Subject: Re: bincancel:22 large binaries:AR679:@@NCM
From: red@redpoll.mrfs.oh.us (Richard E. Depew)
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 11:11:24 GMT
Large binary posts do not belong in unmoderated discussion groups.
I run a program that searches for, and issues advisory cancels for,
large binaries in the akr, biz, comp, misc, news, rec, and sci
hierarchies.
I have issued 22 cancels for large binary files (average size 165,646
characters - total size 3,644,218 characters) posted to 16 different
unmoderated discussion groups in the comp, misc, news, rec, and sci
hierarchies (with cross-posts into into alt and us groups) as follows:
4 comp.sys.mac.comm
3 news.newusers.questions
2 comp.sys.newton.misc
2 comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure
1 sci.environment
1 sci.engr.electrical.compliance
1 sci.astro.amateur
1 rec.pets.cats
1 rec.models.railroad
1 rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys
1 rec.arts.startrek.misc
1 rec.arts.disney.animation
1 comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.misc
1 comp.os.ms-windows.apps.utilities.win95
1 alt.politics.economics
alt.politics.usa.republican
alt.conspiracy
alt.politics.reform
alt.politics.usa.congress
alt.politics.perot
alt.censorship
us.taxes
misc.taxes
sci.econ
alt.politics.clinton
alt.politics.democrats.d
The cancels in non-targeted groups are a consequence of the way
cross-posts work. A cross-posted article has only one Message-ID.
When it is canceled from one group it is canceled from all groups.
This pointer is being posted to each affected group listed above.
Follow-ups are directed to news.admin.net-abuse.misc.
If you want to see exactly which file was deleted from a particular
group, read the full report in news.admin.net-abuse.announce. The
full report can also be found in alt.nocem.misc and alt.retromod.
Look for AR679 in the subject, or, if your reader supports it, use
this
The criteria used to search for this batch of large binaries were:
NEWSGROUPS: Unmoderated akr, biz, comp, misc, news, rec, or sci
(except for comp.binaries.apple2, comp.bugs.2bsd,
and rec.games.bolo)
BINARY: base64, binhex, uuencode, and xbtoa encoded files, etc.
SIZE: > 100,000 characters [(size * (# of parts - .5)), if multi-part]
If you must post a binary to Usenet, please post it *only* to an
appropriate binaries newsgroup such as alt.binaries.misc, and do *not*
crosspost it to non-binaries groups. Then, if you like, post something
in the appropriate discussion group telling people where to find the
binary in the binaries group (a pointer to the binary). This will
permit news administrators and users to decide for themselves whether
to receive the binary files.
For more information about binary cancels, see the bincancel FAQ,
.
Please direct public feedback to news.admin.net-abuse.misc and private
feedback to red@redpoll.mrfs.oh.us. In the interests of preventing
cross-posted flame wars, please honor the followup-to header and do
*not* cross-post your reply to multiple groups. Thanks for your
cooperation.
Best wishes,
Dick
--
Richard E. Depew, Munroe Falls, OH red@redpoll.mrfs.oh.us (home)
It's over, and can't be helped, and that's one consolation, as they
always say in Turkey, when they cut the wrong man's head off''
-- Charles Dickens, _The Pickwick Papers_
Subject: Re: Social planning & free markets
From: Brian Sandle
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 01:53:54 +1200
On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, Gary Elmes wrote:
[...]
> Should producers of wool sell it to local carpet manufacturers at a lower
> price than they can get by exporting it? I don't think many farmers will take
> you up on that.
Thanks to the posters who reminded us of the health risks of carpets.
A few hours ago I watched a program on the health of New Zealand
children. Diseases which were eliminated from Baltimore 40 years ago are
still rife in Auckland. Meningococcal meningitis is very common.
The National Party has retained lots of its seats at the recent election.
The saying goes that if an incumbent party is to do well for a third term
then the people have to be feeling good. It was said that if our Rugby
Football team, the All Blacks, had not produced such a good `feel' with
their wins then people would have turned against the government more.
For how long will New Zealanders allow the `good feel' to control their
lives? Possibly 10% ever get the new cars which take an inordinate amount
of TV advertising time. And carpet advertisements also take much time.
Obviously they are trying to increase demand and price, and the cost of
the ads must be in the eventual product cost. If carpets are kept clean
and made chemical free they can help with warmth for many.
The cost of transportation of bulky items like wool is possibly
artificially low at present. I hate to think how we will be looked back
at by future generations dealing with CO2 and lack of coal or oil. We
might not currently blame farmers following the demands of the current
price system or market system, but I think that an economic system with
better consideration for long time spans may be likely to have cost of
carpet made near home cheaper. Wool may be in demand overseas but is it
really economic sense to leave our future economic producers, our
children, in such poor health while following the short term picture?
The other angle to what I was saying was that all the timber in the house
being as cheap as the carpet means that houses should not be as dear as
they are. That is born out by some 200 - 300 cases of overvalued houses
currently under investigation, though the proper market figures, what a
large per centage of people can be persuaded to pay, seem still too
great.
> > [snip]
> >There is some constraint to be doing unsuitable work. The idea is to make
> >the ecomomy better by having jobs a little scarce therefore having people
> >the ones employed working harder.
>
> We have just come through a period where jobs were "a little scarce"; was it
> fun for you?
I don't have shares in the industries which people turn to to drown their
worries, or in the patch up industries.
> [snip]
> >: _You_ may have been indoctrinated into the old protestant work ethic. But
> >: please spare the rest of us.
> >
> >Now we are talking the same language. Why does unemployment have such
> >a horror image? It needn't but what planning is needed if drug
> >dependence/gang sociology isn't to replace it?
>
> Why the rush to plan, control, dictate?
So you don't mind the child's finger ends being lost to meningitis?
> All that is needed is a bit of lateral thinking about how to separate income
> from total dependence on wage-labour; together with a change in the focus in
> the education system, away from training people for work and towards educating
> them for life.
>
> The value of wage labour to production is inevitably going to fall in the
> future, as machines become able to do more & more. If we maintain dependence
> on wage-labour as the primary source of income, then we risk going back 400
> years to the time when the great majority slaved for a subsistence income.
>
> I have posted here a number of times about using a "social wage" to avoid this
> trap. It seems to me to be the best way of avoiding the difficulties of the
> transition away from a wage-oriented economy, without giving way to massive
> State intervention.
There is a lot in that to think about. It is a big challenge for the
current market system.
> [snip]
> >: If nobody wants something, then it is, ipso facto, valueless.
> >:
> >: Value is a function of wants and scarcity. If nobody wants it, or it ain't
> >: scarce, then it ain't valuable. to define value otherwise is to descend into
> >: mysticism.
> >:
> >
> >Scarcity is related to space and time separation. Gold had tremendously
> >decreasing purchasing power as one travelled towards the gold mining areas
> >of previous century America. And what is not `valuable' now will be later
> >as resources are used. If current economics continue, even the
> >future scarcity of air could become a big money spinner for some. Do we
> >want that? Having to buy air? The carbon tax now has something to do with
> >it. Christchurch people have voluntarily saved water, so metered charging
> >has not had to be introduced. That is a saving in accounting, too.
> >
> >I challenge your classing of future planning as mysticism.
>
> I have not defined future planning as mysticism. I haven't even mentioned
> future planning, so it is absurd for you to draw that inference!
Your defintion of value depended on a short time horizon.
>
> The basic definition of value being defined by scarcity and utility still
> stands when you take an inter-temporal viewpoint.
>
> If something is abundant now, but is going to become scarce within our time
> horizon, then we will start to treat it as scarce.
How many years ahead should we place our time horizon?
>
>
> >: : [snip]
> >: >I have said before that keeping people tied up with playing around with
> >: >money could be a saving on the environment. A better answer is improved
> >: >time calculation and control in economics. Better brains than those
> >: >locked into the present by pot smoking are needed.
> >:
> >: Banks do not pay people to play silly buggers with their cash because they
> > are
> >: keen to protect the environment!
> >
> >What is the world's top corporation and is it starting to look at future
> >resource management? Perhaps it will start to draw your little banks into
> >line.
>
> Banks are not in the business of resource management, they are in the business
> of money management.
And the dichotomy may be a huge problem.
> Given that they are in an almost pure information industry, however, banks are
> probably among the most environmentally friendly commercial organisations
> around.
Information can lead to the worst exploitation.
>
>
> >: Banks incur the costs of doing business on financial markets because it is
> >: necessary to provide their customers with the services that their customers
> >: are prepared to pay for.
> >:
> >: Do you seriously think that banks would incur these costs if it wasn't
> >: necessary to provide a level of service?
> >
> >Futures to you mean insurance against goods whose planing/production is a
> >few months, perhaps. Some people have centuries in mind.
>
> Some people are avoiding answering the question...
>
I was saying that a service with a short term horizon is a big let down.
Brian Sandle
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictioRs
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 14:18:57 GMT
davwhitt@med.unc.edu (David Whitt) wrote for all to see:
>In article <32783b60.337010293@nntp.st.usm.edu>,
>Harold Brashears wrote:
>>davwhitt@med.unc.edu (David Whitt) wrote for all to see:
>>>The world's resources are not increases.
>>
>>I do not think that is correct. I note that the world has more
>>resources now than it did twenty years ago, indeed, there are
>>resources now that were trash not too long ago. People make
>>resources.
>
>It would be more accurate to say our ability to locate and use resources
>is increasing rather than to say the world's resources are increasing.
>The resources are there whether or not we have the ability to utilize
>them.
No, that is not what I meant. I understand what you are saying, and I
agree with you that technology makes it easier to use resources we
could not use before. But I do mean literally that people make
resources. There are many commodities available today by the car load
lot that did not exist a few decades ago. Commodities that are used
to manufacture improved housing cars, toys, etc.
>Someday if we ever get fusion to work then we'll have literally
>oceans of fuel, but I would not count that as a current resource and I do
>not like to bet our planet's future on the possible promises of technology.
I was not thinking of fusion. The commercial possibilities of fusion
are still problematical (unfortunately).
>
>>>The market's ability to get at
>>>more resources is. Consider the fall of the Soviet Union and the market
>>>that (and China) has opened to the US. Also consider NAFTA and the market
>>>(especially in Mexico) that has opened. US-based corporations today now
>>>have access new resources which they are now plundering at incredible
>>>rates. Also consider the stock market does not reflect actual physical
>>>wealth but intangible stocks whose value changes daily.
>>
>>The price of a stock reflects the expected resource stream (cas flow)
>>to be derived from ownership of the stock, and is the accumalated
>>wisdom of thousands of people. That is all, but what would you have
>>it reflect?
>
>Accumulated guesses would be more precise. How do we really know what a
>stock of any company is worth?
I can answer that. We know because we know what thousands of people
tell us when we look up the market value every day in the paper.
>Half of it is guesswork and the other half
>approximations of value.
If you think that we should be able to precisely calculate what a
company is worth outside the market, you do not fully understand a
free market. The value is strictly what people are willing to pay,
nothing else is of any consequence. While the US stock market is not
entirely a free market, due to imbalances in information mostly (in my
opinion), it is pretty good today.
> Even the bookkeeping is not precise depending on
>what stypes of accounting they use (ie - straight line depreciation vs.
>accelerated depreciation, cost of goods vs their market value, etc).
I repeat, these have nothing to do with market value. Market value is
calculated as the net present value of the expected future cash flows.
Since we are dealing with the future, there will always be an element
of risk, that's a part of business, and a part of life.
>>>This is not business. It is gambling.
>>
>>I am not sure I know what you mean by this statement, but I would have
>>to guess it ties in with you slight misunderstanding as to the nature
>>of a stock price.
>>
>>I would hazard the opinion that all business is gambling. When
>>advertisining is purchased, when a store is opened, when stock is
>>purchased for resale, when a new process is invented. These are all
>>gambles, the good businessman reduces the risk to the extent possible.
>
>Yes, all business is gambling. That is the point of my arguement. You
>are trying to compare a business' ability to accurately reflect the value
>of its stock to our ability to reflect the value of Earth's resources.
>You claim that since the stock market's resources are increasing, so are
>the planet's.
I did, where did I say that? Let me pause a moment and look back, and
see if I ever compared the stock market, or the resources of a
business or businesses, with the value of the Earth's
resources....Nope. Went back through the whole thread, and did not
see that. If you could point out where I brought that up, I would
appreciate it.
>My point is that you are comparing apples and oranges.
Sorry, I never tried to compare them. I really have no idea where you
got the comparison. Maybe another poster?
>
>>>>The market is intellectually honest, its paticipants
>>>>gain by making true predictions to the best of their
>>>>ability and sources of information - which, collectively,
>>>>are enormous.
>>
>>>If you believe that, I have some things in my attic I'd like to sell you.
>>
>>I fail to grasp your point here as well. Most people who work in the
>>private sector, and make errors as to what the market will want, do
>>lose money. If they are correct they make money. An example might be
>>if a person were to judge that there would be a market for an
>>occupation, train for it, and find that new technology has made the
>>position obsolete.
>
>My point here was that in order to make money, people will lie, cheat,
>steal, slander, obscure, and worse. You cannot take someone's word at
>face value, especially if they are intent on making a buck.
You have been watching too many politicians! The problem with deceit
in the market is that you can be sued for doing it. This is not a
perfect remedy by far, but it can work and certainly acts as a brake
on the level of deceit. Try suing Clinton for your middle class tax
cut!
Regards, Harold
-----
"Read not to contradict and confute; nor to believe and take
for granted; nor to find talk and discourse; but to weigh and
consider."
---Francis Bacon, Essays, "Of Studies" (1597-1625).
Subject: About that 2nd Law (was Re: Responsible comments wanted on DRAFT essay)
From: farrar@datasync.com (Paul Farrar)
Date: 31 Oct 1996 09:03:41 -0600
Since the subject of entropy and the 2nd law of thermodynamics is up
for discussion, I would like to point out that the discussion of the
Second Law and mineral ores in McCarthy's "progress pages",
URL: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/thermo/thermo.html
is incorrect (in my slightly inexpert opinion). The reason is that
it treats ores as a sort of "ideal gas" in which any atom can occupy
any position and completely neglects the entropy associated with the
chemical bonds in which the atoms participate. If bonds are important,
then the "one size fits all" analysis of this page, in which energy
requirements depend solely on concentration is no longer useful and
the analysis needs to be done separately for each ore. I would be
interested in seeing what somebody like a geochemist or physical
chemist has to say about this.
Paul Farrar
In article ,
John McCarthy wrote:
>I delayed commenting on Jay Hanson's draft essay, since I suspect he
>will not regard my comment as responsible.
>
>Except for his references to Hubbert, the numbers don't back up what
>he says. Other seriously considered energy sources than oil do
>require energy to operate but much less energy than they generate.
>Energy costs are part of dollar costs, so the cost estimates of new
>sources of energy, tar sands, oil from coal, shale oil, nuclear, wind and
>solar all take into account the energy costs. The stuff about entropy
>is pure mumbo-jumbo, because the time scale of increases in entropy in
>the solar system, whether solar energy or energy from uranium and
>thorium, is in the billions of years.
>
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
>During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
>a lot.
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions, WARNING: LONG BORING POST
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 15:14:18 GMT
andrewt@cs.su.oz.au (Andrew Taylor) wrote for all to see:
>In article <3277e82f.250164274@nntp.st.usm.edu>,
>Harold Brashears wrote:
>>I guess I must be the first to tell you, there is no such thing as a
>>malaria caccine. There are some new antimalarial drugs which have
>>replaced quinine as the treatment of choice, but no vaccine.
>>
>>Malaria is caused by a blood parasite, carried by a mosquito, called
>>the Plasmodium parasite. I think vaccines, the way we normally mean
>>the word, anyway, are only possible against viruses or bacteria, not
>>whole organisms like a parasite
>
>You should have a chat with the US Institute of Medicine. Their
>book "Malaria: Obstacles and Opportunities" has an entire chapter
>on malaria vaccines. I don't think any vaccines are in general use
>yet but there have been a number of field trials with mixed
>results.
You are right, I checked only to the extent that there is no current
vaccine. It has been pointed out to me by e-mail that this is not
correct. It has also been pointed out that a number of various
vaccines have been under development for some time, but no success
yet.
>BTW the "new" quinine replacements (quinine is still used) were developed
>in the 1940s. When the Japanese invaded Java they took over 90% of the
>world's cinchona plantations forcing the Allies to develop synthetic
>alternatives. The Germans also did some useful work on anti-malarial
>before and during the war. The US army has been responsible for much
>subsequent development of anti-malarials. But as Stein noted this work
>has been heavily cutback in recent years.
Regards, Harold
----
"It is the unavoidable implication that the incumbent is still looking
for opinions and positions and principles, that he is roaming the
ideological countryside as a kind of political brigand, grabbing what
the other guy has to make sure the other guy doesn't get the good
of it, rather than coming up with and sticking with what he knows to
be right and best."
-----Washington Post, editorial, 3/20/96