Searching \ for '[OT] If engineers ruled the world...' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=engineers+ruled
Search entire site for: 'If engineers ruled the world...'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] If engineers ruled the world...'
2006\09\11@161016 by Gökhan SEVER

picon face
Just about everybody has ideas on how to solve the world's problems, and
engineers are no exception.
But rarely are they in a position of power that would allow them to put
their ideas into effect.

*Does it take an engineer to solve the world's problems?*

But what if engineers—rather than the usual politicians, lawyers, soldiers,
and clerics—were calling the shots in the world today? Here's how they might
approach a couple of major issues facing the world today:

*High energy prices*
It's a pretty simple problem: the price of oil—a commodity in limited
supply—is rising due to ever increasing global demand. While this could be
addressed in a variety of ways—economic, political, and technical—engineers
would probably focus on the technical first.

To an engineer, the solution is equally simple: conserve, find ways to
increase supply, use oil more efficiently, and develop alternatives. All of
these lend themselves to scientific analysis and technical solutions.

Would engineers spend much time massaging OPEC oil ministers or letting
environmental politics—with its often questionable scientific
arguments—interfere with building new oil refineries (or nuclear power
plants)? I doubt it.

Not because engineers don't care about the environment, or what people
think—but because they'll tend not to let facts stand in the way. They'd
rather get to work finding and building practical solutions to a problem
than stand around debating it.

At the same time, their proclivity to plan, analyze, and build might prove
less effective—or even counterproductive—in the realms of economics and
politics, which don't lend themselves to precise calculations or predictable
outcomes. This might be, in part, what happened to Jimmy Carter—a former
nuclear engineer—when he confronted the energy crisis of the late 1970s.

Carter did indeed recommend all of the technical solutions mentioned above.
But he also went on to call for a variety of questionable economic and
political solutions as well, including oil import quotas and "windfall
profits" taxes, as well as the creation of yet another massive governmental
bureaucracy—the Department of Energy. Over 25 years later it seems little,
if anything, has been accomplished.

*The "War on Terror"*
The "War on Terror" doesn't lend itself to a straightforward technical
solution, but many aspects of it do. Certainly, if engineers had any say,
there would be no holding back on the development of the latest high-tech
weaponry, electronic surveillance, and sensing and identification equipment
designed to prevent terrorist acts.

As always, engineers would focus on producing practical, well-thought-out
solutions to specific problems, and have little patience for
style-over-substance politics—no pulling 85-year-old grandmothers from Des
Moines out of passenger lines at airports for security searches in the name
of political correctness.

Engineers' ability to stay focused and avoid being distracted from their
primary goals would serve them well, and increase the likelihood of positive
results. At the same time, this attention to detail could come at the
expense of missing the "big picture."

This was illustrated recently when I spoke with one person (an engineer) who
even suggested that engineers might be inclined to search for a biochemical
reason to explain the behavior of terrorists. A test could then be developed
to identify such individuals, and a way might even be found to "correct"
their thinking. A scary thought!

All in all, the world would certainly be different—and perhaps better in
many ways—if engineers were calling the shots. But while I think we'd be
better off if more engineers—and fewer lawyers and politicians—were in
power, I might have second thoughts about giving them total control.

R. Pell
spam_OUTrpellTakeThisOuTspamhearst.com
Source:
http://www.electronicproducts.com/print.asp?ArticleURL=vwpt.sep2006.html

2006\09\12@021633 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> *High energy prices*
> It's a pretty simple problem: the price of oil—a commodity in limited
> supply—is rising due to ever increasing global demand. While
> this could be
> addressed in a variety of ways—economic, political, and
> technical—engineers
> would probably focus on the technical first.

Maybe I am not a typical engineer, but IMHO the energy prices are *way
too low*. My solution would be very simple: let the prices rise, free
market will adapt. Of course people will, as a result of rising prices
of various goods have to adapt their lifestyles. Better today than
tomorrow.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2006\09\12@035457 by Vasile Surducan

face picon face
On 9/12/06, Wouter van Ooijen <.....wouterKILLspamspam@spam@voti.nl> wrote:
> > *High energy prices*
> > It's a pretty simple problem: the price of oil—a commodity in limited
> > supply—is rising due to ever increasing global demand. While
> > this could be
> > addressed in a variety of ways—economic, political, and
> > technical—engineers
> > would probably focus on the technical first.
>
> Maybe I am not a typical engineer, but IMHO the energy prices are *way
> too low*.

Wouter, definitely you're not moving too much from Netherland... many
people will disagree with you.

Vasile

2006\09\12@054233 by Ling SM

picon face
 > Maybe I am not a typical engineer, but IMHO the energy prices are *way
> too low*. My solution would be very simple: let the prices rise, free
> market will adapt. Of course people will, as a result of rising prices
> of various goods have to adapt their lifestyles. Better today than
> tomorrow.

Good proposal because with high energy, the value of engineering skill
shall go rocket high too.  But before that, there shall be  massive wars
to reset growth and civilization.  Then again, you could be right,
because without that there shall be wars also due to scarcity of land
due to global warming.

While there are X engineers working towards a more environmentally
balanced world, there are several factors more engineers work against
it.  Religion leaders can do much much more than engineers here in a
most cost effective mean in reducing wastages, reducing and limiting
DEsires, improving environment awareness, and at the same time
increasing happiness.  So educating and influencing religion leaders are
the most effective thing I think.

It is not a engineering or technological problem, therefore engineer's
impact shall be limited and only give a false safety front which usually
 worsen the problem.  Unlimited desire of Human being is the issue here.

Ling SM

2006\09\12@073920 by Vasile Surducan

face picon face
On 9/12/06, Ling SM <ipal11spamKILLspamsingnet.com.sg> wrote:
>  > Maybe I am not a typical engineer, but IMHO the energy prices are *way
> > too low*. My solution would be very simple: let the prices rise, free
> > market will adapt. Of course people will, as a result of rising prices
> > of various goods have to adapt their lifestyles. Better today than
> > tomorrow.
>
> Good proposal because with high energy, the value of engineering skill
> shall go rocket high too.

 Imagine that the energy price could increase by decreasing your
salary...as a fact of inflation of engineers on the (free) market. So,
how do you feel than ?

Vasile

2006\09\12@075348 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
>   Imagine that the energy price could increase by decreasing your
> salary...as a fact of inflation of engineers on the (free) market. So,
> how do you feel than ?

Vasile, I think the western salries will decrease anyway by levelling
the wealth in the world. I don't much like the way the western world is
spilling stuff, so I don't think I would object to such a decrease. But
the other 'balance' is the relative cost of man hours versus energy and
other resources. IMHO the world would benefit when in this balance
energy and resources were much higher priced than now.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2006\09\12@115257 by Vasile Surducan

face picon face
On 9/12/06, Wouter van Ooijen <.....wouterKILLspamspam.....voti.nl> wrote:
> >   Imagine that the energy price could increase by decreasing your
> > salary...as a fact of inflation of engineers on the (free) market. So,
> > how do you feel than ?
>
> Vasile, I think the western salries will decrease anyway by levelling
> the wealth in the world. I don't much like the way the western world is
> spilling stuff, so I don't think I would object to such a decrease. But
> the other 'balance' is the relative cost of man hours versus energy and
> other resources.

 You have no ideea how much right you have, but from another
perspective on which you never thought because you don't understand
it. Let me explain this in detail. 20 years ago (dark comunism here)
an engineer working in electronic field was almost a God. Do you know
why ? Because there was no information available, no replacement
components (except local manufactured and some from the East socialist
countries, mostly russians, a few czech from Tesla factory etc.)
so the engineer was higly calified even for a transistor replacement
into a colour TV (which was rarely and the buyer need an one year
schedule on the appropiate store before buying his own TV, btw a colur
TV was equal with the salary of one half year or even more - now is
$100 which is about 1/3 of a month for a low qualified romanian
worker).
The TV repair technician or the engineer could not afford to distroy a
HV transistor mounting it into the TV without thinking first, because
it cost so much that two or three events could ruin his monthly
salary... So he read and learn everything about repairment because his
job was in danger.
 Now I have a favourite word: "electronics is like knoking nails in
the walls" everyone could do it because this miracle which is the WEB
offers plenty informations, you have just to read it. (BTW I remember
how I learn ORCAD -the DOS version- without any documentation
available, it was in the era when no web was available).
Now electronic components are so cheap that almost have no value. In
the same perspective, the engineers work has a limited value.
I could tell you many about the value of engineering work (from my
own perspective) in a top tech state like US, but better not here...
:)

greetings,
Vasile

2006\09\12@124006 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 9/12/06, Wouter van Ooijen <EraseMEwouterspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTvoti.nl> wrote:

> Vasile, I think the western salries will decrease anyway by levelling
> the wealth in the world. I don't much like the way the western world is
> spilling stuff, so I don't think I would object to such a decrease. But
> the other 'balance' is the relative cost of man hours versus energy and
> other resources. IMHO the world would benefit when in this balance
> energy and resources were much higher priced than now.

Maybe we should put it this way, "I think the eastern salary will increase
anyway by leveling the wealth in the world. Since we are doing similar
work the western world is doing any way, so I don't think I would object
such an increase."

Sounds batter? ;-)

2006\09\12@124408 by David VanHorn

picon face
>
>  (BTW I remember
> how I learn ORCAD -the DOS version- without any documentation
> available, it was in the era when no web was available).



If you're still using it, I run the OldDosOrcad group on yahoo groups.

2006\09\12@124702 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 9/12/06, Vasile Surducan <piclist9spamspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote:

> > Maybe I am not a typical engineer, but IMHO the energy prices are *way
> > too low*.
>
> Wouter, definitely you're not moving too much from Netherland... many
> people will disagree with you.
>
>

Actually I agree with Wouter. Energy cost is really low. The gas price
here in US does not really affect people's driving behavior. In my
opinion (risk of being flamed), it should be raised by another 100%.

2006\09\12@132324 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Xiaofan,

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:42:43 -0400, Xiaofan Chen wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Except that it doesn't work!  Here in the UK the Government a few years ago decided to increase the cost of petrol each year by 5% above inflation,
to discourage people from driving.  On top of the huge increases that have happened over the past decades, you'd think that would work, but it
hasn't.  The milage driven each year has increased almost linearly for several decades, and over the long term has shown no sensitivity to the price
of fuel whatsoever.  When a sudden price rise happens there is some cutback by a few people, but they soon drift back into their old habits.

Petrol prices in the USA a few years ago (say 5) were about 1/4 of those in Britain - now they're about 1/2 of our prices, so in real terms they have
risen 100% over there - has it reduced driving mileage?  Hardly.  Would another 100% increase do so?  No!

A friend of mine had an idea to cut back on huge fuel-guzzlers: ban power steering!  Then see how many people would choose 4x4s as the right car
for the school-and-supermarket run!  :-)

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\09\12@132538 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> Sounds batter? ;-)

Much 'batter' :)

But I think the big changes will be the Southern salaries (Afirka), and
the Chinese and India 'midlands'.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2006\09\12@145741 by Walter Banks

picon face
The fuel shortage in the US in the 70's showed that availability
was more important than price.

The answer to the energy issues may individually be conservation
but the general solution is renewable energy probably from several
sources preferably simple renewable energy.

Wind, Solar, Bioengineered plants, space mirrors or Albus's Lilly pads.
This is an engineering problem that can be solved.

w..


Xiaofan Chen wrote:

> On 9/12/06, Vasile Surducan <KILLspampiclist9KILLspamspamgmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Maybe I am not a typical engineer, but IMHO the energy prices are *way
> > > too low*.
>
> Actually I agree with Wouter. Energy cost is really low. The gas price
> here in US does not really affect people's driving behavior. In my
> opinion (risk of being flamed), it should be raised by another 100%.
>

2006\09\12@161027 by David VanHorn

picon face
I guess it would be nice if we all lived in cities with mass transit and
small distances to cover.

There are plenty of people living here with 30+ miles to the nearest town,
and NO mass transit options at all.  Smart cars are cute, but I bet they
don't deal with a foot or more of snow very well.

2006\09\12@162217 by Steve Smith

flavicon
face
Na don't ban power steering just disable it when women are driving.... (Note
to self: Must design sensor for this) 4x4 will stay in the fields and all
the kids will get picked up in Smart cars...

Steve

{Original Message removed}

2006\09\12@171042 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 9/12/06, David VanHorn <RemoveMEdvanhornTakeThisOuTspammicrobrix.com> wrote:
> I guess it would be nice if we all lived in cities with mass transit and
> small distances to cover.
>
> There are plenty of people living here with 30+ miles to the nearest town,
> and NO mass transit options at all.  Smart cars are cute, but I bet they
> don't deal with a foot or more of snow very well.
> --

Oh yes normally people outside of US will not be able to imagine
that there are so many unused land in US.

However this is still a chick and egg problem, if it is much more
expensive to drive cars, then people will choose to live near to the
cities (even better-off people). Then mass transit can be developed.
The communities inside the city or near to the city will then be
developed. Again this will help to build up the public transport.

I know this is not what people want here though. So gas/petrol price
will continue to be low in US and the government will still need
to find a way to keep the gas/petrol price low until some alternative
energy source can be good enough to replace oil. I doubt that will
happen any time soon.

2006\09\12@171541 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 9/12/06, Howard Winter <spamBeGoneHDRWspamBeGonespamh2org.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Petrol prices in the USA a few years ago (say 5) were about 1/4
> of those in Britain - now they're about 1/2 of our prices, so in real
> terms they have risen 100% over there - has it reduced driving
> mileage?  Hardly.  Would another 100% increase do so?  No!

How about another 100%? Another 1000%? Perhaps it will.

Of course this is all based on assumptions and I think it will not happen
any time soon. Just the same as the subject. Will engineer
rule the world? Not so soon...

Why? Because we think politicians are more suitable for that job. ;-)
Leave the tough job of ruling the world to them so we can still have
people to discuss interesting topics in PIClist. ;-)

2006\09\12@173303 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
That's why I am not a polititian: many times I know what I am talking
about... some other times I know who to ask about... and the rest of the
subject come into my mind are soooo boring that I am trying to avoid to
discuss about :-)

Tamas


On 12/09/06, Xiaofan Chen <TakeThisOuTxiaofancEraseMEspamspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2006\09\12@180815 by David VanHorn

picon face
>
>
> However this is still a chick and egg problem, if it is much more
> expensive to drive cars, then people will choose to live near to the
> cities (even better-off people). Then mass transit can be developed.
> The communities inside the city or near to the city will then be
> developed. Again this will help to build up the public transport.


I'd be interested to see your proposal to handle say the state of wyoming.

2006\09\12@181553 by Yigit Turgut

picon face
On 9/13/06, Tamas Rudnai <tamas.rudnaiEraseMEspam.....gmail.com> wrote:
> That's why I am not a polititian: many times I know what I am talking
> about... some other times I know who to ask about... and the rest of the
> subject come into my mind are soooo boring that I am trying to avoid to
> discuss about :-)

+

On the other hand most of the time (%99) I do know the solution to
certain problems people are facing in daily life.A common topic or a
technical stuff - no difference.My approach is always rational and
analytical,focused on the result.

The thing is I could never transpose the real deal or the solution to
a lower level to tell these -discussion guys- .Most of the time i fall
a sleep or start to think of my gf.Its beyond my patience limits,so
boring that i prefer to do something stupid  (even to these discussion
guys) to suspend everyone talking.

2006\09\12@182516 by David VanHorn

picon face
To me, the interesting thing about an engineer in this position, is that he
would be rather reluctant to just do something for the appearance of doing
something.  He'd want to know that what he did would actually solve the
problem.   Throwing money away on things to appease the crowd is incredibly
wasteful.

2006\09\12@183345 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Dave,

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 18:08:13 -0400, David VanHorn wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Perhaps both inhabitants could share a car?  :-)

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\09\12@185119 by David VanHorn

picon face
> > I'd be interested to see your proposal to handle say the state of
> wyoming.
>
> Perhaps both inhabitants could share a car?  :-)



Well that's pretty much the problem.

Take me..
I'm in Muncie Indiana. "America's Hometown"

Our bus system shuts down at 9 PM, so workers in retail can't use it to go
home. They close at 9, and would have to do some amount of closing work, so
they'd miss the last busses.
Walmart runs 24/7 as does meijer's, both significant employers.
The bus system also shuts down on sunday, apparently jesus wants us to walk
to church.
(We also can't buy alcohol on sundays, I guess being drunk on satuday, if
you're a jew, is ok though.)


The bus system is highly acclaimed, but runs infrequently, and everything
comes to a hub, which is very inefficient unless what you want to do is
downtown.
All the usual problems of how to deal with any amount of cargo. We do have
bicycle racks and kneeling buses, and wheelchair lifts.
We have ramped curbs at most intersections.
We also plant telephone poles right in the middle of the sidewalk, leaving
about 1.5' on either side, with a building wall on the inside of the
sidewalk.

Transport to other small towns would have to be done by hitching a ride.
Transport to Anderson, same.
Indianapolis (40 miles)  same.

For those folks who live a bit outside of town, Tough luck.  No mass
transport at all, other than school buses.

Could this change?  Yes, it could, somewhat.
What do folks out of town do in winter, when the roads blow over with snow
faster than they can possibly be plowed?
"Smart" cars will  end up as traffic cones, and I'd really like to see one
after a year on our roads.

You  know why GM dosen't test tanks here?  They can't take it!.

2006\09\12@195409 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
Sound like you are talking about Ireland! Here there is NO footpath between
this small town I live and the next one, if people would like to walk or
ride a bike they have to risk their live on the bridge which is very narrow
and also bending in such way that you can't see the next 10 meters, however,
drivers do not want to go slower than 80 Km/h (50mph). The bus is like the
same, there is no timetable in the station, and even if the bus is expected
to come it may does not because the driver forget the route (they do not
properly train new drivers to the route). And even if it comes the drier
might say that there are too many people on the bus so you have to wait for
the following one -- which comes in an hour... and this is the edge of
Dublin, the capital!

Also here in Ireland the road signs is like the mess. They do not know the
standard signs so they write everything in letters, so that you have to stop
to read the table (like: "Construction ahead" - there is a proper sign for
that). Or when you see the direction sign only when you passed the exit
"here you should have turned left to get into Clonee" -- ok, it is a joke,
they do not say that but they do put the sign after the exit. Or when there
is no sign but a text on the road surface saying that "No Entry" -- I expect
proper signs not texts on the floor which may could not be seen if it is
raining, and guess what Ireland is famous about?

Tamas



On 12/09/06, David VanHorn <EraseMEdvanhornspammicrobrix.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2006\09\12@200852 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 9/12/06, Walter Banks <RemoveMEwalterEraseMEspamEraseMEbytecraft.com> wrote:
> The fuel shortage in the US in the 70's showed that availability
> was more important than price.
>
> The answer to the energy issues may individually be conservation
> but the general solution is renewable energy probably from several
> sources preferably simple renewable energy.
>
> Wind, Solar, Bioengineered plants, space mirrors or Albus's Lilly pads.
> This is an engineering problem that can be solved.
>
> w..
>

As one who has studied power electronics some years ago, I tend
to believe we do not need those things any time soon if we use more
efficient power supply and AC motor drive system. None of them are
simple anyway. Wind power is already commercially viable but only in
certain places.

Do not use those 7805s. Use more switching DC/DC converters
and LDOs. ;-)

Solar energy is more promissing but it is hard to beat fossile
energy any time soon. Anything with "Bio" or "Nano" in front are
mostly in paper. Space mirror? Oh no. I need some rest...

Regards,
Xiaofan

2006\09\12@202831 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Xiaofan,

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 17:15:40 -0400, Xiaofan Chen wrote:

> On 9/12/06, Howard Winter <RemoveMEHDRWspam_OUTspamKILLspamh2org.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Petrol prices in the USA a few years ago (say 5) were about 1/4
> > of those in Britain - now they're about 1/2 of our prices, so in real
> > terms they have risen 100% over there - has it reduced driving
> > mileage?  Hardly.  Would another 100% increase do so?  No!
>
> How about another 100%? Another 1000%? Perhaps it will.

No, there isn't a point where it suddenly becomes unviable to drive, unless it a *huge* rise in one go - say 10x overnight.  Petrol costs thirty times
what it did when I got my first car.  Slow increases mean that people get used to them and carry on.  And companies are never going to say to their
managers / salesmen / delivery drivers / site engineers "You can't drive any more, you'll have to travel by bus", are they?  Then there are plumbers,
electricians, glaziers, washing-machine repairers, and so on, who have to drive to their places of work with the equipment and materials they need.  
Adding to their fuel costs just increases the cost of living for all, and will never reduce the fuel usage.

> Of course this is all based on assumptions and I think it will not happen
> any time soon. Just the same as the subject. Will engineer
> rule the world? Not so soon...

No of course not, they already have a job to do.  But it would be nice if the top people in, say, engineering firms were engineers!

> Why? Because we think politicians are more suitable for that job. ;-)

No, it's because politicians are the ones who do it!

> Leave the tough job of ruling the world to them so we can still have
> people to discuss interesting topics in PIClist. ;-)

I'd rather they all went on holiday for a couple of years, and left the rest of us to get on with things without the constantly moving targets that
politicians produce by changing things just for the sake of it!

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\09\12@204631 by Ling SM

picon face

> The fuel shortage in the US in the 70's showed that availability
> was more important than price.
>
> The answer to the energy issues may individually be conservation
> but the general solution is renewable energy probably from several
> sources preferably simple renewable energy.
>
> Wind, Solar, Bioengineered plants, space mirrors or Albus's Lilly pads.
> This is an engineering problem that can be solved.

It may not be just an energy issue.

The earth as a system with its own feedback and balancing mechanism is
being upset, and may spin out of control totally - a positive feedback
loop.  This system had been changing slowly and had plenty of time to
self-regulate in the past,  but human activities are stressing the
system and has stimulated the system that had never been.

Environmental (earthly) friendly energy maybe helpful.  IMHO the
pre-requistic for this balance is to control the unlimited desire of the
human.  The earth system is hard to keep in equiviliant when there is a
runaway factor, and when this factor has now become powerful enough to
affect it.

Ling SM

2006\09\12@210037 by Ling SM

picon face

>>Petrol prices in the USA a few years ago (say 5) were about 1/4
>>of those in Britain - now they're about 1/2 of our prices, so in real
>>terms they have risen 100% over there - has it reduced driving
>>mileage?  Hardly.  Would another 100% increase do so?  No!
>
>
> How about another 100%? Another 1000%? Perhaps it will.

Relatively, wages and other cost shall go up by the same percentage, and
life move on as usual.

I think the poster's objective is to control the use of petroleum.  Then
 limiting the number of factories, limiting the number of people
inventing or engineering the products,...shall have better effect.
Guess, engineer is the facilitator here :-)

Ling SM

2006\09\12@215449 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 9/12/06, Ling SM <RemoveMEipal11TakeThisOuTspamspamsingnet.com.sg> wrote:
>
> It may not be just an energy issue.
>
> The earth as a system with its own feedback and balancing mechanism is
> being upset, and may spin out of control totally - a positive feedback
> loop.  This system had been changing slowly and had plenty of time to
> self-regulate in the past,  but human activities are stressing the
> system and has stimulated the system that had never been.
>
> Environmental (earthly) friendly energy maybe helpful.  IMHO the
> pre-requistic for this balance is to control the unlimited desire of the
> human.  The earth system is hard to keep in equiviliant when there is a
> runaway factor, and when this factor has now become powerful enough to
> affect it.
>
> Ling SM

Will the control system expert (normally a mathematician) will rule the
world? No I do not think so. The social system simply does not really
work as the mathematicians want.

There are so many control theory and most of the engineers still uses
PIC control. ;-)

2006\09\12@225132 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> The earth as a system with its own feedback and balancing mechanism
>> is
>> being upset, and may spin out of control totally - a positive
>> feedback
>> loop.  This system had been changing slowly and had plenty of time
>> to
>> self-regulate in the past,  but human activities are stressing the
>> system and has stimulated the system that had never been.
...
>> The earth system is hard to keep in equiviliant when there is a
>> runaway factor, and when this factor has now become powerful enough
>> to
>> affect it.

No problem - it's all under control. What you are seeing is a
perfectly capable system acting in an entirely reasonable manner to an
'undesired perturbation. What may appear to be 'spinning out of
control totally' is just dealing roughly with the nuisance that it
stops being an issue - either by learning to adapt and become part of
the system or being eliminated to an extent where it's adverse effects
are suitably mitigated.

ie Gaia will get you if you don't behave !!! :-)


       R :-) M




2006\09\12@231147 by John Chung

picon face
Common disagreement between nation would result in
*technical* argument. Hehe.

John

--- Xiaofan Chen <EraseMExiaofancspamspamspamBeGonegmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> --

2006\09\13@013949 by Vasile Surducan

face picon face
On 9/12/06, Xiaofan Chen <xiaofancSTOPspamspamspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/12/06, Wouter van Ooijen <spamBeGonewouterSTOPspamspamEraseMEvoti.nl> wrote:
>
> > Vasile, I think the western salries will decrease anyway by levelling
> > the wealth in the world. I don't much like the way the western world is
> > spilling stuff, so I don't think I would object to such a decrease. But
> > the other 'balance' is the relative cost of man hours versus energy and
> > other resources. IMHO the world would benefit when in this balance
> > energy and resources were much higher priced than now.
>
> Maybe we should put it this way, "I think the eastern salary will increase
> anyway by leveling the wealth in the world. Since we are doing similar
> work the western world is doing any way, so I don't think I would object
> such an increase."
>
> Sounds batter? ;-)

 No, much "batter" this way: "I think the western salary will decrease
anyway by the unwanted penetration of workers from the eastern market,
starting with 2007 when about 5.000.000 engineers from Romania and
Bulgaria will invade the Europe."

Then all of us will be satisfied, the western because the energy
prices will increase (by a salary decreasing) and the eastern because
the energy will decrease ( by a salary increasing).

greetings,
Vasile

2006\09\13@014144 by Vasile Surducan

face picon face
On 9/12/06, David VanHorn <KILLspamdvanhornspamBeGonespammicrobrix.com> wrote:
> >
> >  (BTW I remember
> > how I learn ORCAD -the DOS version- without any documentation
> > available, it was in the era when no web was available).
>
>
>
> If you're still using it, I run the OldDosOrcad group on yahoo groups.

Thx, it was the best capturing program, but right now I'm struggling
with Pads evaluation...

greetings,
Vasile

2006\09\13@031847 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
>   No, much "batter" this way: "I think the western salary
> will decrease
> anyway by the unwanted penetration of workers from the eastern market,
> starting with 2007 when about 5.000.000 engineers from Romania and
> Bulgaria will invade the Europe."

I think that will be only the first wave. There are much much more
people in China and India than in all of eastern Europe (with or without
Turkey).

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2006\09\13@031848 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> > How about another 100%? Another 1000%? Perhaps it will.
>
> Relatively, wages and other cost shall go up by the same
> percentage, and life move on as usual.
>
> I think the poster's objective is to control the use of
> petroleum.

If you are referring to me: no, at least not directly. What I would like
to see changed is the *relative* cost of
energy-and-other-natural-resources versus labour. So "wages and other
cost shall go up by the same percentage" does not apply.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2006\09\13@035858 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Thx, it was the best capturing program, but right
>now I'm struggling with Pads evaluation...

Urgh ... We run both Pads and Orcad in-house here, and the UK support people
for Pads are so useless that the CAD support guy (who happens to sit next to
me) is swearing that he will terminate the Pads when it comes up for
renewal. At least one gets decent support from Orcad.

2006\09\13@063129 by Ling SM

picon face
>>>How about another 100%? Another 1000%? Perhaps it will.
>>
>>Relatively, wages and other cost shall go up by the same
>>percentage, and life move on as usual.
>>
>>I think the poster's objective is to control the use of
>>petroleum.
>
>
> If you are referring to me: no, at least not directly. What I would like
> to see changed is the *relative* cost of
> energy-and-other-natural-resources versus labour. So "wages and other
> cost shall go up by the same percentage" does not apply.
>

Like a 500%-5000% sale tax on all non-service related transactions?  :-(

Ling SM

2006\09\13@064017 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Yigit Turgut wrote:

> On the other hand most of the time (%99) I do know the solution to
> certain problems people are facing in daily life.

The problem with politics is exactly to get the 99% of people that know the
solutions to 99% of the problems all under one hat :)

Gerhard

2006\09\13@064338 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> Like a 500%-5000% sale tax on all non-service related transactions?
:-(

I would rather go for a requirement 'no-envionmental-changes'
requirement for all activities, with very heavy fees for exceptions.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu



2006\09\13@064505 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Howard Winter wrote:

> No, there isn't a point where it suddenly becomes unviable to drive,
> unless it a *huge* rise in one go - say 10x overnight.  Petrol costs
> thirty times what it did when I got my first car.  

I'm not sure this is that relevant. TCO of a car, considering a certain
mileage per month, probably hasn't increased thirty times compared to
salaries. So the rising petrol cost has been at least partly offset (if not
completely) by falling other costs.

This is not about petrol cost, this is about the cost of driving. (And, in
a way, about the hidden subventions of individual car traffic.)

Gerhard

2006\09\13@072010 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:

> Do not use those 7805s. Use more switching DC/DC converters
> and LDOs. ;-)

And think sometimes about the amount of wasted energy...

1 W is 1 Nm/s. That's raising a 6 kg weight 1 m every minute. That's quite
a bit :)

Gerhard

2006\09\13@073922 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Wouter van Ooijen wrote:

>> Like a 500%-5000% sale tax on all non-service related transactions?
>> :-(
>
> I would rather go for a requirement 'no-envionmental-changes'
> requirement for all activities, with very heavy fees for exceptions.

Rather than "fees for exceptions" I'd call that "charge for resource use".
Most resource usage gets charged only by what it costs to make the
resources available (plus profit). The resource users don't pay at all (to
the community) for the fact that they are actually reducing common assets.
This is treated as if these common assets were infinite -- which we long
know they aren't.

Gerhard

2006\09\13@082657 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> No, there isn't a point where it suddenly becomes unviable to
>> drive,
>> unless it a *huge* rise in one go - say 10x overnight.  Petrol
>> costs
>> thirty times what it did when I got my first car.

The car that I usually drive costs about 10% of the vehicle's market
worth for a full tank of petrol. It's worth far more than that to me
as it's capacious ("station wagon"), rough enough to throw anything in
without worrying about the car, and has 2 wheel/4 wheel drive manually
selectable and high/low ratio. As a bonus it has a push rod engine
with hydraulic tappets and NO cambelt and there is room above the
engine to store the spare tyre.



       Russell

2006\09\13@085558 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Russell,

On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 23:14:50 +1200, Russell McMahon wrote:

> The car that I usually drive costs about 10% of the vehicle's market
> worth for a full tank of petrol.

Every car I've ever owned except one has cost me more for fuel during its life than to buy, maintain and repair it put together (the exception was a
Friday Afternoon car which died before its time).  And that's starting from way back in 1973.

> It's worth far more than that to me
> as it's capacious ("station wagon"), rough enough to throw anything in
> without worrying about the car, and has 2 wheel/4 wheel drive manually
> selectable and high/low ratio. As a bonus it has a push rod engine
> with hydraulic tappets and NO cambelt and there is room above the
> engine to store the spare tyre.

Hmmm... sounds like a Long Wheelbase Landrover?  I once drove one towing the chassis of a 3-wheeler, and the turning circle of the whole thing was
not much less than the width of England...

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\09\13@101119 by emisosa

flavicon
face
In an ideal world, salaries should be more related to earnings than simple
job offer-demand (I said 'more' related, not completely).  
 The distribution of wealth is extremely disproportionate.  I know this
sounds very 'lefty', but if you think about it for a moment in a wider
aspect, you might agree that current society is degrading the true value of
work, what it does, and how the private sector benefits from it. The
leveling shouldn't be eastern/western, it should be a leveling of the
distribution of wealth in the whole world.

2006\09\13@105537 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> In an ideal world, salaries should be more related to earnings than
> simple
> job offer-demand (I said 'more' related, not completely).

>  The distribution of wealth is extremely disproportionate.

> ... you might agree that current society is degrading the true value
> of
> work, what it does, and how the private sector benefits from it.

> The leveling shouldn't be eastern/western, it should be a leveling
> of the
> distribution of wealth in the whole world.

In deepest South America a list member is convulsing on the floor in a
fit of apoplectic rage, horror and revulsion. When / if he recovers,
and it may take some days,  he will either dispatch an offlist email
your way that will singe your eyebrows and leave you flash blind for a
week, launch a public broadside that will make you wish that you were
instead at the Battle of the River Plate (closer now to him than you)
on either side of the action, resign from the list in deepest dudgeon,
or none of these things. Probably the latter :-) - but you're tempting
him sorely :-).

It's always interesting to see the vast range of opinions on this
list. Makes life interesting.

OK out their in Sth America.
Your turn.
You know who you are.
:-)


       Russell


2006\09\13@105537 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> It's worth far more than that to me
>> as it's capacious ("station wagon"), rough enough to throw anything
>> in
>> without worrying about the car, and has 2 wheel/4 wheel drive
>> manually
>> selectable and high/low ratio. As a bonus it has a push rod engine
>> with hydraulic tappets and NO cambelt and there is room above the
>> engine to store the spare tyre.

> Hmmm... sounds like a Long Wheelbase Landrover?

Flat 4 boxer engine.
Water cooled
4 headlights.
Two foglights (not working)
Smaller than a LWB Land Rover.
Better turning circle.
Tyres cost FAR less.


Which makes it a ... .

       Russell

2006\09\13@120607 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Russell,

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 02:47:15 +1200, Russell McMahon wrote:

> Flat 4 boxer engine.
> Water cooled

Oh - well you've lost me right away, because the only flat-4s I can think of are aircooled.

> 4 headlights.
> Two foglights (not working)
> Smaller than a LWB Land Rover.
> Better turning circle.

The *Titanic* had a better turning circle!  If a LWB Landrover had been in the same situation it would have hit the iceberg square-on, rather than the
glancing blow the Titanic did...

> Tyres cost FAR less.
>
>
> Which makes it a ... .

S. E. ?  Or wasn't that supposed to be Morse?  :-)

Is it one of those strange antipodean beasts, a Holden or something?

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\09\13@122144 by Alex Harford

face picon face
On 9/13/06, Russell McMahon <EraseMEapptechspamEraseMEparadise.net.nz> wrote:
>
> > Hmmm... sounds like a Long Wheelbase Landrover?
>
> Flat 4 boxer engine.
> Water cooled
> 4 headlights.
> Two foglights (not working)
> Smaller than a LWB Land Rover.
> Better turning circle.
> Tyres cost FAR less.

Subaru!

2006\09\13@123251 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> Flat 4 boxer engine.
>> Water cooled

> Oh - well you've lost me right away, because the only flat-4s I can
> think of are aircooled.

>> 4 headlights.
>> Two foglights (not working)
>> Smaller than a LWB Land Rover.
>> Better turning circle.

> The *Titanic* had a better turning circle!  If a LWB Landrover
> had been in the same situation it would have hit the iceberg
> square-on, rather than the
> glancing blow the Titanic did...

>> Tyres cost FAR less.

> Is it one of those strange antipodean beasts, a Holden or something?

Japanese made.
Not overly rare here.


       Russell

2006\09\13@132052 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
>> I would rather go for a requirement 'no-envionmental-changes'
>> requirement for all activities, with very heavy fees for exceptions.
>
> Rather than "fees for exceptions" I'd call that "charge for
> resource use".

I think I mostly agree with you in practice. But classifying the use of
limited resources as an exception does mmake it even more clear that
this should by default not be done - with maybe some exceptions.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2006\09\13@134152 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 9/13/06, Wouter van Ooijen <@spam@wouter@spam@spamspam_OUTvoti.nl> wrote:
> >> I would rather go for a requirement 'no-envionmental-changes'
> >> requirement for all activities, with very heavy fees for exceptions.
> >
> > Rather than "fees for exceptions" I'd call that "charge for
> > resource use".
>
> I think I mostly agree with you in practice. But classifying the use of
> limited resources as an exception does mmake it even more clear that
> this should by default not be done - with maybe some exceptions.
>

'no-envionmental-changes'? I do not think that is a good idea. All activities
will have envrionment impact...

2006\09\13@140841 by emisosa

flavicon
face
>In deepest South America a list member is convulsing on the floor in a
>fit of apoplectic rage, horror and revulsion. When / if he recovers,
>and it may take some days,  he will either dispatch an offlist email
>your way that will singe your eyebrows and leave you flash blind for a
>week, launch a public broadside that will make you wish that you were
>instead at the Battle of the River Plate (closer now to him than you)
>on either side of the action, resign from the list in deepest dudgeon,
>or none of these things. Probably the latter :-) - but you're tempting
>him sorely :-).

>It's always interesting to see the vast range of opinions on this
>list. Makes life interesting.

>OK out their in Sth America.
>Your turn.
>You know who you are.
>:-)


Russel, what did you mean by "you know who you are"?


Emi from Argentina.


2006\09\13@161536 by hgraf

picon face
On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 17:10 -0400, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> On 9/12/06, David VanHorn <spamBeGonedvanhornspamKILLspammicrobrix.com> wrote:
> > I guess it would be nice if we all lived in cities with mass transit and
> > small distances to cover.
> >
> > There are plenty of people living here with 30+ miles to the nearest town,
> > and NO mass transit options at all.  Smart cars are cute, but I bet they
> > don't deal with a foot or more of snow very well.
> > --
>
> Oh yes normally people outside of US will not be able to imagine
> that there are so many unused land in US.
>
> However this is still a chick and egg problem, if it is much more
> expensive to drive cars, then people will choose to live near to the
> cities (even better-off people).

Actually not really, it will simply shift things, the prices of
houses/apartments closer to the city will rise, the prices of houses
away from the city will drop.

For example, where I live, the price of a house has a VERY good relation
to it's distance from the core of the city. The more you drive, the less
your house costs. In the end you end up spending pretty much the same as
someone in the core.

> Then mass transit can be developed.

Not going to happen by raising the price of driving. Mass transit is a
long term endeavour. The problem is most politicians can't think long
term, what happens in 10 years doesn't matter to them, what happens in 2
years is MUCH more important. Every few decades we get a politician with
enough vision to drive some mass transit. Unfortunately the next few
politicians end up completely forgetting about mass transit. It's a
cycle that has repeated MANY times over the last century.

> The communities inside the city or near to the city will then be
> developed. Again this will help to build up the public transport.

In my area the communities inside the city HAVE been developed. In fact,
MANY businesses are moving OUTSIDE the city to avoid the insane taxes
the city imposes on them. All that wonderful mass transit designed to
bring people to the core of the city is slowly going to waste because of
the massive shift of employers moving outside the city.

When I still lived in the city it took me 1.5hours to travel to work by
bus. By car it took 25 minutes. Why the huge difference? I was traveling
from a suburb to just outside the city, a direction mass transit simply
isn't designed for. The most common mass transit complaint is that if
you want to go to the heart of the city everything is fine, but if you
want to travel from one suburb area of the city to the other it is pure
hell.

> I know this is not what people want here though. So gas/petrol price
> will continue to be low in US and the government will still need
> to find a way to keep the gas/petrol price low until some alternative
> energy source can be good enough to replace oil. I doubt that will
> happen any time soon.

As is often the case, there is NO quick fix to our problems. Raising gas
prices will simply shift costs and fuel inflation, so in the long term
the "higher" gas prices won't really be higher when everything is taken
into account. Also, these magical "higher" prices, where does the
surplus money go? The companies? The government? The companies are
already making a killing. The government is already wasting billions
every year, the thought of me giving them ONE MORE CENT is NOT
appealing.

TTYL

2006\09\13@164135 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
> Actually not really, it will simply shift things, the prices of
> houses/apartments closer to the city will rise, the prices of houses
> away from the city will drop.

You forgot that ENGENEER would rule the world, so engeneer would design the
city in such way that all house prices would be dropped, virtually no need
to heating the houses (lots of people in small place heat each other :-).
Engeneer would desing everythig, which one is working on what and where so
there will be no racing against positions and seats in a company, also would
be perfetly designed what time shall he leaves the house so there would be
no rush hours and so on :-) If something goes really bad the whole city
would be recalled (everybody out!) and then after a small modification
everybody could go back to its new place -- possibly to a new family :-)

Tamas

2006\09\13@171615 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Thu, 2006-09-14 at 02:47 +1200, Russell McMahon wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Not sure what older model cars you have over there, but "boxer" to me
means either porsche or Subaru. I'd guess Subaru. I have no idea what
year range you are talking about, but I'll guess Justy? :)

TTYL

2006\09\13@174527 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> Flat 4 boxer engine.
>> Water cooled
>> 4 headlights.
>> Two foglights (not working)
>> Smaller than a LWB Land Rover.
>> Better turning circle.
>> Tyres cost FAR less.

> Not sure what older model cars you have over there, but "boxer" to
> me
> means either porsche or Subaru. I'd guess Subaru. I have no idea
> what
> year range you are talking about, but I'll guess Justy? :)

Give the man a virtual cookie, almost.

My son drives a Justy, which is a vertical inline East-West 3.
Mine is a 1987? Subaru Leone 'station-wagon'.
No street cred at all.
Unlike most of the new Subarus it isn't full time 4WD and it has
selectable low ratio which gets used seldom but is a lifesaver when
needed.
I was amazed to find the lack of cam belt and push rods.
Whatever it dies of it won't be a broken cam belt.
They rust a typical amount for Japanese cars so almost all have gone
from this area. But in the South Island (lower part of NZ) on the
Canterbury plains around Christchurch there is much less salt in the
air and car bodies last much longer. My one was, literally, an answer
to prayer - as they are vanishingly rare here the only way to get one
appears to have been to have it sent special delivery :-). This one
spent its recent years in Christchurch until an Israeli tourist bought
it to tour the country with, drove it to Auckland and then sold it to
me when he flew out. We've now, entirely coincidentally, I think,
bought two cars from Israeli tourists.



       Russell



2006\09\14@084342 by Tony Smith

picon face
{Quote hidden}

Good job engineers don't.  They'd be still arguing whether it's hot tap on
the left or vice versa, never mind left/right handed threads on the
fittings.

How far did the PicList programmer get?  As far as arguing about the wiring
order on the header, wasn't it?

2006\09\14@085742 by Hazelwood Lyle

flavicon
face

>
> How far did the PicList programmer get?  As far as arguing
> about the wiring
> order on the header, wasn't it?
>

Any order would be fine, as long as it matches mine. :-)

Lyle

2006\09\14@105255 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> >In deepest South America a list member is convulsing on the floor
> >in a
>>fit of apoplectic rage, horror and revulsion ...
...
>>OK out their in Sth America.
>>Your turn.
>>You know who you are.
>>:-)


> Russel, what did you mean by "you know who you are"?

It's  a very old and not really very funny joke line.
It just points out that I don't have to name the person as they
recognise themselves from my description.
Also, this person usually gets a bit annoyed if I actually do name
them in such discussions so I usually don't do so.

It wasn't you ! :-)
If you weren't convulsing on the floor it can't have been you :-)

He only posts very very very rarely, but may contact people offlist.
He and  I actually agree on quite a lot of things but we do rather
differ in the fine detail. He is very what people would call "right
wing" in his beliefs. So much so that he considers Adolph Hitler to
have been "left wing" - and I can se why he says that, but most people
think of Hitler as having been far right wing.

All of which is why I wrote what I did. The prior post was almost the
exact opposite of his core beliefs and would have upset him greatly if
he'd read it. But what wrote was meant to be funny throughout -but may
have lost something "in translation".


       Russell McMahon





{Original Message removed}

2006\09\14@111451 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> but most people
> think of Hitler as having been far right wing.

I don't think seeing AH as leftie is that rare. If leftie means
egalisation of wealth and a very active government he sure qualifies.
OTOH militarism is often more associated with rightie than leftie (but
does that make Stalin and Mao righties? most americans - USA sense -
won't agree).

Some people say that the opposites meet at the extreme ends of the
spectrum. I think there is a lot of truth in that opinion.

There are also many more distinctions than right and left, for instance
religious versus secular.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2006\09\14@111525 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Russell,

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 02:52:35 +1200, Russell McMahon wrote:

>...
> He is very what people would call "right
> wing" in his beliefs. So much so that he considers Adolph Hitler to
> have been "left wing" - and I can se why he says that, but most people
> think of Hitler as having been far right wing

Well I've always thought the "wing" model of the political spectrum was not only oversimplified, but wrong!  There is a case for representing the
thing as a cylinder, with moderation on one side, say the front, and the two extremes joining up round the back.  Stalin and Hitler (why are infamous
people always known by just one name - unless they shot someone famous, when it's three?) were allies at one point - at least on paper - and yet
their beliefs should have been opposite.  But actually their leadership styles were very similar indeed.

Anyway, we're not supposed to talk politics in here, so I'll quit while I'm behind!

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\09\14@112446 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Wouter,

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 17:12:16 +0200, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:

>...
> Some people say that the opposites meet at the extreme ends of the
> spectrum. I think there is a lot of truth in that opinion.

Yes, I did, a couple of minutes later... :-)

> There are also many more distinctions than right and left, for instance
> religious versus secular.

And libertarian versus authoritarian, mono- versus multi-cultural, and so on.  The Left/Right thing is just ridiculously simplistic, and produced fallacies
like "The enemy of my enemy is my friend", which when used as part of foreign policy is downright dangerous!

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\09\14@143125 by emisosa

flavicon
face
As an engeneer, if I ruled the world, I'd be assassinated the next day,
because I'd gain many enemies from all wings.  The "stablishment" would
really hate me.



 Why don't we buy an island or some lands and try it out?, a nice
experiment to really rule a 'country' with 'engeneering' mentality. Lets
first make a web site to raise funds, then we buy land and rule it  :-P , We
can even make it a reality show, and raise more money for structure.  But
please let those guys from QA out.



Emiliano R. Sosa

VP engineering development

<http://www.overmax.com.ar/> http://www.overmax.com.ar

2006\09\14@143144 by emisosa

flavicon
face
As an engeneer, if I ruled the world, I'd be assassinated the next day,
because I'd gain many enemies from all wings.  The "stablishment" would
really hate me.



 Why don't we buy an island or some lands and try it out?, a nice
experiment to really rule a 'country' with 'engeneering' mentality. Lets
first make a web site to raise funds, then we buy land and rule it  :-P , We
can even make it a reality show, and raise more money for structure.  But
please let those guys from QA out.



Emiliano R. Sosa

VP engineering development

<http://www.overmax.com.ar/> http://www.overmax.com.ar

2006\09\14@144415 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
>   Why don't we buy an island or some lands and try it out?, a nice
> experiment to really rule a 'country' with 'engeneering'
> mentality. Lets
> first make a web site to raise funds, then we buy land and
> rule it  :-P , We
> can even make it a reality show, and raise more money for
> structure.

Yes! The first item on our island gathering will be agreement on the
specs for *the* PIC programmer. That will sure kick Expedition Robinson
from the screen!

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2006\09\14@144934 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Howard Winter wrote:

> Russell,
>> He is very what people would call "right wing" in his beliefs. So much
>> so that he considers Adolph Hitler to have been "left wing" - and I can
>> se why he says that, but most people think of Hitler as having been far
>> right wing
>
> Well I've always thought the "wing" model of the political spectrum was
> not only oversimplified, but wrong!  

I tend to agree. It helps avoiding troubling thoughts, though -- as long as
there is only one dimension and two parties ("we" and "them"), things are
easier :)

> There is a case for representing the thing as a cylinder, with moderation
> on one side, say the front, and the two extremes joining up round the
> back.  

But even then it has only one dimension.

> Stalin and Hitler (why are infamous people always known by just one name
> - unless they shot someone famous, when it's three?) were allies at one
> point - at least on paper - and yet their beliefs should have been
> opposite.  

Not really, at least if you go by the names. "National Socialist German
Workers Party" doesn't sound too far away from "Communist Party of the
Soviet Union", especially if you consider that in (American?) English
"socialist" is pretty much synonymous with "communist".

Gerhard

2006\09\14@155122 by James Newton, Host

face picon face
> >   Why don't we buy an island or some lands and try it out?, a nice
> > experiment to really rule a 'country' with 'engeneering'
> > mentality. Lets
> > first make a web site to raise funds, then we buy land and rule it  
> > :-P , We can even make it a reality show, and raise more money for
> > structure.
>
> Yes! The first item on our island gathering will be agreement
> on the specs for *the* PIC programmer. That will sure kick
> Expedition Robinson from the screen!

Or we could spec a PIC development board...

Considering that the PICList is a (benevolent?) dictatorship (actually
several admins with equal powers) living on borrowed/donated real-estate,
with no treasury or taxes, and no punishment other than temporary
banishment, I don't think engineers are stellar candidates for government.

---
James.


2006\09\14@160511 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On 9/14/06, James Newton, Host <.....jamesnewtonspam_OUTspampiclist.com> wrote:
> Considering that the PICList is a (benevolent?) dictatorship (actually
> several admins with equal powers) living on borrowed/donated real-estate,
> with no treasury or taxes, and no punishment other than temporary
> banishment, I don't think engineers are stellar candidates for government.

And yet many people choose to hang out here, so they must like the
particular mix of governance on this list.

Just like normal projects with no external influence, engineers would
produce a government that only an engineer could love in the best
case, and one that only the designer would love in the worst case.
(Well, I have seen some designers create something they hate, that
they have to use, that they have the power and resources to change,
and they choose not to change it.  But IMHO they are hardly
engineers...  :-)

Still, the nice thing about being an engineer is that most discussions
are based on facts that can be verified by experimentation.  Many
governance issues cannot be so easily tested, and engineers would have
just as bad a time at it as regular politicians.  But a good PID
algorithm here and there would certainly be an improvement in some
areas of government control...

-Adam

2006\09\14@161424 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> Considering that the PICList is a (benevolent?) dictatorship (actually
> several admins with equal powers) living on borrowed/donated
> real-estate,
> with no treasury or taxes, and no punishment other than temporary
> banishment, I don't think engineers are stellar candidates
> for government.

But think of the entertainment value! Are you still looking for a way to
finance your server? Sell us all to a major network, maybe Truman Show
style. (Oh, you already did?)

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2006\09\14@190321 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On 9/14/06, Howard Winter <TakeThisOuTHDRW.....spamTakeThisOuTh2org.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> The Left/Right thing is just ridiculously simplistic, and produced fallacies
> like "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

Oh we've been modifying that one for years.  Now it's, "The enemy of
my enemy is my pawn."

Only it never seems to work out so well in the end.  Maybe we'll get
it right one of these dictatorships....

(Please note that pronounced lisp is due to the recent implantation of
my tongue into my cheek.)

-Adam

2006\09\14@190528 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On 9/13/06, emisosa <TakeThisOuTemisosaKILLspamspamspamovermax.com.ar> wrote:
> ...it should be a leveling of the
> distribution of wealth in the whole world.

A lofty ideal for sure.  Now sit down and define, precisely, "Level",
"Distribution", "wealth", and "whole world."

-Adam

2006\09\14@190537 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On 9/13/06, emisosa <.....emisosaspamRemoveMEovermax.com.ar> wrote:
> ...it should be a leveling of the
> distribution of wealth in the whole world.

A lofty ideal for sure.  Now sit down and define, precisely, "Level",
"Distribution", "wealth", and "whole world."

-Adam

2006\09\14@204642 by Juan Garofalo

flavicon
face
>>> Maybe I am not a typical engineer, but IMHO the energy prices are *way
>>> too low*.

Vasile:
>> Wouter, definitely you're not moving too much from Netherland... many
>> people will disagree with you.
>
>
Xiaofan Chen
>Actually I agree with Wouter. Energy cost is really low.



        Sorry. Energy prices do not reflect reality because :

       1) the currency in wich prices are measured is being debased. Fiat
money is a fraud and the only cause of inflation. It's not that oil prices
are getting higher - reality is that purchasing power is being destroyed by
the govt.

       2) The production of energy is being hampered to suit 'green' leftie
regulations...and 'green' voters.

       3) The oil industry is a cartel (thanks again to state regulation).
Notice that the green are really helping the oil cartel, whether they
inteded to or not...

       4) Oil sources are nationalized (communism).
       
       So the price of energy is daylight robery. In a REAL free-market
energy would be  WAY cheaper.

       Economics is not an engineering problem. Unless you are talking
about social engineering...wich many people seem to be doing.





J,






2006\09\15@071427 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Juan Garofalo wrote:

> Sorry. Energy prices do not reflect reality [...]

What is the "reality" that any price should reflect? What/who determines
whether any price is real?

> Fiat money is a fraud

I suspect you're talking about money that's not based on gold. Now if
energy prices don't reflect that claimed but still obscure "reality", how
come that a gold price, derived through the same mechanisms, would reflect
any more "reality"?

> 2) The production of energy [...]

Now I would like to see this "production of energy" happening -- that could
be the end of our problems :)

> [...] is being hampered to suit 'green' leftie regulations...and 'green'
> voters.

What are "'green' leftie regulations"? And what are "'green' voters"? How
do they hamper the claimed "production of energy"? If whatever they want
suits them, and they are so many that this makes a difference, what is
wrong with that?

> 4) Oil sources are nationalized (communism).

They are naturally nationalized, just like water sources and most other
liquid resources. It is technically very difficult and sometimes impossible
to retrieve oil/water/etc only from within the limits of your own property.
If you drill down on your property and extract a liquid, you extract that
liquid also from below my property. Unless you regard such a resource as
"common" (a more correct term than "communism") and set up some regulations
that you in fact may take liquid from under my property, you practically
can't extract at all, because I might not want to let you extract oil from
under my property. One single owner of a property on an oil field who
doesn't want to sell "his" oil could prevent extraction of the whole oil
field. That's why such resources are naturally "common" -- they are not
divisible.

Still don't want "common" oil fields?

> So the price of energy is daylight robery. In a REAL free-market energy
> would be  WAY cheaper.

No. It would be way more expensive, as you would have to pay the owners of
the resource. Right now, you get this all for free, because it is
considered "common".

> Economics is not an engineering problem.

Not necessarily, depends on the approach. But applying logic doesn't hurt
either :)

Gerhard

2006\09\15@083459 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> So the price of energy is daylight robery. In a REAL free-market
> energy would be  WAY cheaper.

This may well be true. And may not. But it is certain that the
invisible hand of the market is blind and dispassionate and therefore
not always wise. Like "natural selection" (not to be confused with the
much broader term evolution) it is driven by immediate consequence and
has no way of determining which the output it is seeking to optimise
(immediate survival, most capital, ...) is optimum in the greater
order of things.

As soon as you enter reality, which has discontinuities or multiple
maxima, the blind hand (to mix a metaphor) and 'natural selection' are
powerless to obtain the optimum solution. Other external mechanisms
may be added to help them jump to 'better' operating points but by
themselves they are stranded.

Notice that this is NOT a criticism of or comment on the validity or
applicability of either mechanism - just a comment on the limits of
their applicability.

In the present context an example may be that in an open market energy
prices would be far cheaper. If they were energy consumption would
(almost certainly) be higher. Oil depletion would progress at a far
greater rate and reserves would be exhausted sooner. This would bring
about a change in pricing and notionally would drive a search for new
energy sources and research into new methods etc. BUT no amount of
market forces would create an energy resource which didn't exist. If
there IS no good energy source left (as the  2nd part of the Peak Oil
argument goes) then market prices may rocket to restrain unfulfillable
demand but not provide a means to meet it. It may be that as a
consequence state sponsored development of nuclear sources
[["communism"]] would become attractive. It may be that Lunar Helium
development is given a great boost. BUT the overall cost to the world
of taking this path may well be horrendous. Compared to resource
depletion control and "artificially high" prices coupled with forward
looking R&D the path the hand leads may be vastly superior by almost
any metric.

The trouble is, what we tend to get instead is resource depletion
control and "artificially high" prices without the forward looking R&D
:-)



       Russell

2006\09\15@194158 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 9/14/06, M. Adam Davis <RemoveMEstienmanspamspamBeGonegmail.com> wrote:

> Just like normal projects with no external influence, engineers would
> produce a government that only an engineer could love in the best
> case, and one that only the designer would love in the worst case.
> (Well, I have seen some designers create something they hate, that
> they have to use, that they have the power and resources to change,
> and they choose not to change it.  But IMHO they are hardly
> engineers...  :-)

Nowadays, time to market and cost are often more important than
the elegance of the design. ;-(

Lots of the time you do not have the power and resources to change.
You want to experiment with this and that but the project schedule and
cost target make you just do the opposite.

> Still, the nice thing about being an engineer is that most discussions
> are based on facts that can be verified by experimentation.  Many
> governance issues cannot be so easily tested, and engineers would have
> just as bad a time at it as regular politicians.  But a good PID
> algorithm here and there would certainly be an improvement in some
> areas of government control...
>

PID control? I think the social system is highly non-linear and it is really
hard to model.

2006\09\16@142916 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:

>> Many governance issues cannot be so easily tested, and engineers would
>> have just as bad a time at it as regular politicians.  But a good PID
>> algorithm here and there would certainly be an improvement in some
>> areas of government control...
>
> PID control? I think the social system is highly non-linear and it is
> really hard to model.

Yup... but /some/ sort of feedback loop would do good in most
administrations. We also have the advantage in this scenario that -- in
theory at least -- we can think about intelligent control algorithms :)

Gerhard

2006\09\16@150426 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 9/16/06, Gerhard Fiedler <spamBeGonelists@spam@spamspam_OUTconnectionbrazil.com> wrote:
>
> Yup... but /some/ sort of feedback loop would do good in most
> administrations. We also have the advantage in this scenario that -- in
> theory at least -- we can think about intelligent control algorithms :)
>
> Gerhard
>

I think you are right -- some sort of "negative feedback" loops are necessary to
make it stable. ;-) Sometimes there are too few/many "feedback" loops or too
few/many "regulators". ;-(

I have not heard the term "intelligent control" for quite a while.
What is it really about? I remember it used to be a buzz word
just like "Nano" nowadays. Anyway, human beings are the most
intelligent species in the world. Politicians are human beings. So
I guess there governance is also sort of "intelligent control".
Am I right? ;-) And if we think Engineers/Scientist are the most
intelligent (this might be hard to approve) among human beings,
intelligent control --> engineers/scientists should rule the world! ;-)

Perhaps we do not want "intelligent control" after all. ;-)

Regards,
Xiaofan

2006\09\16@182013 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:

> I have not heard the term "intelligent control" for quite a while.
> What is it really about?

I'm not sure about how it is generally used, but I understand it being
something like adaptive algorithms that change the controller's behavior
with changes in the system, often using a model of the system that gets
adjusted according to the measurements from the system or some sort of AI
engine.

> Anyway, human beings are the most intelligent species in the world.

At least by human standards of intelligence... :)

> Politicians are human beings. So I guess there governance is also sort of
> "intelligent control". Am I right? ;-)

No. Just because the species is intelligent on average, that doesn't mean
that each individual is intelligent, and even if it is an intelligent
individual, it is not guaranteed that this resource is being used for
government activities, and even if it is being used, it is not guaranteed
that it is being used for furthering common goals. So it still might be
anything from "stupid attempt at control" to "intelligent deviation".

> And if we think Engineers/Scientist are the most intelligent (this might
> be hard to approve) among human beings,

Given all what is and has been engineered, I doubt that you can make a good
case for this :)

Gerhard

2006\09\17@020913 by Ling SM

picon face

> Am I right? ;-) And if we think Engineers/Scientist are the most
> intelligent (this might be hard to approve) among human beings,
> intelligent control --> engineers/scientists should rule the world! ;-)

If you really want engineers to rule, they have to demand these:
a. well defined, indisputable and well accepted metrics
b. unambiguous standard
c. must fix the predefined square box, so the problem must be a square
shape that the engineer is trained in.
d. the square must be within the specified range
e. no last minute variations
f. no emotion is allowed, figure rules and dictates
g.....

All are absolute demand.

Engineer CAN rule, just give them a SPEC.

Ling SM

2006\09\17@024105 by Tony Smith

picon face
> > Am I right? ;-) And if we think Engineers/Scientist are the most
> > intelligent (this might be hard to approve) among human beings,
> > intelligent control --> engineers/scientists should rule the world!
> > ;-)
>
> If you really want engineers to rule, they have to demand these:
> a. well defined, indisputable and well accepted metrics b.
> unambiguous standard c. must fix the predefined square box,
> so the problem must be a square shape that the engineer is trained in.
> d. the square must be within the specified range e. no last
> minute variations f. no emotion is allowed, figure rules and
> dictates g.....
>
> All are absolute demand.
>
> Engineer CAN rule, just give them a SPEC.
>
> Ling SM


Working to spec makes you a follower, not a ruler.  Unless you're the guy
taking measurements.

Tony

2006\09\17@100258 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 9/17/06, Ling SM <TakeThisOuTipal11spamspamsingnet.com.sg> wrote:
>
> Engineer CAN rule, just give them a SPEC.
>

In this case, it is the one who gives out SPEC rules.

The thing is that you have to participate in defining the SPEC.
In the real engineering world, the customer will work with the
marketing guys as well as the engineering guys to define the
SPEC. Sometimes the customers and the marketing guys
actually do not have an idea when they put down one parameter.
It is then the engineer's responsibility to show them the
consequences of that parameter. Sometimes the
process to reach an agreed specification can take months or
years...

2006\09\21@123540 by Juan Garofalo

flavicon
face

I:
>> Fiat money is a fraud

Gerhard :
>I suspect you're talking about money that's not based on gold.

       Almost. I'm talking about "comodity money" as opposed to "fiat
money". Yes, gold used as money is a comodity money. Other comodites could
be used, but gold is the more convenient.
       

>> 2) The production of energy [...]

>Now I would like to see this "production of energy" happening -- that could
>be the end of our problems :)

       Very funny. But of course the joke does not address my point. Do you
call that 'changing the subject' perhaps ?


>> Economics is not an engineering problem.

>Not necessarily, depends on the approach. But applying logic doesn't hurt
>either :)
       
       I'll take that as a hint that I'm not using logic ?

       To recap : The enviromentalist, green engineer asserts that oil is
too cheap and that it 'should' (morals!) be more expensive. What this means
is that the preference (higher energy prices) of a few  should be forced
upon the many. I call that authoritarianism.

       Anybody talking about prices must of course use logic. So the first
logical step is to take a closer look at the tool used to measure prices.
That tool is money. I'll let you come up with a logical analysis of money. I
do hope you realize that fiat money is not logical, that fiat money is a
wrong premise, and that conculsions based on a wrong premise are invalid.
But perhaps that would be too much logic...and won't suit green feelings...

       


J.

     



2006\09\21@143126 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Juan Garofalo wrote:

> Very funny. But of course the joke does not address my point. Do you call
> that 'changing the subject' perhaps ?

No, I call a joke a joke. But it also has a very relevant point (more on
that further below).

What I call "evasive" is that you answer to my message, raise a few
secondary points, comment all upset about a joke without getting it, but
fail to respond to the very clear questions that I asked. In case you have
just read over them and missed them, here they are repeated:

- What is the "reality" that any price should reflect?
- What/who determines whether any price is real?
- Now if energy prices don't reflect that claimed but still obscure
"reality", how come that a gold price, derived through the same mechanisms,
would reflect any more "reality"?
- What are "'green' leftie regulations"?
- And what are "'green' voters"?
- How do they hamper the claimed "production of energy"?
- If whatever they want suits them, and they are so many that this makes a
difference, what is wrong with that?
- Still don't want "common" oil fields?

> To recap : The enviromentalist, green engineer asserts that oil is too
> cheap and that it 'should' (morals!) be more expensive.

The "morals!" is your interpretation. Mine is different.

For me, oil is taken out for free (or too cheap) from the common goods. I
don't think anybody should get anything for free from the common goods. So
taking oil out of common goods should be more expensive. That's one.

Burning oil pollutes the air that I breath. The ones who do that get to do
it for free, without reimbursing me for that. I don't think that anybody
should have the right to pollute the air that I breath, and even get to do
that for free. We may be able to cut a deal, and I grant you a limited
right to do that, and you pay me for that. So burning oil would be more
expensive for the ones who use it that way. That's another one.

I simply don't think I get compensated enough for the negative effects that
burning oil by others has on me. This is forced on me. I think I "should"
(no morals, just opinion) be compensated for that. You don't seem to take
your libertarian credo seriously enough to not want to force that on me
either.

> What this means is that the preference (higher energy prices) of a few
> should be forced upon the many. I call that authoritarianism.

What you seem to want is to be able to explore common goods for free (that
doesn't mean "free for the end user" but "free for the one who takes it out
of the common goods and puts it into the assets of his oil exploration
company") and force your use of common goods on everybody else. How would
you call that?

Start talking about what you really mean with "production of energy". You
thought that was a not very funny joke, but maybe start thinking... What
you mean with "production of energy" is that somebody can take out oil from
under other peoples properties, incorporate that into his own assets, and
should be allowed to do so for free. Or at least without having to buy that
oil from the people that have it under their property. Or not? How's that
supposed to work without common goods? Or how's that supposed to work with
common goods? That's where the problem with the logic kicks in :)

Gerhard

2006\09\21@155542 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> What you seem to want is to be able to explore common goods for free (that
> doesn't mean "free for the end user" but "free for the one who takes it out
> of the common goods and puts it into the assets of his oil exploration
> company") and force your use of common goods on everybody else. How would
> you call that?
>
> Start talking about what you really mean with "production of energy". You
> thought that was a not very funny joke, but maybe start thinking... What
> you mean with "production of energy" is that somebody can take out oil from
> under other peoples properties, incorporate that into his own assets, and
> should be allowed to do so for free. Or at least without having to buy that
> oil from the people that have it under their property.
One factor that clouds the energy issues (nuclear energy, oil etc) is
that there are some VERY powerful
interests that control these decisions.

For example: The primary reason nuclear electricity ever happened is
because making electricity is a convenient
way to obtain plutonium for making nuclear bombs. I remember seeing
issues of Scientific American with adverts
for nuclear power saying "so inexpensive it's too cheap to meter", an
obvious lie. But the government was hellbent
to have nuclear power, and lies were the least of it.

Oil has a similar pedigree.Its a terrible fuel to generate energy by
combusting it. But oil is now used to make plastics,
pharmaceuticals, illegal drugs, and a million other things, too numerous
to identify.  If the primary use of oil is dropped
(gasoline) the other items will all go up in price, because presently
they are "waste byproducts" created at the making
of gasoline.

and so it goes.

--Bob

2006\09\21@174831 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On 9/15/06, Juan Garofalo <animacion3dEraseMEspamhotpop.com> wrote:
>         Anybody talking about prices must of course use logic. So the first
> logical step is to take a closer look at the tool used to measure prices.
> That tool is money. I'll let you come up with a logical analysis of money. I
> do hope you realize that fiat money is not logical, that fiat money is a
> wrong premise, and that conculsions based on a wrong premise are invalid.

Fraud:
1) A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or
unlawful gain.
2) A piece of trickery; a trick.

Fiat currency:
Money that enjoys legal tender status derived from a declaratory fiat
or an authoritative order of the government.

I don't believe fiat money to be a fraud, but that is a subjective
measure.  You could certainly come up with all sorts of ways that you
believe fiat money allows others unlawful gain where commodity money
would not.  I'd be interested in an example, but since it's so
subjective I doubt we can argue logically about how fiat money
is/isn't a fraud.

What I'm trying to understand here is what abou fiat money you find so
distasteful?

I trade my time and expertise for some form of "payment."  I trade my
"payment" for other goods and services, or I loan it out (invest) and
collect interest on it.

The _only_ thing that commodity money does is artifically tie currency
to a "thing."  But the reality is that even that "thing" varies in
value relative to other things.  Even the most stable "thing" changes
over time.

The only downsides of fiat money that I can see are 1) inflation can
more easily occur and 2) if the governement that declared it legal
tender collapses then it becomes valueless.  But the reality is that
if the government collapses with commodity money, you're still in the
same boat unless you've actually got your own stockpile of "thing"
because the government tied the money to the "thing" and it becomes
untied (ie, you won't be able to get "thing" with your now-valueless
commodity money).  Therefore the second problem really doesn't change
even if you switch systems.  The only thing you can do to protect
yourself from the second issue is by never accepting nor using money,
and always bartering for your time/services/goods/investments.  You
can do that under a fiat money system already, but most retailers
arent set up to accept gold, chickens, etc as payment.

I find it easier to simply allow money to be it's own "thing."  It's a
tool, or a medium of exchange.

But I am interested in hearing other problems associated with fiat
money.  I only have basic economics knowledge though, so you might
need to explain things more thouroughly.

-Adam

2006\09\21@180234 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face

> Oil has a similar pedigree.Its a terrible fuel to generate energy by
> combusting it. But oil is now used to make plastics,
> pharmaceuticals, illegal drugs, and a million other things,
> too numerous
> to identify.  If the primary use of oil is dropped
> (gasoline) the other items will all go up in price, because presently
> they are "waste byproducts" created at the making
> of gasoline.

That point is worth reading again. Especially as the ag industry has become
more dependant on oil based fertilizers, pesticides and transport.

Over all, any change needs to be gradual, to allow unforeseen consequences
to shake out.

---
James

2006\09\24@163731 by Juan Garofalo

flavicon
face



Gerhard said :

>- What is the "reality" that any price should reflect?

       A price is "real" when it reflects an agreement between traders. If
a price is controled (price fixing, inflation, taxes, etc) it's not real.

       If 30% of the price of gas is taxes, the the real price of gas is
30% lower...

>- What are "'green' leftie regulations"?

       the ones that ban oil refineries in the States, for instance. The
ones that ban lead in electronic components...you get the picture I hope ?

>- If whatever they want suits them, and they are so many that this makes a
>difference, what is wrong with that?

       Perhaps you should look up 'mob rule' ? What 'difference' are you
alluding to, btw ?

>I simply don't think I get compensated enough for the negative effects that
>burning oil by others has on me.

       That's what makes you a green. Now, if you also believe that the
govt. must fix the price of the compensation you fancy you deserve, that
makes you a leftie. There you are : a green leftie.

       The point is, some people are willing to use force, i. e. send the
lawyers and cops, against people who don't share their religious beliefs.
This is not new. In this case the non-believers of the green religion of
global warming, peak oil, the lead threat, should be 'educated', taxed and
shoot if they don't comply.
   

>Start talking about what you really mean with "production of energy".

       The oil in 'your' commons is only sitting there. It's useless unless
it's extracted and refined. That's what I mean by production of energy. If
there's oil in your backyard you can extract it and sell it...or not, as you
please. If you don't, and your neighbour does, then you can't complain that
he's stealing 'your' oil. This would be the solution based on private
property. Of course people can quarrel in this scenario. We always can.
       

J.


2006\09\25@031855 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
>>- What is the "reality" that any price should reflect?
>
>         A price is "real" when it reflects an agreement
> between traders. If
> a price is controled (price fixing, inflation, taxes, etc)
> it's not real.

And who is the selling trader for common resources, like the oild deep
down below a natural park, the CO2 content of the athmosphere, or the
use of the 433 Mhz frequency band?

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2006\09\25@081417 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Juan Garofalo wrote:

>         If 30% of the price of gas is taxes, the the real price of gas is
> 30% lower...

Let's say what you call taxes is the price for you being able to use the
common infrastructure... Your cost would probably be way higher if you had
to pay for every bit of public infrastructure you are currently using
without paying.

>>- If whatever they want suits them, and they are so many that this makes a
>>difference, what is wrong with that?
>
>         Perhaps you should look up 'mob rule' ?

As opposed to 'intelligent individual rule' aka dictatorship? It's only
your (possibly as twisted as my) brain that says that this is so...

> What 'difference' are you alluding to, btw ?

The difference it makes that these people you so despise (epsilon-minus or
so :) exist. Maybe you should try to get reborn on a different planet :)

>>I simply don't think I get compensated enough for the negative effects that
>>burning oil by others has on me.
>
>         That's what makes you a green. Now, if you also believe that the
> govt. must fix the price of the compensation you fancy you deserve, that
> makes you a leftie. There you are : a green leftie.

No, not the government in principle. The one who causes the burn. But I
see, your argument in favor of free-market is just an attempt to freeload
on someone else's back. You don't want to carry the cost of what you do,
and rather have a communist-style dictatorship dictate that everyone has to
pick up a share of the costs that your actions cause.

I didn't sell you my clean air, right? So why do you think you have the
right to damage it? I also didn't sell my part of the water under my
property, so what gives my neighbor the right to pump out water that comes
from under my property?

>         The point is, some people are willing to use force, i. e. send the
> lawyers and cops, against people who don't share their religious beliefs.

Nope, has nothing to do with religious beliefs. I just don't want anybody
damaging my goods or subtracting them from me without my consent. Isn't
that what you are proposing? Or are there subtle details that you failed to
mention (like you get to define what can be taken from me and what not)?


>>Start talking about what you really mean with "production of energy".
>
>         The oil in 'your' commons is only sitting there. It's useless unless
> it's extracted and refined.

So you get to define what is useless for me, when I have a right to
consider something useful for me and when not. Sounds... hm.... :)

> That's what I mean by production of energy. If there's oil in your
> backyard you can extract it and sell it...or not, as you please. If you
> don't, and your neighbour does, then you can't complain that he's
> stealing 'your' oil.

Of course he is. I might want to save it for later. Is it you who defines
where the liberty to do with mine as I please ends, and if I don't do as
you please, you take it away from me? See... it just takes a little
explaining, and you show your face.

Or maybe I come and take all the plants off your property, because you are
obviously not 'using' them the way I think they should be used...

> This would be the solution based on private property.

If there's no private property, there's no free market of goods, not 'REAL'
nor otherwise. So if you propose a 'REAL free-market' (as you did), then
we're bound to assume private property, no?

Gerhard

2006\09\25@104427 by Rich

picon face
Juan:
I have not heard from you for a long time.  It is good to see that you have
not lost your sober view of reality.

Regards
Rich
{Original Message removed}

2006\09\26@032202 by Juan Garofalo

flavicon
face

>>         If 30% of the price of gas is taxes, the the real price of gas is
>> 30% lower...
>
>Let's say what you call taxes is the price for you being able to use the
>common infrastructure...


       Let's say that you are badly twisting the meaning of words.

       A tax is something you are FORCED to pay. A price is the outcome of
a VOLUNTARY agreement.  Unless we stick to english, (not newspeak and
doublethink!), this discussion makes no sense.

       And let's follow your argument of 'correct acounting', that is, to
have people pay for what they get.

       If I buy gas, I should pay for gas. If your gang of
violent-world-improvers want  to finance roads, wars, 'public' 'education'
or the NASA, then they should stea, I mean, create specific taxes for those
purposes. So people that wants the NASA pays for it...farmers who want
subsidies pay for them...hmmm...there seems to be a flaw somewhere...



>>         Perhaps you should look up 'mob rule' ?
>
>As opposed to 'intelligent individual rule' aka dictatorship? It's only
>your (possibly as twisted as my) brain that says that this is so...

       Fallacy : Straw man attack. I'm  not proposing dictatorship.

       Perhaps after looking up 'mob rule' you should continue with
'self-government'.


>> What 'difference' are you alluding to, btw ?
>
>The difference it makes that these people you so despise (epsilon-minus or
>so :) exist. Maybe you should try to get reborn on a different planet :)

       Fallacy : Straw man attack. I only despise individuals willing to
use force to impose their religious beliefs. In case it's not clear what I'm
talking about, so called 'enviromentalism' is a revelead religion. It has
nothing to do with science and/or reason.


{Quote hidden}

       By 'fix the price' I mean 'control the price' or 'set the price',
not undo the damage.

       And, you are seeing my argument wrongly. I'm willing to negotiate a
price with you. That is, as long as no government is involved. Translated :
as long as no violence is used and we keep the deal to ourselves.


>You don't want to carry the cost of what you do,
>and rather have a communist-style dictatorship dictate that everyone has to
>pick up a share of the costs that your actions cause.

       That's preposterous.


>I didn't sell you my clean air, right?
>So why do you think you have the
>right to damage it? I also didn't sell my part of the water under my
>property, so what gives my neighbor the right to pump out water that comes
>from under my property?
       
       It's not clear at all that the water under your property is yours.
At any rate, if you want to hoard it so that the price goes up and more
people suffer, you are indeed free to do it. Pump as much as you want and
store it. I've no problem with that.


>I just don't want anybody
>damaging my goods or subtracting them from me without my consent. Isn't
>that what you are proposing?

       Yes of course.
       
>Or are there subtle details that you failed to
>mention (like you get to define what can be taken from me and what not)?

       The sarcasm is pointless. We should agree what property exactly
is...and if we can't, then there's secesion.

>
>>>Start talking about what you really mean with "production of energy".
>>
>>         The oil in 'your' commons is only sitting there. It's useless unless
>> it's extracted and refined.
>
>So you get to define what is useless for me, when I have a right to
>consider something useful for me and when not. Sounds... hm.... :)

       Sounds like you are putting words in my mouth.

>
>If there's no private property, there's no free market of goods, not 'REAL'
>nor otherwise. So if you propose a 'REAL free-market' (as you did), then
>we're bound to assume private property, no?
       
       Of course.

       I do agree with you...up to the point that  we should carefully
refine the concept of property. That's the key point of the system...Let me
add that, it seems to me (but may I be wrong) that your concept of property
is a bit confused :)


J.




2006\09\26@044705 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> A tax is something you are FORCED to pay. A price is
> the outcome of a VOLUNTARY agreement.  
> Unless we stick to english, (not newspeak and
> doublethink!), this discussion makes no sense.

No, unless it is a tax on breathing air. A tax on let's say oil removed
from common property is a fee you pay to the gouvernment because you
want that oil. Nothing forced, your choice to want that oil. And it is
not yours to get for free, because it is mine too. When you want it,
you'll have to (VOLUNTARILY) agree with me, and I have mandated the
gouvernment to do that negotiation for me.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2006\09\26@052333 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
> If I buy gas, I should pay for gas. If your gang of
> violent-world-improvers want  to finance roads, wars, 'public' 'education'
> or the NASA, then they should stea, I mean, create specific taxes for
those
> purposes. So people that wants the NASA pays for it...farmers who want
> subsidies pay for them...hmmm...there seems to be a flaw somewhere...

I have to disagree here. Nobody would like to pay tax, right? While you can
go back in time and could say that if you enter to a road  you have to pay a
fee (still exists in some motorways/highways/bridges) you can't say that you
do not want to 'buy' NASA things because you do not need to use it. NASA
invents lots of things that you do not necessary know. They had millions of
invent about aerodynamics and they have the most comprehensive books about
that area. Also they made many investigations about the earth, the global
warming etc. Without them you would not be able to use GPS, there were no
satellite TV etc. OK, for the TV you pay money, but without first exploring
and sometimes exploiting the space flying it would not be possible at all.
Also personally I would not pay any money to the military staff, but it is
better to be protected than to die by some other people who would do use
their weapons. You could not do the same as in the middle ages when few
people owns the army, they took the money from the people (as a tax, but
they called it something else, and of course they used their weapons to do
so). And then if you are lucky your lord saved you if not you become a
victim to a hoard of betrayers. I do not want to go back in time, I do not
want to live like that! I'd rather pay tax as the price of my safe and
comfortable life.

Tamas



On 26/09/06, Juan Garofalo <RemoveMEanimacion3dEraseMEspamspam_OUThotpop.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2006\09\26@084859 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Juan Garofalo wrote:

> A tax is something you are FORCED to pay. A price is the outcome of
> a VOLUNTARY agreement.  Unless we stick to english, (not newspeak and
> doublethink!), this discussion makes no sense.

Ok.

> Fallacy : Straw man attack. I only despise individuals willing to use
> force to impose their religious beliefs. In case it's not clear what I'm
> talking about, so called 'enviromentalism' is a revelead religion. It
> has nothing to do with science and/or reason.

Just because you don't understand the reasons behind what you call my
environmentalism doesn't imply there is none. And in the end, of course
everything we say stands on our opinions (there's no fact besides our
subjective observations) -- so if you call that 'religion', your arguments
are just as 'religious'.

> And, you are seeing my argument wrongly. I'm willing to negotiate a price
> with you. That is, as long as no government is involved. Translated : as
> long as no violence is used and we keep the deal to ourselves.

Ok.

> It's not clear at all that the water under your property is yours.

Ok. I thought you were discussing from a point of "no common property"; ie.
everything is private property. But, as you stated later, to get to common
terms we need to get to a common concept of what is private property and
what is common property -- and how to deal with common property.

> At any rate, if you want to hoard it so that the price goes up and more
> people suffer, you are indeed free to do it.

That was not my proposition. I don't know how you live. Where I grew up, it
is essential for people to store things (not 'hoard' them) so that they can
survive the winter. Fathers have planted trees for their grandchildren do
harvest. This has been so for millennia and is still the case. Keeping
resources around for the future (both months and centuries) is not
necessarily 'hoarding'.

Not using is not the same as hoarding.

[See, if you want to have a serious discussion, you should make a little
bit of an effort to keep it free of gratuitous attacks.]

> The sarcasm is pointless. We should agree what property exactly is...and
> if we can't, then there's secesion.

Ok... this is all your turf, you started this. Explain what you mean with
'property', so that I can see whether I agree with that, or tell you with
what of it I don't agree.

>>> The oil in 'your' commons is only sitting there. It's useless unless
>>> it's extracted and refined.
>>
>> So you get to define what is useless for me, when I have a right to
>> consider something useful for me and when not. Sounds... hm.... :)
>
> Sounds like you are putting words in my mouth.

No, definitely not. You said that in your definition, the oil is useless
for me, even though I said that I don't think it's useless for me. Keeping
it for later is not useless -- for me. You may disagree, but then we have a
problem and need to decide who gets to decide about what to do with it.
Which goes back to questions about whose property it is (see above), and
what to do if someone uses it contrary to any property rules.

> I do agree with you...up to the point that  we should carefully refine
> the concept of property. That's the key point of the system...Let me add
> that, it seems to me (but may I be wrong) that your concept of property
> is a bit confused :)

Well, I tried to extract what you implied without explicitly defining it,
to be able to make sense of your statements. The apparent confusion may be
because you didn't make explicit what the basis is of your position.

As we agreed upon, one basis of what you suggest seems to be private
property. It has to be very clearly defined what is private property.
Another basis seems to be that there are no common decisions to be taken
that then needs to be adhered to by everybody. It has to be defined how to
deal with everything that is not private property. Another basis seems to
be absence of violence. It has to be defined which of the effects your life
may have on mine are considered violence.

Gerhard

2006\09\26@130252 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face
You guys are doing a pretty good job of keeping this civil and there are
enough technical points which are possibly knowable (vs. political points
which are unknowable or, in fact, religious) that I've been letting the
thread run its course. Good points are being made on both sides.

One thing I would like to point out which may help each side see the point
of view of the other...

There are two issues with taxes used to pay for the side effects of the use
of some material such as the pollution associated with oil use or second
hand smoke injury as a result of smoking cigarettes:

1. There is the question of the degree of severity of the collateral damage,
or if there is actually any at all. For many years, second hand smoke was
not considered to be an issue. Now, most people believe that it can cause
damage over time with repeated exposure. I'm not trying to argue that case
one way or the other; I'm trying to point out that the case can be argued.
And each of these issues has such an arguable case.

2. There is ALSO the question of whether or not the government, or any other
body placed in charge, will actually do anything with the taxes collected to
offset any damaged that is agreed upon in the first issue. I personally have
almost NO faith that the government will do anything worth doing with the
funds it collects as a part of the tax on gasoline, cigs, or just about
anything else. Other people believe that great good has been done with those
tax moneys.

Again, I don't want to try to argue one way or the other on any of these
issues. I just wanted to point out that there are two, and not only the one,
issues with the addition of tax to the purchase of any product.

Personally, my guess is that fossil fuel pollution accounts for more death
than nuclear power ever has. And I would also guess that not a dime of
federal funds was actually put to work to study, publish or correct the
effects of that pollution. I would be very happy to be proven wrong.

---
James.


2006\09\26@150758 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
James Newtons Massmind wrote:

> Personally, my guess is that fossil fuel pollution accounts for more death
> than nuclear power ever has.

That is probably true. But then, you'd need to look at the damage per W
generated for a comparison. There must be a reason why insurance companies
refuse to insure nuclear plants. They are usually not prone to let go of a
business where there is one.

> And I would also guess that not a dime of federal funds was actually put
> to work to study, publish or correct the effects of that pollution. I
> would be very happy to be proven wrong.

From
www.awea.org/faq/wwt_costs.html#If%20wind%20energy%20is%20competitive,%20why%20does%20it%20need%20a%20tax%20credit%20subsidy%20from%20the%20government%20Isnt%20this%20government%20interference%20in%20the%20free%20market,
or http://tinyurl.com/rboop (not a first hand source though):

"To take just one example, the federal government has paid out $35 billion
over the past 30 years to cover the medical expenses of coal miners who
suffer from 'black lung disease.'"

That's some form of pollution effect that in some way and to some degree
seemed to have been studied and remedied.

Gerhard

2006\09\27@210419 by Juan Garofalo

flavicon
face


>> It's not clear at all that the water under your property is yours.

Gerhard :
>Ok. I thought you were discussing from a point of "no common property"; ie.
>everything is private property.

       Apparently you don't realize there's another option. Things can be
un-owned, so to speak. The point is, the price of natural resources is based
on the effort it takes to 'mine' them. When you pay for oil, you basically
pay for exploration and extraction. The oil itself is not private property.
It's un-owned.

       But you say it's common property. Ok. Now the fun begins...

       Imagine you want to sell your house. You ask for $xxx. YOU get to
decide how much you want. And if somebody agrees to give you what you ask,
then the price is $xxx.

       Now, when something is owned by everybody, WHO gets to decide what
the asking price is ? The govt. of course ? The nation-state ? the UN ? The
god-designated leader ? Majority  rule ? Rousseau ?

       And even worse. If everybody is selling something, then WHO is
buying it ??? Do you see that common property is a contradiction in terms ?
Do you see that prices can't exist in a common property scenario ? If
something is common it can not be sold or bought...

       So in practice the politicians own the country and they sell it to
their friends. And the firms who buy licenses from the politicians get back
the money they spent in 'licensing' when they sell their stuff to the
consumers ('we the people')

       Still want common oil fields ? Still want common 433mhz bands Wouter ?



>You said that in your definition, the oil is useless
>for me, even though I said that I don't think it's useless for me.

       What I meant is that the oil can't be used unless it's found and
extracted. I was not opining whether it's useful or not for you. Whatever
you do with it is indeed useful for you. Otherwise you woudn't do it...

>Not using is not the same as hoarding.

>[See, if you want to have a serious discussion, you should make a little
>bit of an effort to keep it free of gratuitous attacks.]

       Don't take it so hard. I was simply teasing you. I don't believe
that 'hoarding' is a dishonest act. You can call it saving if you want.


       Anyway, we have strayed from my original point, wich was that the
current price of oil is higher than it should be because of taxes,
regulations, wars, inflation and 'common' property. Apparently you
disregarded all factors except common property - a system you seem to relish.

       So I repeat that people who want an even higher price of energy
because they consider that 'we' need to economize it, are badly mistaken,
and are, apparently, willing to use state-sponsored violence to further
their 'conservative' agenda.

       I'm off my soap box...before somebody starts throwing stones :)


J.



2006\09\27@213344 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face
>         Now, when something is owned by everybody, WHO gets
> to decide what the asking price is ? The govt. of course ?
> The nation-state ? the UN ? The god-designated leader ?
> Majority  rule ? Rousseau ?
>
>         And even worse. If everybody is selling something,
> then WHO is buying it ??? Do you see that common property is
> a contradiction in terms ?
> Do you see that prices can't exist in a common property
> scenario ? If something is common it can not be sold or bought...
>
>         So in practice the politicians own the country and
> they sell it to their friends. And the firms who buy licenses
> from the politicians get back the money they spent in
> 'licensing' when they sell their stuff to the consumers ('we
> the people')

All good points. But you haven't addressed that issue of the damage done to
A when B burns the gasoline and pollutes the air. How does ownership or the
lack there of affect air quality? How do we add the cost of cleaning up the
air to the cost of buying the gas?

---
James.


2006\09\27@220356 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Juan Garofalo wrote:

>>> It's not clear at all that the water under your property is yours.
>
> Gerhard :
>>Ok. I thought you were discussing from a point of "no common property"; ie.
>>everything is private property.
>
>         Apparently you don't realize there's another option. Things can be
> un-owned, so to speak.

Un-owned is ok, I guess. But you are talking about making un-owned
resources owned resources. This assumes an agreement about who gets to make
the un-owned resource his owned resource. What's that agreement?

See, you may start drilling and pumping out oil. I get a better financing,
a bigger drill and pump, and simply suck all the oil off right in front of
your hole. All your effort to get some oil is now in vain. Ok with you?

(And of course James's question is still mine, too...)

> The point is, the price of natural resources is based on the effort it
> takes to 'mine' them. When you pay for oil, you basically pay for
> exploration and extraction. The oil itself is not private property. It's
> un-owned.

It seems to me that the moment you sell or burn it, you act as if it were
owned. Where did the transition happen, and to what rules?

Gerhard

2006\09\28@015100 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> The oil itself is not private property. It's un-owned.

For that to be true at least the majority of people in the country that
oil is located have to agree on that. I surely don't.

> Now, when something is owned by everybody, WHO gets
> to decide what
> the asking price is ? 1. The govt. of course ? 2. The nation-state
> ? the UN ? The
> god-designated leader ? Majority  rule ? Rousseau ?

I don't know what the difference between 1 and 2 is, but those are the
bodies that decide on all other things (like whether it is legal to do
XXXXX), so why should they not decide on this?

>         And even worse.

nothing bad so far

> If everybody is selling something, then WHO is
> buying it ??? Do you see that common property is a
> contradiction in terms ?

no, at least you have not shown it to be so.

> Do you see that prices can't exist in a common property scenario ?

no

>         So in practice the politicians own the country and
> they sell it to their friends.

alas, the optimist might say that might be true in practice in some
places of the world. the pessimist might say that the politicians and
their friends don't even bother to sell, they just take...

>         Still want common oil fields ? Still want common
> 433mhz bands Wouter ?

yes, definitely. without a 433 band that is common to begin with, so
some gov body can create regulaions, the 433 band would be owned by the
transmitters that have the most power.

>         What I meant is that the oil can't be used unless
> it's found and extracted.

true, but as part-owner of that oil I have the right to want it *not
extracted*. That is as much within my right as wanting it extracted.


>         I'm off my soap box...before somebody starts throwing
> stones :)

no, I am a pascifist. I prefer throwing soap. Or better: shampoo. But
don't take that as a stament about the state of your hair.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2006\09\30@192748 by Juan Garofalo

flavicon
face


Gerhard says :
>See, you may start drilling and pumping out oil. I get a better financing,
>a bigger drill and pump, and simply suck all the oil off right in front of
>your hole. All your effort to get some oil is now in vain. Ok with you?

       That's PERFECTLY OK. (do notice that you have higher expenses)

       OTOH, perhaps I had enough foresight and have already bought land
around my hole, so that you need to set up yours half a mile away, say. And
maybe you loose money. Or maybe not. That's part of the game.

Gerhard and James :
>But you haven't addressed that issue of the damage done to
>A when B burns the gasoline and pollutes the air.

       Right. I didn't figure out the details of it, but I think we agreed
with Gerhard that it's something that should be negotiated individually. The
problem I see is how to 'measure' the damage (You James also see that as
problem). I have no apriori opinion on how to measure it. We may discuss it
as an experiment.


I say:
>> The oil itself is not private property. It's un-owned.

Wouter answers :
>For that to be true at least the majority of people in the country that
>oil is located have to agree on that.

       If you believe in so called 'majority rule'. I don't. You are a
democrat and a pacifist but in reality in a 'democratic' system you need to
use violence to get the disidents to comply.

       But, if you want to divide all unowned land equally among all human
beings, I have no theoretical objection against it. I think that would be
fair. The problem is, it's a bit  difficult to implent AND you would quickly
see that your beloved 'representative' government would oppose because that
would hurt THEIR profits.

James :
>Personally, my guess is that fossil fuel pollution accounts for more death
>than nuclear power ever has.

       I don't know. That's the point - ignorance. To find out, all systems
must be tried...in a free market with no taxes and subsidies wich mask
'reality'. Individuals should be free to choose different 'products'. You
want cleaner energy sources ? Pay for them. I want use dirty oil and endure
some polution ? I have the right to do so. What we need to sort out is how
to allocate the land so that we don't interfere with each other.



J.


       




'[OT] If engineers ruled the world...'
2006\10\01@014553 by James Newtons Massmind
face picon face
> Wouter answers :
> >For that to be true at least the majority of people in the
> country that
> >oil is located have to agree on that.
>
>         If you believe in so called 'majority rule'. I don't.
> You are a democrat and a pacifist but in reality in a
> 'democratic' system you need to use violence to get the
> disidents to comply.

I also do not wish for majority rule. I'm an anarchist for the following
reason:
http://techref.massmind.org/techref/other/anarchist.htm

>         But, if you want to divide all unowned land equally
> among all human beings, I have no theoretical objection
> against it. I think that would be fair. The problem is, it's
> a bit  difficult to implent AND you would quickly see that
> your beloved 'representative' government would oppose because
> that would hurt THEIR profits.

Actually, that is a very good point. Your prior point about how the real
owner of everything is the government is percolating into my view of the
world.

{Quote hidden}

Not just the land. Also the air, water, etc... And those are a bit harder to
seperatly allocate. But I take your point, I'm just trying to get back to
the idea of including the cost of e.g. polution.

How about this: Advertising. Most people pay for health care; either
directly or via their tax dollars. Cigarretts sales were damaged most
seriously when one of the major HMO's (I seem to remember it was California
Blue Shield) started advertising against smokeing. Remember those great TV
ads with the lady smoking from the hole in her throat? Or the guy who killed
his wife with secondary smoke? Or the brother of the "Marlboro Man" talking
about his death from lung cancer? Anyway, that really took a chunk out of
Phillip Morris. Perhaps if the HMO's figured out that their members were
actually dying from air polution and started another ad campaign...

But that does not address the future, only the present. Who will speak for
the children? Or for the planet?

Is there a Lorax?

---
James.


2006\10\01@024359 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> I also do not wish for majority rule. I'm an anarchist for
> the following reason:
> http://techref.massmind.org/techref/other/anarchist.htm

I am afraid that democracy/majority-rule is still the least bad system
we know. If one counter-example is enough to disqualify a system, tell
me which system (among the ones that have been tried) will stand?

Yes, I like to call myself an anarchist too, but I do hope my neighbour
does not!

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2006\10\01@121426 by Rich

picon face
I wonder if those people voted the Nazi program because they embraced
Hitler's Mien Kampf or if  it seemed like the lesser of two evils.  Did they
do so because they were hoping to find some solution to the oppressive
forces obtaining from what they called the Versailles Diktat and the ever
encroaching Soviet expansion with designs on German ingenuity, resources and
productivity?  I wonder if we can continue to look myopically at German
history and learn from it.  Hegel said "The only thing we learn from history
is that we learn nothing from history." (Paraphrased.)  Perhaps he was
right. Perhaps it is because history is more than a summary of human events.



{Original Message removed}

2006\10\01@171037 by Mike Singer

picon face
Wouter van Ooijen wrote:

> > I also do not wish for majority rule. I'm an anarchist for
> > the following reason:
> > http://techref.massmind.org/techref/other/anarchist.htm
>
> I am afraid that democracy/majority-rule is still the least bad system
> we know. If one counter-example is enough to disqualify a system, tell
> me which system (among the ones that have been tried) will stand?


"Democracy/majority-rule" is not a system in my opinion. It's just a
rule that could be applied over more fundamental thing – ideology.

Applying the rule over Christianity you'll get western system, over
Marx' idea – eastern system; over the idea that some are uber alles –
Germany 1930x – 1940x and so on.

Applying the rule over the artificial idea that "engineers ruled the
world" you, probably, would end up with the surprisingly bloody
system, because since engineers just can't rule, they would need to
hire those who claimed they could …

though, not sure that's good topic for EE related list.

MS

2006\10\01@184542 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Oct 1, 2006, at 2:10 PM, Mike Singer wrote:

> engineers just can't rule

heh.  That would be why I haven't been participating in the
discussion.

Seems to me that all political forms end up selecting leaders with
the ability and desire TO LEAD, which is perhaps not a good thing.
(This includes anarchy; the people who make it better/worse are the
ones willing to push their agenda onto others.)

BillW

2006\10\01@192621 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Juan Garofalo wrote:

> Gerhard says :
>>See, you may start drilling and pumping out oil. I get a better financing,
>>a bigger drill and pump, and simply suck all the oil off right in front of
>>your hole. All your effort to get some oil is now in vain. Ok with you?
>
> That's PERFECTLY OK. (do notice that you have higher expenses)
>
> OTOH, perhaps I had enough foresight and have already bought land around
> my hole, so that you need to set up yours half a mile away, say. And
> maybe you loose money. Or maybe not. That's part of the game.

Ok. I however think (using an engineering approach -- see the title :) that
this is an instable system. Who gets to "pump" more resources, as a
tendency has more resources and power. As a consequence, that entity tends
to get a bigger chunk of other resources -- and so on, a positive feedback
loop. When I find a sufficiently large oil field under my property, I don't
stand a chance against Texas Oil -- they simply can throw enough resources
at it, buy enough land around my patch and suck me dry. Similarly for
pretty much every other freely available resource.

Which leaves in the end a single big company, or a small oligopoly. Which
is also the typical experience in smaller countries that are relatively
"free" of the "evils" of majority rule.


> Right. I didn't figure out the details of it, but I think we agreed with
> Gerhard that it's something that should be negotiated individually. The
> problem I see is how to 'measure' the damage (You James also see that as
> problem). I have no apriori opinion on how to measure it. We may discuss
> it as an experiment.

I don't think the damage has to be measured. Since (as I understand your
proposition) there are no government rules about how much is allowed or
not, you may not pollute the air above any land that you don't own. The
amount of damage is no indication for the price tag I may want to put on it
-- you have no right to judge for me how valuable a particular pollution or
its absence is for me.

When you start your car, you usually pollute your neighbor's air.
("Usually" because there may be temporarily wind conditions that pollute
your other neighbor's air...) So... since you do pollute, you have to get
into an agreement with everybody you potentially pollute. Which makes e.g.
driving a car pretty much unpractical. Do we agree on that?


{Quote hidden}

Every system has to use violence to get the dissidents to comply -- or else
it simply doesn't exist. Your system seems to be based on a certain
definition of private and un-owned property. You may think that land can be
private property, and I may think that land can only always be un-owned.
Either one has to either agree to the other's system (in which case his
system ceases to exist) or use violence to force the other to comply with
his system. The two cannot coexist -- and that's just one point of dispute.


> But, if you want to divide all unowned land equally among all human
> beings, I have no theoretical objection against it. I think that would
> be fair. The problem is, it's a bit  difficult to implent

Right. Especially since with every new-born, the existing land would have
to be re-assigned... not very practical :)  So -- can land be privately
owned, or is it an un-owned resource? If it can be privately owned (in your
proposition), would you use violence to make me comply (me thinking that
land can't be privately owned and so not honoring your private ownership of
land)?


> To find out, all systems must be tried...in a free market with no taxes
> and subsidies wich mask 'reality'.

This assumes that a free market shows the 'reality' that something else
doesn't show. I don't think so. Reality is what is; the current price of
oil is as real as the price in any other system is (when and where it
exits).


> I want use dirty oil and endure some polution ? I have the right to do
> so. What we need to sort out is how to allocate the land so that we
> don't interfere with each other.

Which is the center of the problem: this is not possible, IMO. There is no
way that we /don't/ interfere with each other. Politics is the fine art of
making this interference workable, and unluckily there are few masters in
this art, and worst of all, most of them are not generally recognized (and
employed) as such :-/

Gerhard

2006\10\02@053837 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Mike Singer wrote:

> because since engineers just can't rule,

Is it really that they can't? Or is it that some just can't be bothered
with the subjectivity that characterizes human interactions -- and ruling
(or doing anything together with other people) always is exposed to it?

I don't think there is anything about ruling (or living in a community)
that is related to being an engineer or not.

Gerhard

2006\10\02@053844 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Mike Singer wrote:

> because since engineers just can't rule,

Is it really that they can't? Or is it that some just can't be bothered
with the subjectivity that characterizes human interactions -- and ruling
(or doing anything together with other people) always is exposed to it?

I don't think there is anything about ruling (or living in a community)
that is related to being an engineer or not.

Gerhard

2006\10\02@120705 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face
> > I also do not wish for majority rule. I'm an anarchist for the
> > following reason:
> > techref.massmind.org/techref/other/anarchist.htm
>
> I am afraid that democracy/majority-rule is still the least
> bad system we know. If one counter-example is enough to
> disqualify a system, tell me which system (among the ones
> that have been tried) will stand?
>
> Yes, I like to call myself an anarchist too, but I do hope my
> neighbour does not!

You can call me an advocate of democracy with a healthy distrust of the
ruling body.

---
James.


2006\10\02@122255 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> > I am afraid that democracy/majority-rule is still the least
> > bad system we know. If one counter-example is enough to
> > disqualify a system, tell me which system (among the ones
> > that have been tried) will stand?
> >
> > Yes, I like to call myself an anarchist too, but I do hope my
> > neighbour does not!
>
> You can call me an advocate of democracy with a healthy
> distrust of the ruling body.

In that case call me a Newtonist (with a healthy distrust kept dormant
:) ).

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2006\10\02@122419 by Mike Singer

picon face
Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> I don't think there is anything about ruling
> (or living in a community) that is related to
> being an engineer or not.


Different mindset makes an engineer different to politician, lawyer,
bandit or whatever this kind.

Engineer's professional world is of strict rules, specs etc. There is
no much sense to cheat those rules or specs; in fact, following those
rules and specs makes a good engineer. There real life world rules a
set by some ideology, say, Christianity, Marx theory or whatever.
Those two engineer's worlds are different "by design". That's two
absolutely different experiences.

Politicians, lawyers, bandits or whatever this kind live in
professional world with vague rules, those rules could hardly be
called "rules" from engineer's point of view. Rather they could be
called dynamic agreements to achieve a goal. The point is that their
professional world coincides with "real life world". So they need no
ideology at all. Their professional rules are their ideology. So, they
are "professionals" of the real life world, and engineers are hobbyist
of the world.

Hobbyist can't rule professionals within their professional scope.
Trying to do so, say, to set workers to rule the world would lead to
destroying the existing system, chaos and, since there is no system,
the wildest and bloodiest bastards would win to rule.

Ideally, in my opinion, would be if a politician wild be raised up on
a sound ideology bases (say, Christianity) then would master his dirty
professional skills while maintaining in healthy condition his
internal Christianity frameset; hard to survive this way, though.

Regards,
MS.

2006\10\02@123126 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face
> I wonder if those people voted the Nazi program because they
> embraced Hitler's Mien Kampf or if  it seemed like the lesser
> of two evils.  Did they do so because they were hoping to
> find some solution to the oppressive forces obtaining from
> what they called the Versailles Diktat and the ever
> encroaching Soviet expansion with designs on German
> ingenuity, resources and productivity?  I wonder if we can
> continue to look myopically at German history and learn from
> it.  Hegel said "The only thing we learn from history is that
> we learn nothing from history." (Paraphrased.)  Perhaps he
> was right. Perhaps it is because history is more than a
> summary of human events.

Certainly everyone does what they feel is right for them at the time. I
don't think any German citizen of the time knew what the result of that vote
would be and I don't blame them for what happened in the least. My point is
only that democracy is NOT perfect and may not even be the best possible
system of government. I happen to believe it is the only REAL system of
government; the people are always in charge, they just often times allow
someone else to make up their minds for them.

"Democracy is the only form of government; all the others are simply
democracies where the ruling body has abdicated."

My point about anarchy is that I do not believe that the majority is
actually qualified to decide what should be done. The best thing is for each
person to be as independent as possible and be left the hell and gone alone
by the rest of the world.

...as much as possible. Obviously there are many cases where the majority
can not just allow one person to do as they please, but it would be my wish
that these cases be the exception rather than the rule.

The decisions, that are made and supported by the majority, to interfere in
the lives of others should always be questioned long and hard. And then we
should decide not to bother them unless they are actually, actively,
bothering us or our allies.

For example: When Kuwait started slant drilling over the boarder into Iraqi
oil fields back in 1990, we should have used our military to support our
ally (Iraq) and stop that theft. But Kuwait was also an ally, so perhaps we
did the right thing in staying out of it. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, we were
right in using our military to stop them, and we were right to stop at the
boarder. They had accomplished their goal of destroying the oil rigs that
were stealing their oil, but they went to far and needed to be removed back
to their country. Minimum interference while protecting our allies.

I won't get into the current war because it just plain hurts me too much to
talk about it. This Christmas, more US soldiers will have died in Iraq than
US citizens died in 9/11, and I still have nightmares.

---
James.


2006\10\02@124022 by Marcel duchamp

picon face

> In that case call me a Newtonist (with a healthy distrust kept dormant
> :) ).
>
> Wouter van Ooijen

James or Isaac?

2006\10\02@125513 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> Engineer's professional world is of strict rules, specs etc. There is
> no much sense to cheat those rules or specs;

Correct. Nobody tries to run a uC or uC abover its rated speed, nobody
omits the decoupling capacitors, we all respect the maximum and minimum
voltages on PIC pins, and we never design from the 'absolute maxima'.
And all programmers use the propper Vpp voltage and the Vpp-before-Vdd
sequence (when required). And nobody tries to use a serial port for
anything but that what it was deigned for (but - where can we find what
it was designed for?).

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2006\10\02@125639 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> > In that case call me a Newtonist (with a healthy distrust
> kept dormant
> > :) ).
> >
> > Wouter van Ooijen
>
> James or Isaac?

You know Isaac considered his astrological and alchemical work the most
important?

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2006\10\02@151044 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Mike Singer wrote:

> Different mindset makes an engineer different to politician, lawyer,
> bandit or whatever this kind.

I kind of wonder whether you, me, both of us or neither of us are engineers
:)

> Engineer's professional world is of strict rules, specs etc.

After adding the smiley to Wouter's reply to this, I get to the serious
part of it... :)

I thought I've been doing quite a bit of professional engineering work so
far. Part of it (and it's a part that's often not taken seriously enough)
is to "pick the clients' brain" and discover what specs are the right ones
to achieve what they want. This is often not an easy process, it is at the
very core of engineering work, and it is less governed by strict rules than
translating Hamlet into modern Chinese.

> There is no much sense to cheat those rules or specs; in fact, following
> those rules and specs makes a good engineer.

If that were all, engineering would be easy (and still more underpaid :).
The real art of engineering is IMO to balance conflicting goals, know how
much is just enough -- it is my experience that in real-life professional
projects, the most important specs are often the ones that are left out of
the official specs.

In the end, the only real spec you usually have is "it must work" or "it
must become a successful product". Much of the rest is an educated guess,
more art than science. (Which, BTW, for me is one way of saying what
engineering is: where science meets art. I'm sure many have felt the same
awe when watching a really good engineer performing some feat of awesome
engineering or when examining an awesome product of engineering as people
typically feel when watching artists or art.)

It may be that making a successful product (engineering) is not that
different from getting elected (politicking). Both have a pretty simple
starting point as "spec", but the devil is in the details :)


> There real life world rules a set by some ideology, say, Christianity,
> Marx theory or whatever. Those two engineer's worlds are different "by
> design". That's two absolutely different experiences.

I'm not sure I understand that fully, but I think I disagree. I'm not a
Christian, but for what I know about Christians, I think the Christian
engineers would hold that they try to use Christian principles in their
work whenever possible -- and that they regret when they feel compelled not
to, and try to get better with that and have less reason to regret.
(Similar thing can be said for Marxists, IMO. Not sure about "whatever" :)

Gerhard

2006\10\02@160323 by Mike Singer

picon face
Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> > Engineer's professional world is of strict rules, specs etc…
> > There real life world rules are set by some ideology, say, Christianity,
> > Marx theory or whatever. Those two engineer's worlds are different "by
> > design". That's two absolutely different experiences.
>
> I'm not sure I understand that fully, but I think I disagree. I'm not a
> Christian, but for what I know about Christians, I think the Christian
> engineers would hold that they try to use Christian principles in their
> work whenever possible -- and that they regret when they feel compelled not
> to, and try to get better with that and have less reason to regret.
> (Similar thing can be said for Marxists, IMO. Not sure about "whatever" :)


Even with soviet engineers this is not true. No serious engineer would
claim he used communist ideas to develop a device. Perhaps many would
claim they are driven by the idea a communism to take over the Globe,
but not that they used the ideology principles to develop an EE
device. The same about Christian engineers, nobody would claim they
used The 10 principles to choose, say the value of a resistor :-)

That's why I'm talking that virtual professional EE world is
ideology-free, that is, it's different to real-life world.


MS ;-)

2006\10\02@195907 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
part 1 2111 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="big5" (decoded quoted-printable)

Mike Singer wrote:

>>> Engineer's professional world is of strict rules, specs etc¡K There real
>>> life world rules are set by some ideology, say, Christianity, Marx
>>> theory or whatever. Those two engineer's worlds are different "by
>>> design". That's two absolutely different experiences.
>> >> I'm not sure I understand that fully, but I think I disagree. I'm not a
>> Christian, but for what I know about Christians, I think the Christian
>> engineers would hold that they try to use Christian principles in their
>> work whenever possible -- and that they regret when they feel compelled
>> not to, and try to get better with that and have less reason to regret.
>> (Similar thing can be said for Marxists, IMO. Not sure about "whatever"
>> :)
> > Even with soviet engineers this is not true.
If you mean "soviet" as in "citizen of the (ex) USSR"... this is a
politic/geographic classification, not an ideologic one.

> No serious engineer would claim he used communist ideas to develop a
> device. Perhaps many would claim they are driven by the idea a communism
> to take over the Globe, but not that they used the ideology principles
> to develop an EE device. The same about Christian engineers, nobody
> would claim they used The 10 principles to choose, say the value of a
> resistor :-)
Of course not (choosing the resistor value based on faith :). But
developing a product is much more than choosing the value of a resistor.
The choice of which kind of product with which features to develop can IMO
very well be influenced by beliefs and ideologies. The many choices of how
to exercise the profession usually is -- no matter whether you're an
engineer or an MD.

> That's why I'm talking that virtual professional EE world is
> ideology-free, that is, it's different to real-life world.
If it were, we wouldn't need James to make sure we don't stray from the
permitted path :)

Gerhard



part 2 35 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
(decoded 7bit)

2006\10\02@223813 by Mike Singer

picon face
Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> If you mean "soviet" as in "citizen of the (ex) USSR"... this is a
> politic/geographic classification, not an ideological one.

I meant it as "soviet ideology".


> Of course not (choosing the resistor value based on faith :). But
> developing a product is much more than choosing the value of a resistor.
> The choice of which kind of product with which features to develop can IMO
> very well be influenced by beliefs and ideologies.

An engineer has no "choice of which kind of product with which
features to develop", and if he had, he would rather be called sort of
"market" guy, not an engineer. That's different profession.


> The many choices of how to exercise the profession
> usually is -- no matter whether you're an engineer or an MD.

What is "MD"?


> > That's why I'm talking that virtual professional EE world is
> > ideology-free, that is, it's different to real-life world.
>
> If it were, we wouldn't need James to make sure we don't stray from the
> permitted path :)

It is, that's why we need James to make sure we don't stray from the
permitted path when we are in [EE, PIC] world.

[OT] world of PICList is declared as politics free too for the flame
safety reasons, I believe. We can see some political discussions from
time to time here; and they always happened to flow smoothly without
flame wars.
I wouldn't say I'm happy with wasting time on politics; I'm just very
much surprised we can talk it without flame. Still, can't get it, how
James manages to maintain the intercontinental list this way. Thanks,
James.

MS.

2006\10\03@003826 by Rich

picon face
It is good to see that there are some very well thought out and sound
arguments here.  It is true that democracy is not a perfect form of
government.  I don't believe that a perfect form of government can exist
without perfect people so I am not holding my breath for that. I believe
that corrupt people can corrupt people.
   I cannot say with any level of certitude that the majority is exercising
authority in the governing process of America and for that matter in certain
other "Democratic Republics."  Theoretically, it may be the ideal case where
the majority rules but in actuality it may not be realized. The ideal
(underlying) meaning here is that the majority has objectively arrived at
some consensus on the greater benefit to the greater number of citizens.
But the reality is that the majority may only be expressing what they have
been convinced of by false or misleading facts.  In which case their
judgment is meaningless. And that, I believe, is more often than not, the
case.
   Someone also mentioned that Democracy (I assume meaning Democratic
Republican expression) is not necessarily the best form of government.  That
may be true, but do we have any way to determine that fact? There has been
much opposition to the idea of a Republican form of democracy in the 20th
century.  It spread across the globe in a very short time. It  has not been
more successful by any real measure, including efficiency.  Under the banner
of a People's Democracy, an oligarchy exercised the authority of decision
for political, social and economic functions. It was begun by the Bolshevik
Revolution in 1917.  By western standards, it was unsuccessful.
   And, speaking of misinformation, I once read on one of the internet
encyclopedias that the Bolsheviks overthrew the Czar.  But actually,
Nicholas had already abdicated the throne and freed the peasants, etc.  It
was a democracy that the Bolsheviks overthrew with the DUMAS (Houses) being
represented by the Bolsheviks, party of Lenin and the Mensheviks, party of
Trotsky.  The word Bolshevik means majority but they were the minority and
the word Menshevik means minority but they were the majority.  The minority
seized power and political control based on an ideology that was almost a
century old and ill-suited to a modern world. (Marxists will disagree)
   It is a much more subtle process in American politics but the minority
has seized control of the media and other influential organizations.
Someone here wisely questioned the majority's qualification to make
decisions.  That is why the republican for was conceived.  However, the
question is relevant and important because it raises another important
question. That question is whether the system is flawed or whether the
elected representatives have become corrupted and thereby encumbered the
system to its detriment?  My own observations and research suggests that the
system is sound but corrupt individuals are in influential positions and are
willing  to corrupt it for personal gain, or else commitment to an ideology
that is anathema to it.
   Here are some other questions related to the idea that the majority is
not qualified to decide on issues.  If the majority acts according the will
of the minority because they are influenced to accept certain premises by
the minority, is the will of the majority arbitrary?  When the will of the
minority exercises control over the will of the majority by rule of law
extending from the minority power in the court system, is there any meaning
to majority rule?  Is there any meaning to "rule of law?"  Given that state
of affairs, is the democratic system broken or simply exploited?



{Original Message removed}

2006\10\03@090501 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Mike Singer wrote:

> Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
>> If you mean "soviet" as in "citizen of the (ex) USSR"... this is a
>> politic/geographic classification, not an ideological one.
>
> I meant it as "soviet ideology".

I'm not familiar with that. I looked up Wikipedia "Soviet"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_%28disambiguation%29 , but it didn't
help.


> An engineer has no "choice of which kind of product with which
> features to develop", and if he had, he would rather be called sort of
> "market" guy, not an engineer. That's different profession.

I'm not sure about other engineers, but it's often how I translate between
my technical knowledge and theirs and my assessment of the advantages and
disadvantages of different approaches that heavily influences what features
a product will have. In pretty much all designs I created I was
instrumentally involved in the creation of the product itself, not only in
the realization. I see this as part of engineering work -- what else would
it be? It requires engineering knowledge. Someone with /only/ marketing
knowledge can't design a product spec (the spec must be realizable).

I think the whole thinking in "engineers", "marketing guys", "politicians"
etc is fundamentally flawed. What am I in that system? I've been active in
something you could call grass-roots politics; does that make me a
politician? I've done engineering work; does that make me an engineer? I've
chosen the features of products; does that make me a "sort of 'market'
guy"? I've lead groups of engineers and programmers; does that make me a
manager? Or am I all of these (and more)? And doesn't that hold for pretty
much everybody?

> What is "MD"?

I thought that was a common abbreviation of "medical doctor"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Md .

> [OT] world of PICList is declared as politics free too for the flame
> safety reasons, I believe.

No and yes, I believe :)  James will correct me if I'm wrong. My
understanding is "no" to "politics free" and "yes" to "flame safety" -- the
criterion is "knowable" vs "unknowable", and sometimes the civilized
discussion about what is what happens.

> I wouldn't say I'm happy with wasting time on politics; I'm just very
> much surprised we can talk it without flame. Still, can't get it, how
> James manages to maintain the intercontinental list this way. Thanks,
> James.

Yes, is a phenomenon. IMO it takes a leader and a crew for that. The leader
has set the stage properly, and the crew has given it the necessary
support. It's not that James is our "boss"; it's just that we appreciate
what he does, nobody really wants his "throne", and that most here realize
it's better this way than any other way we can imagine.

Now just think how this style could be expanded... it is neither democracy
(including the republican form) nor anarchy or a free market (whatever that
is). Nor is it a dictatorship.

Gerhard

2006\10\03@142848 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face
> Yes, is a phenomenon. IMO it takes a leader and a crew for
> that. The leader has set the stage properly, and the crew has
> given it the necessary support. It's not that James is our
> "boss"; it's just that we appreciate what he does, nobody
> really wants his "throne", and that most here realize it's
> better this way than any other way we can imagine.

When nobody wants your job, you must be whining about it enough. The key to
effective leadership, as learned from Bill Cosby: Cry first. ;D

---
James.


2006\10\03@143419 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Gerhard,

On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 10:01:04 -0300, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

> > What is "MD"?
>
> I thought that was a common abbreviation of "medical doctor"

Only in the USA - over here it means "Managing Director" - similar to CEO in the USA, I believe.

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\10\03@191148 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Howard Winter wrote:

>>> What is "MD"?
>>
>> I thought that was a common abbreviation of "medical doctor"
>
> Only in the USA - over here it means "Managing Director" - similar to
> CEO in the USA, I believe.

Thanks... I suspected something like this after I sent my message. It's too
easy to forget that we're talking in several languages here :)

Gerhard

2006\10\03@200354 by Brian Riley

picon face
here here! yes, James you must take a bow (as should all of you),  
this thread has gone one for dozens of rounds with wildy differing  
ideas and not once has it gotten rancorous ... I am impressed FWIW.  
hey, maybe we engineers should run the world! <tongue half in cheek>

---
cheers ... 73 de brian  riley,  n1bq , underhill center, vermont
  <http://web.mac.com/brianbr/>  Tech Blog
  <http://www.wulfden.org/DiskShop.shtml>
   Home of the
      K107 Serial LCD Controller Kit   FT817 Power Conditioner Kit
      Tab Robot Laser Tag Kit            MSP430 Chips and Connectors
      Propeller Robot Controller         SX48 "Tech Board" Kit



On Oct 2, 2006, at 10:38 PM, Mike Singer wrote:

{Quote hidden}

2006\10\03@230411 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Brian Riley wrote:
> On Oct 2, 2006, at 10:38 PM, Mike Singer wrote:
>
>> It is, that's why we need James to make sure we don't stray from the
>> permitted path when we are in [EE, PIC] world.
>>
>> [OT] world of PICList is declared as politics free too for the flame
>> safety reasons, I believe. We can see some political discussions from
>> time to time here; and they always happened to flow smoothly without
>> flame wars.
>> I wouldn't say I'm happy with wasting time on politics; I'm just very
>> much surprised we can talk it without flame. Still, can't get it, how
>> James manages to maintain the intercontinental list this way. Thanks,
>> James.
>
> here here! yes, James you must take a bow (as should all of you),
> this thread has gone one for dozens of rounds with wildy differing
> ideas and not once has it gotten rancorous ... I am impressed FWIW.
> hey, maybe we engineers should run the world! <tongue half in cheek>

I think it's "hear, hear!"  :-)

I agree that James (and other admins) are doing an excellent job of policing
the PicList, but I think that the flame-free nature of this list has also a
lot to do with the kind of people that it's made up of. Which, of course, is
also partially admins' fault -- bad apples get banned. ;-)

Vitaliy

2006\10\04@002618 by Brian Riley

picon face
 .... ooooopsssss!!!!!

On Oct 3, 2006, at 11:04 PM, Vitaliy wrote:

> I think it's "hear, hear!"  :-)

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2006 , 2007 only
- Today
- New search...