare (special b)) (format s b)))
(defvar b "~&Just another Lisp hacker~%") (pprint #36rJesusCollegeCambridge)
> I think as a rebuttal to the statement I was responding to, it was far
> from silly.
>
Your premise: It's the movement of money rather than the total
acquired money that is good for a capitalistic economy. (This is well
accepted, btw).
Your conclusion: Because OSS is free, it leads to less movement of
money.
My counterpoint: OSS leads to the same flow of money, because the
money saved on open source tends to get spent elsewhere.
The only way your conclusion can be correct is if you can prove that
money saved on OSS software does not get spent elsewhere. I believe
that not to be the case. The companies that would save money on OSS
software tend to be smaller than the larger companies that make lots
of money on commercial software. Its well known that people who have
less money are more apt to spend it quickly. If you consider the huge
cash reserves of companies like Microsoft and Apple, I'd say it was a
fair bet that large commercial software companies are more likely to
bank that money than their customers would be.
·······@mindspring.com (Rayiner Hashem) wrote in message news:<····························@posting.google.com>...
> My counterpoint: OSS leads to the same flow of money, because the
> money saved on open source tends to get spent elsewhere.
The flow of money would be different. This is because Free Software
does not make serious provisions that a developer is compensated
economically. In the GNU essay "Selling Free Software," it advocates
selling bytes that people can easily distribute for free.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
However, a GNU person would counter that the software industry doesn't
reward skillful developers either. Look at forums where people
complain about 80 hour weeks, or how uncaring programmers are hired
through nepotism and outsourcing. Does our current system reward good
technology, or the cheapest thing some guy slaps together?
The GNU person would also claim that people still need business skills
to make money with Free Software. The JBoss people seem to be doing
ok, though I don't think they release financial info. And maybe in an
Advogato-style way, Free Software will provide a sort of certification
where developers can be judged by the public way they handle projects.
But it is a very muddled debate. Microsoft apparently kept hardware
manufacturers in check. Maybe MS led to affordable computers, because
hardware manufacturers couldn't compete much except on price. Or
maybe they destroyed innovation because manufacturers could only
compete on price.
People who know the answers to these questions have been silent, as
far as I can tell. Leaving dime store pundits like me.
> The flow of money would be different. This is because Free Software
> does not make serious provisions that a developer is compensated
> economically. In the GNU essay "Selling Free Software," it advocates
> selling bytes that people can easily distribute for free.
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
>
Yes, the flow of money would be different. But the amount of money
that changes hands would not change, and you originally asserted that
this was the figure that mattered when considering the impact of OSS
on the economy. The main thing here is that instead of money going to
the developer, the money goes somewhere else (hiring more workers,
increased salaries, expanding the business, etc).
In article <············@news-reader5.wanadoo.fr>,
Sam Zoghaib <·····@zep.homedns.orgSPAM> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am planning to start using Common Lisp in projects, and was considering
> which of these 3 implementations to use.
[...]
> Can you give any advice on this issue? Is there a real difference in
> performance (in all aspects, not only speed) between these implementations?
I can't give you any real advice because I haven't used any of the
alternatives you mention. However, what I have gotten out of other
threads about such questions is that it depends strongly on the type of
application you want to write what implementation gives you better
efficiency characteristics. So I think people will be able to give you
better advice if give more details about your intended application.
Apart from that it is pretty safe to just start with one of the
ANSI-conformant implementations and then at a later stage, do some
comparisons with actual code. (Unless you depend upon proprietary
extensions.)
Pascal
Sam Zoghaib <·····@zep.homedns.orgSPAM> wrote in message news:<············@news-reader5.wanadoo.fr>...
> Hello,
(print "Hello, Sam!")
> I am planning to start using Common Lisp in projects, and was considering
> which of these 3 implementations to use.
Well, I'm not a luminary or major CL coder, but as a reasonably
competent coder who
is using CL on a free platform (GNU/Linux), I can help with the
question at hand.
> I recall having read somewhere that CLISP generates faster code than GCL, and
> according to CMUCL's site, it is faster than CLISP, though it requires more
> memory.
Nah, CLISP is bytecode compiled, while GCL is theoretically
native-code compiled. I say "theoretically" because A) GCL compiles
to C, which is then run through GCC to produce object code, and B) I
never could get GCL to actually, you know, "work". It'd do an
interpreted REPL, but compilation produced output files that wouldn't
link right. I gave up on it, since it isn't standard anyway; CLTL1 is
ancient history by now. :-)
As for CLISP, I think it's a decent learning platform. Very nice
interface, even if you don't use Emacs on top of it, it comes with GNU
Readline support on platforms that have it (yours will), and while it
is bytecode compiled, it's decently fast. Faster than Java at many
things, anyway. Its online documentation (accessible via the
DOCUMENTATION and DESCRIBE functions) sucks, though. Not much there.
Also, if you do a lot of OO stuff with CLOS, CLISP doesn't quite cut
it, it's missing a few things, like
UPDATE-INSTANCE-FOR-REDEFINED-CLASS (yes, you can do that). At
least, this was true last time I looked, so things may have changed
since. Important note: CLISP has Unicode support, so if you need
that, CLISP is a good choice.
CMUCL, now that I like. It's more mature than CLISP, and it also
compiles to native code. It can, with proper optimization, be as fast
as C most of the time. Sometimes I've seen CL programs in CMUCL run
faster than the C versions of the same algorithm, sometimes a bit
slower. Usually, I've found, it ranges a bit between 50 percent
faster or slower, not a very significant variation anyway (different C
compilers can vary between each other like this, as Kaz Kyhelku said
somewhere in this group that I can't recall). It does take more
memory than CLISP does, but not as much as my JVM does, so you're
still in good company. :-) Besides which, its reported memory use is
much higher in on Linux-based platforms than what's actually being
used, because it overcommits memory (probably to ensure the arena
isn't fragmented or something, don't quote me on that).
CMUCL has much better online documentation, which actually, oh,
*documents* what the operator/variable/package/class/thingy in
question does. It's pretty detailed documentation, and very helpful.
Also, CMUCL comes with lots of helpful extensions, though it doesn't
have Unicode support yet. This is forthcoming, though, and according
to the project page it'll be along Real Soon Now.
Besides those, there's other good CL implementations for GNU
systems, like SBCL (fork of CMUCL emphasizing portability and
maintainability of the compiler), ECLS (compiles to C code like GCL,
but ANSI compliant, and actually worth the effort), and the
proprietary implementations from Franz (Allegro) and Xanalys
(Lispworks and Lucid), as well as Scieneer, which is based on CMUCL.
You can get free trial versions of them which, to my knowledge, fully
implement the ANSI standard; they just come with some extensions
disabled, which don't necessarily matter if you're just learning. On
the other hand, you mentioned elsewhere in the thread that you prefer
to use free software, but even so, there's enough variety for ya, I
think.
> However, I was seriously considering GCL as it will likely be the first
> implementation ported to the GNU/Hurd (which will be one of the main systems
> I'll be programming on). My main concern with GCL is that it seems to be the
> less ANSI-compliant implementation of the three.
HURD? You *are* a masochist. Sheesh. :-) Seriously, though, I'm
sure that CMUCL and CLISP will be ported to HURD when (if) it becomes
ready for primetime. In the meantime, GNU/Linux systems already have
CMUCL, CLISP, SBCL, ECLS, etc, available, so why not use them? In
fact, CLISP works on pretty much every platform I know of as still
existing today in any "real" capacity (Unices, MacOS, Win32, and
such). I don't know that it's been ported to VMS, and if anyone is
still using TOPS-10 or TOPS-20 nowadays, I wish them well. :-)
Hope this helps,
Avi Blackmore
Sam Zoghaib <·····@zep.homedns.orgspam> wrote:
> However, I was seriously considering GCL as it will likely be the first
> implementation ported to the GNU/Hurd (which will be one of the main systems
> I'll be programming on).
If HURD it must be, then you are probably best off woth CLISP. It's
not advertised as running on there, but unix/PLATFORMS offers some
advice for compiling on HURD as well, so I'm guessing that it's doable.
Cheers,
-- Nikodemus
Greetings! I just saw your post. Just wanted to confirm that ansi
compliance is a high priority goal for GCL, which we hope to approach
in the near future. And that we'd also like to hear about a hurd
port. There are no debian hurd public machines as yet, so alas I
cannot help directly, but I'd like to know about any issues.
Take care,
Sam Zoghaib <·····@zep.homedns.orgSPAM> writes:
> Hello,
>
> I am planning to start using Common Lisp in projects, and was considering
> which of these 3 implementations to use.
> I recall having read somewhere that CLISP generates faster code than GCL, and
> according to CMUCL's site, it is faster than CLISP, though it requires more
> memory.
> However, I was seriously considering GCL as it will likely be the first
> implementation ported to the GNU/Hurd (which will be one of the main systems
> I'll be programming on). My main concern with GCL is that it seems to be the
> less ANSI-compliant implementation of the three.
> Can you give any advice on this issue? Is there a real difference in
> performance (in all aspects, not only speed) between these implementations?
>
> Thank you,
> Sam
> --
> "People sometimes ask me if it is a sin in the Church of Emacs to use vi.
> Using a free version of vi is not a sin; it's a penance".
>
> - Richard Stallman
>
--
Camm Maguire ····@enhanced.com
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Baha'u'llah