From eugen at leitl.org Mon Oct 12 07:13:55 2009 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:13:55 +0200 Subject: [FoRK] A singular event Message-ID: <20091012141355.GQ27331@leitl.org> http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2009/10/a_singular_event.html October 08, 2009 A singular event Aubrey, Eliezer, Peter and Michael Just back from the Singularity Summit and subsequent workshop. I am glad to say it exceeded my expectations - the conference had a intensity and concentration of interesting people I have rarely seen in a general conference. I of course talked about whole brain emulation, sketching out my usual arguments for how complex the undertaking is. Randall Koene presented more on the case for why we should go for it, and in an earlier meeting Kenneth Hayworth and Todd Huffman told us about some of the simply amazing progress on the scanning side. Ed Boyden described the amazing progress of optically controlled neurons. I can hardly wait to see what happens when this is combined with some of the scanning techniques. Stuart Hameroff of course thought we needed microtubuli quantum processing; I had the fortune to participate in a lunch discussion with him and Max Tegmark on this. I think Stuart's model suffers from the problem that it seems to just explain global gamma synchrony; the quantum part doesn't seem to do any heavy lifting. Overall, among the local neuroscientists there were some discussion about how many people in the singularity community make rather bold claims about neuroscience that are not well supported; even emulation enthusiasts like me get worried when the auditory system just gets reduced to a signal processing pipeline. Crystallization protocolMichael Nielsen gave a very clear talk about quantum computing and later a truly stimulating talk on collaborative science. Ned Seeman described how to use DNA self assembly to make custom crystals. William Dickens discussed the Flynn effect and what caveats it raises about our concepts of intelligence and enhancement. I missed Bela Nagy's talk, but he is a nice guy and he has set up a very useful performance curve database. David Chalmers gave a talk about the intelligence explosion, dissecting the problem with philosophical rigour. In general, the singularity can mean several different things, but it is the "intelligence explosion" concept of I.J. Good (more intelligent beings recursively improving themselves or the next generation, leading to a runaway growth of capability) that is the most interesting and mysterious component. Not that general economic and technological growth, accelerating growth, predictability horizons and the large-scale structure of human development are well understood either. But the intelligence explosion actually looks like it could be studied with some rigour. Several of the AGI people were from the formalistic school of AI, proving strict theorems on what can and cannot be done but not always coming up with implementations of their AI. Marcus Hutter spoke about the foundations of intelligent agents, including (somewhat jokingly) whether they would exhibit self-preservation. J?rgen Schmidhuber gave a fun talk about how compression could be seen as underlying most cognition. It also included a hilarious "demonstration" that the singularity would occur in the late 1500s. In addition, I bought Shane Legg's book Machine Super Intelligence. I am very fond of this kind of work since it actually tells us something about the abilities of superintelligences. I hope this approach might eventually tell us something about the complexity of the intelligence explosion. Magnificent handwavingStephen Wolfram and Gregory Benford talked about the singularity and especially about what can be "mined" from the realm of simple computational structures ("some of these universes are complete losers"). During dinner this evolved into an interesting discussion with Robin Hanson about whether we should expect future civilizations to look just like rocks (computronium), especially since the principle of computational equivalence seems to suggest than there might not be any fundamental difference between normal rocks and posthuman rocks. There is also the issue of whether we will become very rich (Wolfram's position) or relatively poor posthumans (Robin's position); this depends on the level of possible coordination. In his talk Robin brought up the question of who the singularity experts were. He noted that technologists might not be the only one (or even the best ones) to say things in the field: the social sciences have a lot of things to contribute too. After all, they are the ones that actually study what systems of complex intelligent agents do. More generally one can wonder why we should trust anybody in the "singularity field": there are strong incentives for making great claims that are not easily testable, giving the predictor prestige and money but not advancing knowledge. Clearly some arguments and analysis does make sense, but the "expert" may not contribute much extra value in virtue of being an expert. As a fan of J. Scott Armstrong's "grumpy old man" school of future studies I think the correctness of predictions have very rapidly decreasing margin, and hence we should either look at smarter ways of aggregating cheap experts, aggregating multi-discipline insights or make use with heuristics based on solid evidence or the above clear arguments. Friends, romans, countrymen - lend me your exponentialsGregory Benford described the further work derived from Michael Rose's fruit flies, aiming at a small molecule life extension drug. Aubrey contrasted the "Methuselarity" with the singularity - cumulative anti-ageing breakthroughs seem able to produce a lifespan singularity if they are fast enough. Peter Thiel worried that we might not get to the singularity fast enough. Lots of great soundbites, and several interesting observations. Overall, he argues that tech is not advancing fast enough and that many worrying trends may outrun our technology. He suggested that when developed nations get stressed they do not turn communist, but may go fascist - which given modern technology is even more worrying. "I would be more optimistic if more people were worried". So in order to avoid bad crashes we need to find ways of accelerate innovation and the rewards of innovation: too many tech companies act more like technology banks than innovators, profiting from past inventions but now holding on to business models that should become obsolete. At the same time the economy is implicitly making a bet on the singularity happening. I wonder whether this should be regarded as the bubble-to-end-all-bubbles, or a case of a prediction market? Brad Templeton did a great talk on robotic cars. The ethical and practical case for automating cars is growing, and sooner or later we are going to see a transition. The question is of course whether the right industry gets it. Maybe we are going to see an iTunes upset again, where the car industry gets eaten by the automation industry? Eliezer and Peter Anna Salamon gave a nice inspirational talk about how to do back-of-the-envelope calculations about what is important. She in particular made the point that a lot of our thinking is just acting out roles ("As a libertarian I think...") rather than actual thinking, and trying out rough estimates may help us break free into less biased modes. Just the kind of applied rationality I like. In regards to the singularity it of course produces very significant numbers. It is a bit like Peter Singer's concerns, and might of course lead to the same counter-argument: if the numbers say I should devote a *lot* of time, effort and brainpower to singularitian issues, isn't that asking too much? But just as the correct ethic might actually turn out to be very heavy, it is not inconceivable that there are issues we really ought to spend enormous effort on - even if we do not do it right now. We actually agree (almost)During the workshop afterwards we discussed a wide range of topics. Some of the major issues were: what are the limiting factors of intelligence explosions? What are the factual grounds for disagreeing about whether the singularity may be local (self-improving AI program in a cellar) or global (self-improving global economy)? Will uploads or AGI come first? Can we do anything to influence this? One surprising discovery was that we largely agreed that a singularity due to emulated people (as in Robin's economic scenarios) has a better chance given current knowledge than AGI of being human-friendly. After all, it is based on emulated humans and is likely to be a broad institutional and economic transition. So until we think we have a perfect friendliness theory we should support WBE - because we could not reach any useful consensus on whether AGI or WBE would come first. WBE has a somewhat measurable timescale, while AGI might crop up at any time. There are feedbacks between them, making it likely that if both happens it will be closely together, but no drivers seem to be strong enough to really push one further into the future. This means that we ought to push for WBE, but work hard on friendly AGI just in case. There were some discussions about whether supplying AI researchers with heroin and philosophers to discuss with would reduce risks. All in all, some very simulating open-ended discussions at the workshop with relatively few firm conclusions. Hopefully they will appear in the papers and essays the participants will no doubt write to promote their thinking. I certainly know I have to co-author a few with some of my fellow participants. Posted by Anders3 at October 8, 2009 08:02 PM From sdw at lig.net Mon Oct 12 12:46:55 2009 From: sdw at lig.net (Stephen D. Williams) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:46:55 -0700 Subject: [FoRK] MS Oops - How not to architect and run a widely-used and well-funded database, apparently In-Reply-To: <811542.40817.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <811542.40817.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4AD387AF.2080107@lig.net> Wow. Poor Microsoft. And it IS ironic that the subsidiary was called "Danger". http://www.infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/microsoft-screwup-puts-t-mobile-users-in-danger-482?page=0,1&source=IFWNLE_nlt_notes_2009-10-12 > Sure, all of us have screwed the pooch at some point and failed to > properly back up our personal data. But you'd think a > multi-billion-dollar corporation -- or even the apparently neglected > stepsister of one -- would be just a little more careful about this. > > Now Danger, T-Mobile, and Microsoft are all taking a well-deserved > beating. And because Hollywood types were among the first to adopt the > Sidekick -- the original hip smartphone -- they've just ticked off > some very high-profile users. Even Perez Hilton took a break from > dishing Mischa Barton to take a few swipes at T-Mobile in front of his > 6 million readers. > > ... > > Bottom line: 10 days before the Windows 7 launch, and just a week > after the Windows Mobile 6.5 debacle, Microsoft has just turned into > The Last Guy You'd Trust to Handle Your Data. Nicely done, boys and girls. > > I've been wracking my brain trying to think of a comparable screwup by > a major company. I'm coming up empty. How about you? > "Letting Microsoft acquire a company called Danger is like buying a > pit bull named 'Killer' and letting him sleep in the henhouse. It's > only a matter of time before you've got blood and feathers > everywhere." Cringely's wordsmithing reads like geek poetry...or a > Greek tragi-comedy. Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo wrote: > --- On Sun, 10/11/09, Stephen Williams wrote: > > >> >> Regrettably, based on Microsoft/Danger's latest >> recovery assessment of their systems, we must now inform you >> that personal information stored on your device - such as >> contacts, calendar entries, to-do lists or photos - that is >> no longer on your Sidekick almost certainly has been lost as >> a result of a server failure at Microsoft/Danger. >> >> > > Yet another dimension of the Data Hostage Environment. > > (Congratulations with the person who coined that term. Luv it!!) > > ...ken... > > > __________________________________________________________________ > Connect with friends from any web browser - no download required. Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger for the Web BETA at http://ca.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php > _______________________________________________ > FoRK mailing list > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork > From beberg at mithral.com Mon Oct 12 13:43:19 2009 From: beberg at mithral.com (Adam L Beberg) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:43:19 -0700 Subject: [FoRK] MS Oops - How not to architect and run a widely-used and well-funded database, apparently In-Reply-To: <811542.40817.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <811542.40817.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4AD394E7.1050805@mithral.com> Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo wrote on 10/11/2009 3:48 PM: > --- On Sun, 10/11/09, Stephen Williams wrote: > >> >> Regrettably, based on Microsoft/Danger's latest >> recovery assessment of their systems, we must now inform you >> that personal information stored on your device - such as >> contacts, calendar entries, to-do lists or photos - that is >> no longer on your Sidekick almost certainly has been lost as >> a result of a server failure at Microsoft/Danger. >> This was an especially good implementation of the cloud, very low overhead gives them a real advantage. > Yet another dimension of the Data Hostage Environment. > > (Congratulations with the person who coined that term. Luv it!!) *bows* Google still shows it's in it's embryonic stage, but it might have potential. -- Adam L. Beberg http://www.mithral.com/~beberg/ From howell.r at inkworkswell.com Mon Oct 12 17:32:09 2009 From: howell.r at inkworkswell.com (Reese) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:32:09 -0500 Subject: [FoRK] Authoritative explanation of gas spike in 2007/8? In-Reply-To: <4ACFC157.3030301@inkworkswell.com> References: <4ACF3083.30406@cs.ucsc.edu> <20091009192730.GB11744@aaron-xps> <4ACFC157.3030301@inkworkswell.com> Message-ID: <4AD3CA89.20103@inkworkswell.com> Reese wrote: > If anyone insists, I'll dig up links to a domestic news article that > outlines the Wall Street involvement and an Asia Times (IIRC) article Here they are, I stumbled across them almost accidentally: http://atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JE24Dj02.html http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/08/60minutes/main4707770.shtml Note the date and venue of each article (I've heard elsewhere that the Asia Times is something akin to the eastern equivalent of the WSJ or the FT), then note the nearly word-for-word similarities in large passages of text from each article. Once for the players who were not on the inside track, once again a few months later for the mooks who were trying to be players but not doing all of their homework. Compare the timing of each article with the dates that the oil (gasoline) crisis played out on. I smell a rat. Reese From sdw at lig.net Mon Oct 12 17:54:25 2009 From: sdw at lig.net (Stephen D. Williams) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:54:25 -0700 Subject: [FoRK] Dealing with code trees Message-ID: <4AD3CFC1.3000800@lig.net> For the few of you who still code... I've been annoyed for a while with directory trees of code, especially with Java's typically deep class path structure. Neither command line or GUI seems very fun, at least when I'm not using Eclipse/Netbeans/Visual Studio/IntelliJ. Until I get around to my new GUI for this, I solved it to some extent with some simple Linux / Cygwin as below. What tools / process do you use to be efficient? All IDE? StarUML reverse engineering works well on Java, but seems to have narrow capability for C++. dj: #!/bin/sh #dj Directory Java (code) LANGS='java|h|cpp|c[+][+]|php|py' find $* -regextype posix-egrep -type f -iregex ".*[.](${LANGS})" -print djc: #!/bin/sh #djc Directory Java (code) line Counted LANGS='java|h|cpp|c[+][+]|php|py' find $* -regextype posix-egrep -type f -iregex ".*[.](${LANGS})" -print0 | wc -l --files0-from=- sdw From ejw at cs.ucsc.edu Tue Oct 13 02:43:24 2009 From: ejw at cs.ucsc.edu (Jim Whitehead) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:43:24 +0200 Subject: [FoRK] Authoritative explanation of gas spike in 2007/8? In-Reply-To: <4AD3CA89.20103@inkworkswell.com> References: <4ACF3083.30406@cs.ucsc.edu> <20091009192730.GB11744@aaron-xps> <4ACFC157.3030301@inkworkswell.com> <4AD3CA89.20103@inkworkswell.com> Message-ID: <4AD44BBC.5080609@cs.ucsc.edu> Ah, thanks. This gave me some new search terms, which allowed me to find the following article: Understanding Oil Price Behavior through an Analysis of a Crisis Leonardo Maugeri Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 2009 3(2):147-166; doi:10.1093/reep/rep007 http://reep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/3/2/147 Abstract: This article seeks to identify and explain both the fundamental and the more controversial elements that shape the dynamics of the oil market, using the recent oil crisis as the basic framework for analysis. The article suggests that the price of oil is essentially a function of the current and future spare capacity of oil. However, spare capacity alone cannot fully explain the extent and timing of oil price movements. Other important factors must be taken into account, including, above all, the expectations of market operators, who tend to be influenced by both the perceived current and future level of spare capacity and the unreliable data that have plagued the oil world since its inception. The article also suggests that bottlenecks in the oil refining system may play an important role in oil price movements, but tends to downgrade the importance of other factors, such as the influence of OPEC and financial speculation. Finally, the article suggests some reforms to make the oil market more transparent and possibly more stable, which is a prerequisite for making investments in energy efficiency and renewables in the near future. - Jim Reese wrote: > Reese wrote: > >> If anyone insists, I'll dig up links to a domestic news article that >> outlines the Wall Street involvement and an Asia Times (IIRC) article > > > Here they are, I stumbled across them almost accidentally: > > http://atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JE24Dj02.html > > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/08/60minutes/main4707770.shtml > > Note the date and venue of each article (I've heard elsewhere that > the Asia Times is something akin to the eastern equivalent of the WSJ > or the FT), then note the nearly word-for-word similarities in large > passages of text from each article. > > Once for the players who were not on the inside track, once again a > few months later for the mooks who were trying to be players but not > doing all of their homework. Compare the timing of each article with > the dates that the oil (gasoline) crisis played out on. I smell a rat. > > Reese > > _______________________________________________ > FoRK mailing list > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork From ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca Tue Oct 13 09:53:31 2009 From: ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca (Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:53:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [FoRK] MS Oops - How not to architect and run a widely-used and well-funded database, apparently In-Reply-To: <811542.40817.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <956985.88452.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Here's a good commentary. http://blogs.zdnet.com/SAAS/?p=899&tag=nl.e539 The online article has a couple of excellent links in it, too. ---------------------------------------------- The cloud: no place for amateurs Posted by Phil Wainewright @ 1:20 pm Categories: Customer experience, Microsoft, Service level management, Workday Tags: Workday, Outage, Amateur, Data Centers, Manufacturing..., Cloud Computing, Storage, Hardware, Data Management, Phil Wainewright The boss of Air New Zealand has given us a convenient term for companies that can?t get to grips with the realities of delivering computing as a service: ?Amateurs?. His reported comments were addressed to IBM, which failed to restore operations at a mainframe data center in a responsive enough fashion after a major outage on Sunday: ?In my 30-year working career,? he reportedly emailed the hapless vendor, ?I am struggling to recall a time where I have seen a supplier so slow to react to a catastrophic system failure such as this and so unwilling to accept responsibility and apologise to its client and its client?s customers.? T-Mobile is another reputable company left looking amateurish today after the catastrophic loss last week of all user data stored on its Sidekick service. But the real amateurs behind this story appear to be Microsoft and Hitachi, who are believed implicated in a server failure that took out both the production and backup databases on the storage network where Sidekick data is stored. To read a contrasting story that shows how cloud outages get handled professionally, check out Michael Krigsman?s post last week about the recent 15-hour outage suffered by on-demand ERP provider Workday. Here, too, a network storage device caused a total meltdown, shutting itself down when it detected a corrupted node in a backup disk. Workday avoided Sidekick?s fate by invoking its disaster recovery plan. It avoided IBM?s fate by acting rapidly and going out of its way to keep its customers informed. As I?ve often written in the past, big, established companies frequently over-estimate their competence at cloud computing and SaaS, simply because they fail to realize it?s far more than just a repackaging of what they already do. Unfortunately, their inability to grasp the emerging as-a-service business model and the demands of cloud-scale computing leave them performing like amateurs. The pity of it is, their arrogance and incompetence undermines trust in all cloud computing providers, even those that take their responsibilities seriously. Phil Wainewright is a commentator and strategist on emerging software industry trends. See his full profile and disclosure of his industry affiliations. Email Phil Wainewright Subscribe to Software as Services via Email alerts or RSS. __________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com. From lucas.gonze at gmail.com Tue Oct 13 10:52:57 2009 From: lucas.gonze at gmail.com (Lucas Gonze) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:52:57 -0700 Subject: [FoRK] Authoritative explanation of gas spike in 2007/8? In-Reply-To: <4AD44BBC.5080609@cs.ucsc.edu> References: <4ACF3083.30406@cs.ucsc.edu> <20091009192730.GB11744@aaron-xps> <4ACFC157.3030301@inkworkswell.com> <4AD3CA89.20103@inkworkswell.com> <4AD44BBC.5080609@cs.ucsc.edu> Message-ID: I can't figure out how "price is a function of the current and future spare capacity of oil" differs from "oil price is a function of supply." But the diagnosis that transparency is the key seems like a good, clear, simple diagnosis for policy makers to work with. On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 2:43 AM, Jim Whitehead wrote: > Ah, thanks. This gave me some new search terms, which allowed me to find the > following article: > > Understanding Oil Price Behavior through an Analysis of a Crisis > Leonardo Maugeri > Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 2009 3(2):147-166; > doi:10.1093/reep/rep007 > http://reep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/3/2/147 > > Abstract: > > This article seeks to identify and explain both the fundamental and the more > controversial elements that shape the dynamics of the oil market, using the > recent oil crisis as the basic framework for analysis. The article suggests > that the price of oil is essentially a function of the current and future > spare capacity of oil. However, spare capacity alone cannot fully explain > the extent and timing of oil price movements. Other important factors must > be taken into account, including, above all, the expectations of market > operators, who tend to be influenced by both the perceived current and > future level of spare capacity and the unreliable data that have plagued the > oil world since its inception. The article also suggests that bottlenecks in > the oil refining system may play an important role in oil price movements, > but tends to downgrade the importance of other factors, such as the > influence of OPEC and financial speculation. Finally, the article suggests > some reforms to make the oil market more transparent and possibly more > stable, which is a prerequisite for making investments in energy efficiency > and renewables in the near future. > > - Jim > > Reese wrote: >> >> Reese wrote: >> >>> If anyone insists, I'll dig up links to a domestic news article that >>> outlines the Wall Street involvement and an Asia Times (IIRC) article >> >> >> Here they are, I stumbled across them almost accidentally: >> >> http://atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JE24Dj02.html >> >> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/08/60minutes/main4707770.shtml >> >> Note the date and venue of each article (I've heard elsewhere that >> the Asia Times is something akin to the eastern equivalent of the WSJ >> or the FT), then note the nearly word-for-word similarities in large >> passages of text from each article. >> >> Once for the players who were not on the inside track, once again a >> few months later for the mooks who were trying to be players but not >> doing all of their homework. Compare the timing of each article with >> the dates that the oil (gasoline) crisis played out on. I smell a rat. >> >> Reese >> >> _______________________________________________ >> FoRK mailing list >> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork > > _______________________________________________ > FoRK mailing list > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork > From meltsner at alum.mit.edu Wed Oct 14 07:22:35 2009 From: meltsner at alum.mit.edu (Ken Meltsner) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:22:35 -0500 Subject: [FoRK] GWave and the passing of the torch.... Message-ID: <692a81590910140722g7181f521o949bdac87b929157@mail.gmail.com> Odd feeling when your son receives a bunch of Google Wave invites and you don't. Soon, I'll be calling him to come and set my DVR. Ken Meltsner -- House Fix 2009 has begun! # of major projects pending: 3 (so far -- Complete the big bookcase, paint house exterior, fix all the drywall cracks in the LR ceiling) # of major projects completed: 2 (Wallpaper stripped from DR and powder room, walls painted, new oak molding and spiffy fixtures in PR) From eugen at leitl.org Wed Oct 14 07:31:58 2009 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:31:58 +0200 Subject: [FoRK] GWave and the passing of the torch.... In-Reply-To: <692a81590910140722g7181f521o949bdac87b929157@mail.gmail.com> References: <692a81590910140722g7181f521o949bdac87b929157@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20091014143158.GG27331@leitl.org> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 09:22:35AM -0500, Ken Meltsner wrote: > Odd feeling when your son receives a bunch of Google Wave invites and > you don't. It's not that you're missing anything important. > Soon, I'll be calling him to come and set my DVR. I doubt kids these days even know what a DVR is. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From simon at thegestalt.org Wed Oct 14 11:18:59 2009 From: simon at thegestalt.org (Simon Wistow) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:18:59 +0100 Subject: [FoRK] Compensation for Oil-Exporting Countries Message-ID: <20091014181859.GH49843@thegestalt.org> "Saudi Arabia is trying to enlist other oil-producing countries to support a provocative idea: if wealthy countries reduce their oil consumption to combat global warming, they should pay compensation to oil producers." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/business/energy-environment/14oil.html?pagewanted=print Ignoring the arguments put forward in the article for the moment - is it in the West's best interests to make the Middle East poor again? Will that improve or worsen security and the geopolitical situation? (and again, ignoring the humanitarian aspect) Does what Matt Damon's character in Syriana says: "You want to know what the business world thinks of you? We think 100 years ago you were living out here in tents in the desert chopping each other's heads off and that's exactly where you'll be in another 100" ring true? From sdw at lig.net Wed Oct 14 11:48:32 2009 From: sdw at lig.net (Stephen Williams) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:48:32 -0700 Subject: [FoRK] Compensation for Oil-Exporting Countries In-Reply-To: <20091014181859.GH49843@thegestalt.org> References: <20091014181859.GH49843@thegestalt.org> Message-ID: <4AD61D00.1060200@lig.net> Simon Wistow wrote: > "Saudi Arabia is trying to enlist other oil-producing countries to > support a provocative idea: if wealthy countries reduce their oil > consumption to combat global warming, they should pay compensation to > oil producers." > Wow, that takes balls! Talk about a sense of entitlement! The constant instances of behavior such as power grabs, greed, and obvious blindness to reasonable views just leaves me with my mouth hanging open at least once a week. Things seem so much more overt and blatant than they used to be. If they want compensation, start joining the civilized world. Not civilized as in Mercedes, civilized as in teach your children how to act in a 1st world civilization without 10% constantly declaring war on everyone else with another 40-80% cheering them on. > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/business/energy-environment/14oil.html?pagewanted=print > > Ignoring the arguments put forward in the article for the moment - is it > in the West's best interests to make the Middle East poor again? Will > that improve or worsen security and the geopolitical situation? (and > again, ignoring the humanitarian aspect) > > Does what Matt Damon's character in Syriana says: > > "You want to know what the business world thinks of you? We think 100 > years ago you were living out here in tents in the desert chopping each > other's heads off and that's exactly where you'll be in another 100" > > ring true? > If the increased organization and level of highly-misguided religious fervor is any indication, Yes! I'm sure that 900 years ago, Sharia (etc.) was an improvement over barbarism. Now, Sharia == barbarism and nearly all alternatives are more civilized, healthy, and efficient. Just a few weeks ago I watched a restored Lawrence of Arabia with a friend in the old, elegant theater in San Jose. Interesting to see how things have changed. And not. Stephen From jtauber at jtauber.com Wed Oct 14 11:57:19 2009 From: jtauber at jtauber.com (James Tauber) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:57:19 -0400 Subject: [FoRK] Compensation for Oil-Exporting Countries In-Reply-To: <4AD61D00.1060200@lig.net> References: <20091014181859.GH49843@thegestalt.org> <4AD61D00.1060200@lig.net> Message-ID: On Oct 14, 2009, at 2:48 PM, Stephen Williams wrote: > Simon Wistow wrote: >> "Saudi Arabia is trying to enlist other oil-producing countries to >> support a provocative idea: if wealthy countries reduce their oil >> consumption to combat global warming, they should pay compensation >> to oil producers." >> > > Wow, that takes balls! Talk about a sense of entitlement! Well, that's my reaction to any kind of bailout or protection of particular industries. James From ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca Wed Oct 14 14:50:25 2009 From: ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca (Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:50:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [FoRK] Compensation for Oil-Exporting Countries In-Reply-To: <20091014181859.GH49843@thegestalt.org> Message-ID: <163511.69072.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Wed, 10/14/09, Simon Wistow wrote: > "Saudi Arabia is trying to enlist other oil-producing countries to > support a provocative idea: if wealthy countries reduce > their oil consumption to combat global warming, they should pay > compensation to oil producers." > Well, it's not like anyone is going to stop using oil. At first it's mostly going to be a decrease in the rate of increase well before it starts to actually decrease. And the only way it's going to go below a level that will provide them a reasonable income is if they run out. Then there's the fact that as it becomes less available the more they'll get per barrel. That'll keep things level for some time to come, too. Finally, what the hell have they been doing with the trillions in revenues they've already collected over the years?? If they haven't already started to diversify, why can't they do so on a small part of the revenues from the near future sales? I have no sympathy. It's simple mismanagement compounded by attempted extortion. It's all bass-ackwards. Here in Canada, the energy-producing regions of the country are starting to be penalized for producing that energy (mining and selling coal, pumping and selling oil and natural gas). Only a little bit now (royalties) but lots more in the plans, if our collective governments (provincial, federal and global) ever get it together and figure out how they're going to do it (they all pretty much agree they're going to do it). What makes the Saudis think they should be exempt from that? ...ken... __________________________________________________________________ Connect with friends from any web browser - no download required. Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger for the Web BETA at http://ca.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php From eugen at leitl.org Thu Oct 15 06:51:40 2009 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:51:40 +0200 Subject: [FoRK] what is google wave good for Message-ID: <20091015135140.GN27331@leitl.org> http://danieltenner.com/posts/0012-google-wave.html I tend to agree. Not sure it's going anywhere, it's too early to tell. If the user base is there, it's open sourced, has a vibrant developer community outside of Google, and if I can run it on own infrastructure while being fully interoperable with Google I guess it would work. Oh, and performance sucks, but it might be my purely local problem. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From jbone at place.org Thu Oct 15 08:23:16 2009 From: jbone at place.org (Jeff Bone) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:23:16 -0500 Subject: [FoRK] 10/GUI and con10uum Message-ID: I've long said that, until we have substantially more software intelligence, context awareness, intelligent information presentation, and real multi-sense input --- the keyboard isn't going away, and the single-point positional input device isn't going to simply be replaced by desktop or laptop multi-touch for purely ergonomic and functional reasons. I.e., "physical form factor and ergonomics as primary user interface design constraints." Or, more briefly, "the form factor is the application." Here's both an *excellent* explanation of some of this and a conceptual prototype for a better, future alternative to the status quo... http://10gui.com (They've got, among other things, a kind of linear / 2D-constrained tiling window manager; I think there's probably still too much manual positional and sizing flexibility and too little intelligence. Still, a great start and --- despite being a lot less "sexy" than some of the multi-touch GUIs, stacks, Minority Report-like timelines, and other demos / ideas that have been floating around --- much more practical and thought-provoking, IMHO.) Now if only we can spend as much time rethinking the fundamental meaning of and services provided by "operating systems" (to users) as we have about how to reorganize and redefine the UI, we'd be in much better shape. jb From ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca Thu Oct 15 08:59:54 2009 From: ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca (Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 08:59:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [FoRK] 10/GUI and con10uum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <807366.5316.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Thu, 10/15/09, Jeff Bone wrote: > > Now if only we can spend as much time rethinking the > fundamental meaning of and services provided by "operating > systems" (to users) as we have about how to reorganize and > redefine the UI, we'd be in much better shape. > Amen. That sort of thinking, we would hope, should reduce the number of gratuitous UI changes that produce no improvement in accessing the underlying functions and features. I'm not a Luddite but I'm generally a fairly practical person. I really really hate it when I've invested a lot of time learning to use something and the method of using it changes without any change in the underlying function to add offsetting benefit from the imposed (re)learning curve. If I have to expend the effort, please reward me for it. ...ken... __________________________________________________________________ Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on Options in Mail and switch to New Mail today or register for free at http://mail.yahoo.ca From b at b3k.us Thu Oct 15 08:59:57 2009 From: b at b3k.us (Benjamin Black) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 08:59:57 -0700 Subject: [FoRK] 10/GUI and con10uum In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AD746FD.5030204@b3k.us> perhaps i am a prematurely old fuddy duddy, but the UI feature for which i most long in OSX is a button to disable all multitouch. i watched the 10/gui demo yesterday and laughed at the production values whilst shaking my head at the future of accidental gestures and constant switching between keyboard and pad. b From jbone at place.org Thu Oct 15 15:35:39 2009 From: jbone at place.org (Jeff Bone) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:35:39 -0500 Subject: [FoRK] Prefer local government Message-ID: <6E5D9250-5547-4399-A391-7B538490BF93@place.org> Overcoming Bias is catching up re: the perennial "scalability of democracy" problem. http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/10/prefer-local-government.html This talks about economic efficiency (in procurement) --- but that's just the tip of the iceberg, IMHO. As "St. Arrow" tried to tell us decades ago... jb From michaelslists at gmail.com Thu Oct 15 16:34:31 2009 From: michaelslists at gmail.com (silky) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:34:31 +1100 Subject: [FoRK] travelling to spain Message-ID: <5e01c29a0910151634rb67778fka500d1a9ecca3210@mail.gmail.com> Any forkers with particular thoughts on places to visit/see/do? Ideally going to find my way to working on a vineyard :) -- http://www.mirios.com.au/ From jbone at place.org Thu Oct 15 17:40:46 2009 From: jbone at place.org (Jeff Bone) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:40:46 -0500 Subject: [FoRK] Computational Complexity and Information Asymmetry in Financial Products (Working paper) Message-ID: <0B0FF8D3-8ECC-4FCA-91E7-8EF0765BF4D0@place.org> Excellent paper. http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~rongge/derivative.pdf Abstract Traditional economics argues that ?nancial derivatives, like CDOs and CDSs, ameliorate the negative costs imposed by asymmetric information. This is because securitization via derivatives allows the informed party to ?nd buyers for less information- sensitive part of the cash ?ow stream of an asset (e.g., a mortgage) and retain the remainder. In this paper we show that this viewpoint may need to be revised once computational complexity is brought into the picture. Using methods from theoretical computer science this paper shows that derivatives can actually amplify the costs of asymmetric information instead of reducing them. Note that computational complexity is only a small departure from full rationality since even highly sophisticated investors are boundedly rational due to a lack of requisite computational resources. -- jb From jbone at place.org Thu Oct 15 18:02:59 2009 From: jbone at place.org (Jeff Bone) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:02:59 -0500 Subject: [FoRK] How many universes are in the multiverse? Message-ID: Two in one day. ;-) Economy being in the shitter appears to be good for music and science. ;-) I believe there was some speculation and discussion of this problem some time ago on-list or at least among some of the folks on this list. The approach the authors of this paper use is similar to what we discussed, IIRC. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0910.1589v1 jb From sdw at lig.net Thu Oct 15 18:47:35 2009 From: sdw at lig.net (Stephen D. Williams) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:47:35 -0700 Subject: [FoRK] 10/GUI and con10uum In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AD7D0B7.8070803@lig.net> I really want a nice multi-touch pad... I'm working on related ideas, although mostly at a different level of abstraction and purpose. I'd rather make a better application than a better desktop. Or at least that first. sdw Jeff Bone wrote: > > I've long said that, until we have substantially more software > intelligence, context awareness, intelligent information presentation, > and real multi-sense input --- the keyboard isn't going away, and the > single-point positional input device isn't going to simply be replaced > by desktop or laptop multi-touch for purely ergonomic and functional > reasons. I.e., "physical form factor and ergonomics as primary user > interface design constraints." Or, more briefly, "the form factor is > the application." > > Here's both an *excellent* explanation of some of this and a > conceptual prototype for a better, future alternative to the status > quo... > > http://10gui.com > > (They've got, among other things, a kind of linear / 2D-constrained > tiling window manager; I think there's probably still too much manual > positional and sizing flexibility and too little intelligence. Still, > a great start and --- despite being a lot less "sexy" than some of the > multi-touch GUIs, stacks, Minority Report-like timelines, and other > demos / ideas that have been floating around --- much more practical > and thought-provoking, IMHO.) > > Now if only we can spend as much time rethinking the fundamental > meaning of and services provided by "operating systems" (to users) as > we have about how to reorganize and redefine the UI, we'd be in much > better shape. > > > jb > > _______________________________________________ > FoRK mailing list > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork From dmorton at bitfurnace.com Thu Oct 15 22:33:01 2009 From: dmorton at bitfurnace.com (Damien Morton) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:33:01 +1100 Subject: [FoRK] travelling to spain In-Reply-To: <5e01c29a0910151634rb67778fka500d1a9ecca3210@mail.gmail.com> References: <5e01c29a0910151634rb67778fka500d1a9ecca3210@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8092dc770910152233x64458556me37a57a7de32c45d@mail.gmail.com> Granada, the Alhambra, unbelievable. Sevilla is just a great town. Barcelona, the Segrada Familia, the various Gaudi works around town are magnificent. Never made it to Madrid. On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 10:34 AM, silky wrote: > Any forkers with particular thoughts on places to visit/see/do? Ideally > going to find my way to working on a vineyard :) > > -- > http://www.mirios.com.au/ > _______________________________________________ > FoRK mailing list > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork > From ejw at cs.ucsc.edu Fri Oct 16 02:14:21 2009 From: ejw at cs.ucsc.edu (Jim Whitehead) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:14:21 +0200 Subject: [FoRK] travelling to spain In-Reply-To: <8092dc770910152233x64458556me37a57a7de32c45d@mail.gmail.com> References: <5e01c29a0910151634rb67778fka500d1a9ecca3210@mail.gmail.com> <8092dc770910152233x64458556me37a57a7de32c45d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4AD8396D.4050206@cs.ucsc.edu> I'm currently living in a suburb of Madrid (Getafe) for a sabbatical year abroad. Madrid is an incredibly vibrant city, with excellent museums (Prado & Reina Sofia for starters), palaces, food, etc. Nearby Toledo and Aranjuez are also both amazing. I've found that most of the travel guides do a good job of describing the highlights of a visit to Spain, so I recommend picking up one that suits your tastes. Depending on your budget, Mediterranean cruises are *very* affordable right now, and often leave from Barcelona. The economic downturn hit just as several large ships came online. Haven't made it to the Rioja yet, definitely plan on this in the future. I have three young kids, which makes traveling expensive and challenging :-) - Jim Damien Morton wrote: > Granada, the Alhambra, unbelievable. > Sevilla is just a great town. > > Barcelona, the Segrada Familia, the various Gaudi works around town are > magnificent. > > Never made it to Madrid. > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 10:34 AM, silky wrote: > > >> Any forkers with particular thoughts on places to visit/see/do? Ideally >> going to find my way to working on a vineyard :) >> >> -- >> http://www.mirios.com.au/ >> _______________________________________________ >> FoRK mailing list >> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork >> >> > _______________________________________________ > FoRK mailing list > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork > From eugen at leitl.org Fri Oct 16 02:31:25 2009 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:31:25 +0200 Subject: [FoRK] travelling to spain In-Reply-To: <4AD8396D.4050206@cs.ucsc.edu> References: <5e01c29a0910151634rb67778fka500d1a9ecca3210@mail.gmail.com> <8092dc770910152233x64458556me37a57a7de32c45d@mail.gmail.com> <4AD8396D.4050206@cs.ucsc.edu> Message-ID: <20091016093125.GN27331@leitl.org> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 11:14:21AM +0200, Jim Whitehead wrote: > I'm currently living in a suburb of Madrid (Getafe) for a sabbatical > year abroad. Are you cooking nice in the summer? Madrid strikes me as hotter than SoCal. > Madrid is an incredibly vibrant city, with excellent museums (Prado & > Reina Sofia for starters), palaces, food, etc. Nearby Toledo and > Aranjuez are also both amazing. You can get to Toledo cheaply and easily by taking the train from the Atocha train station. There are hotel bus shuttles which pick you up at or take you to at the Barajas airport. > I've found that most of the travel guides do a good job of describing > the highlights of a visit to Spain, so I recommend picking up one that > suits your tastes. > > Depending on your budget, Mediterranean cruises are *very* affordable > right now, and often leave from Barcelona. The economic downturn hit > just as several large ships came online. > > Haven't made it to the Rioja yet, definitely plan on this in the future. > I have three young kids, which makes traveling expensive and challenging :-) -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From jbone at place.org Fri Oct 16 05:31:35 2009 From: jbone at place.org (Jeff Bone) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 07:31:35 -0500 Subject: [FoRK] Lessig, Anissimov, "transparency fundamentalism", and flip-flopping Message-ID: <40CC0EF6-4839-4D98-889F-8A8227E10E5F@place.org> Michael takes Lawrence to task over his recent transparency back- peddling article in The New Republic. Original Lessig article: http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/against-transparency Anissimov's critique: http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2009/10/lawrence-lessig-abandons-transparency-fundamentalism-finally/ -- So... I'm really torn about this. On the one hand, the dangers of complete transparency seem, and have always seemed, obvious to me --- going back to sparring on the issue with Gordon on this list some decade+ ago, after Brin came out guns blazing with his book. On the other hand, the dangers of incomplete transparency and asymmetric (with respect to e.g. governors vs. the governed) seem even more patently obvious 8 years later. "Who watches the watchers?" ...and all that. Similar situations obtain in the financial markets as well. Re: Jim and Lucas' exchange yesterday, informational symmetry can provide for more efficient pricing, cf. commodities and particularly oil. On the other hand, there is perhaps a theoretical limit to how transparent and symmetrical a deal can be in the presence of complex financial instruments (and don't think they won't get more complex, intelligent, and inscrutable --- Stross's AI-like financial instruments are practical possibility, one could even argue that they exist implicitly today in the activities and interactions of certain financial entities, they are merely not fully securitized or recognized as financial actors / agents themselves --- yet.) Cf. the paper I posted yesterday for an initial exploration into some of the limits involved. And that's with respect to overt dealings; regulation, exchange-listing, the impact of deal channels on valid pricing, and so on are all different but crucial aspects of the same problem (set / space.) And on the other-other hand, with respect to commodities, in many cases there is inherent uncertainty; the destination for eventual physical delivery of e.g. the subject of an oil futures contract, should such delivery become necessary, may not be known and *may be impossible to predict* at the time the contract is initially dealt. Whole companies make their business "arbing" geography and time in this manner, "storing" oil in mobile storage mechanisms (oil tankers) and simply shipping it where it needs to go, potentially diverting course when the price landscape / gradient shifts. This doesn't reflect a lack of transparency, it reflects a fundamental limit on information and predictability. (Though improvements in the latter, potentially dramatic, are IMHO possible.) Back to transparency per se... Anissimov says: "Transparency and openness have become a cult. Corporate marketing campaigns pander to this cult relentlessly. It is the ultimate ego trip. The thinking goes like this: everything is better when the common person, namely me, can stick my fingers in every pie and contribute to every decision-making process. This way of thinking is profoundly wrong. It assumes that everyone is equally good at everything. There is a reason we have experts and specialists. Though in some domains, experts are just as good as anyone (such as clinical psychology), in many domains, expert knowledge and skills matter... The core of Lessig?s fanbase is a culture of nerds who think that everything is better when they personally get to control part of it." And he's absolutely right --- he even verges on one of the key ideas (i.e., not everybody should have a say in everything impacting everyone else) lurking at the heart of my constant complaints about democratic processes. However, without complete (potential) transparency in dealings, particularly those with the coercive might of governmental authority, what you get de facto is the kind of technocratic / oligarchic control-by-elites that we have seen in different forms both with the former GOP trifecta and now with the Dem trifecta... and those inevitably devolve to abuse, manipulation, deception, secrecy, coercion, suboptimal social satisfaction, and so on. Not that I abhor a technocracy in principle, actually. I just don't think (any group of) human beings have (ever) demonstrated enough competence and integrity to earn my trust in their ability to govern as technocratic elites. ;-) (Or as fully-empowered, populist / "democratic" mobs, for that matter.) Catch-22. There's quite a long history of game-theoretical analysis of iterated games with asymmetric and incomplete information. What's missing is a theory of evolving meta-games in which those first-order games are themselves initially defined, iteratively refined, and potentially- erroneously implemented. This kind of higher-order meta-gaming theory would provide a better practical theory of government / governance, and could help us answer and understand how best to optimize the search over social landscapes and social choice algorithms with respect to these and other issues. While there's some dabbling in this and related areas (mutable-rules games, games with concealed rules, and so on; cf. Nomic and Suber's The Paradox of Self- Amendment) --- this field is woefully under-studied relative to first- order games and their static but iterated extrapolations. And that's quite alarming given that *it's how we run the world.* $0.02, jb From ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca Fri Oct 16 10:24:15 2009 From: ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca (Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:24:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [FoRK] Lessig, Anissimov, "transparency fundamentalism", and flip-flopping In-Reply-To: <40CC0EF6-4839-4D98-889F-8A8227E10E5F@place.org> Message-ID: <135645.83968.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Fri, 10/16/09, Jeff Bone wrote: > > Michael takes Lawrence to task over his recent transparency > back-peddling article in The New Republic.? Original > Lessig article: > > ? http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/against-transparency > > Anissimov's critique: > > ? http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2009/10/lawrence-lessig-abandons-transparency-fundamentalism-finally/ > > -- > > So...? I'm really torn about this.? On the one > hand, the dangers of complete transparency seem, and have > always seemed, obvious to me --- going back to sparring on > the issue with Gordon on this list some decade+ ago, after > Brin came out guns blazing with his book.? On the other > hand, the dangers of incomplete transparency and asymmetric > (with respect to e.g. governors vs. the governed) seem even > more patently obvious 8 years later.? "Who watches the > watchers?" ...and all that. > Wow! I think some folks have really over-thunk this whole thing. There's a conflation here that I'm not sure is relevant. Even if it's relevant, it's not terribly useful on practical terms. Mixing two risk factors together under the umbrella of "transparency" serves no useful purpose, in my view. One risk factor - that someone is hiding or misrepresenting "hard" information - has little relationship to the other risk factor - that there are variables that are more or less unknowable, like weather conditions or level of demand for a commodity in the future. One risk factor is controllable: you have the information; give it to me straight. I should not need to hedge (at least not very much) for someone's tendency to prevaricate. This is controllable through regulation and consequence. The other risk factor is not, so you hedge for it or stay out of the game. Then the dimension of involvement in decision-making .... what's with that? What does it have to do with transparency? Let's bring it back to the common person, if that's where the authors want to go with it. When it comes to issues that will affect us, the common person just wants it straight. If the information is available, give it. Without spin. As far as involvement, most of us are bright enough to understand that there may be some specific expertise needed when dealing with various issues. But if it's going to affect me, I do want to know that I can be heard. Not about the nit-picky details of How, so much as my fears about how the bureaucrats and autocrats and technocrats might manage to screw it up this time. The herd is generally much more sensitive to the laws of unintended consequences than the "experts" who are about to deliver them (unintended consequences). The "experts" and "professionals" too often have a narrow view and will likely not have to endure the unintended consequences in any case. In my view, only one item mentioned has anything to do with the sort of practical transparency that most are concerned about: availability of unspun exisitng "hard" information upon which to base sensible decisions. As it relates to financial decisions, which is where most of the pressure is coming from, if it's too complicated to figure out I always have the option to stay out of the game or pick a different game. But I can't make that decision if the information is not made available. And it's particularly insulting when it's withheld on the basis that it's too complicated for me to understand. That's hubris. ...ken... __________________________________________________________________ Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on Options in Mail and switch to New Mail today or register for free at http://mail.yahoo.ca From beberg at mithral.com Fri Oct 16 14:40:31 2009 From: beberg at mithral.com (Adam L Beberg) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:40:31 -0700 Subject: [FoRK] GWave and the passing of the torch.... In-Reply-To: <20091014143158.GG27331@leitl.org> References: <692a81590910140722g7181f521o949bdac87b929157@mail.gmail.com> <20091014143158.GG27331@leitl.org> Message-ID: <4AD8E84F.1020208@mithral.com> Eugen Leitl wrote on 10/14/2009 7:31 AM: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 09:22:35AM -0500, Ken Meltsner wrote: >> Odd feeling when your son receives a bunch of Google Wave invites and >> you don't. > > It's not that you're missing anything important. *gasp* How dare you point this out!!!? It's NEW!!! YOU MUST HAVE IT!!!! Entire branches of science and all of consumer culture would COLLAPSE if people could tell the difference between new and important. But at least it's not as bad as them figuring out price vs quality. -- Adam L. Beberg http://www.mithral.com/~beberg/ From meltsner at alum.mit.edu Fri Oct 16 14:47:31 2009 From: meltsner at alum.mit.edu (Ken Meltsner) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:47:31 -0500 Subject: [FoRK] GWave and the passing of the torch.... In-Reply-To: <4AD8E84F.1020208@mithral.com> References: <692a81590910140722g7181f521o949bdac87b929157@mail.gmail.com> <20091014143158.GG27331@leitl.org> <4AD8E84F.1020208@mithral.com> Message-ID: <692a81590910161447v7e4e3c84w220b0f3578cb1cd8@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Adam L Beberg wrote: ... > Entire branches of science and all of consumer culture would COLLAPSE if > people could tell the difference between new and important. > > But at least it's not as bad as them figuring out price vs quality. Sadly true. Right now, I'm more excited by something old and new -- an artisan pork plant is opening near here, with guanciale and other porky goodness: http://www.bolzanomeats.com/ Foodie/locavore culture has done wonders for the availability of high-quality bread and beer; perhaps I'll eat less meat if it's really, really good... Ken Meltsner From dmorton at bitfurnace.com Fri Oct 16 15:03:42 2009 From: dmorton at bitfurnace.com (Damien Morton) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 09:03:42 +1100 Subject: [FoRK] GWave and the passing of the torch.... In-Reply-To: <20091014143158.GG27331@leitl.org> References: <692a81590910140722g7181f521o949bdac87b929157@mail.gmail.com> <20091014143158.GG27331@leitl.org> Message-ID: <8092dc770910161503u46467b7dl13b9ebe7f4c40e61@mail.gmail.com> I think this best explains what Google Wave is for. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcxF9oz9Cu0 From paul at remsset.com Fri Oct 16 15:47:33 2009 From: paul at remsset.com (paul) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:47:33 -0500 Subject: [FoRK] GWave and the passing of the torch.... In-Reply-To: <4AD8E84F.1020208@mithral.com> References: <692a81590910140722g7181f521o949bdac87b929157@mail.gmail.com> <20091014143158.GG27331@leitl.org> <4AD8E84F.1020208@mithral.com> Message-ID: <4AD8F805.30807@remsset.com> Adam L Beberg said the following on 10/16/2009 4:40 PM: > Eugen Leitl wrote on 10/14/2009 7:31 AM: >> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 09:22:35AM -0500, Ken Meltsner wrote: >>> Odd feeling when your son receives a bunch of Google Wave invites and >>> you don't. >> >> It's not that you're missing anything important. > > *gasp* How dare you point this out!!!? > > It's NEW!!! YOU MUST HAVE IT!!!! > So, this is why I must upgrade to Win7? paul -- _____________________________________ http://remsset.com Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing the right thing. - Isaac Asimov From ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca Fri Oct 16 16:05:23 2009 From: ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca (Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:05:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [FoRK] GWave and the passing of the torch.... In-Reply-To: <4AD8F805.30807@remsset.com> Message-ID: <786724.60028.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Fri, 10/16/09, paul wrote: > >> > >> It's not that you're missing anything important. > > > > *gasp* How dare you point this out!!!? > > > > It's NEW!!! YOU MUST HAVE IT!!!! > > > > So, this is why I must upgrade to Win7? > Upgrade from what? >From 98/ME? Yup. >From XP? Not so much, if you like it enough that you've stayed with it. Stick with it 'til you need a new box. >From Vista? Probably. Depends on how much you dislike Vista. ...ken... __________________________________________________________________ Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on Options in Mail and switch to New Mail today or register for free at http://mail.yahoo.ca From beberg at mithral.com Fri Oct 16 16:19:26 2009 From: beberg at mithral.com (Adam L Beberg) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:19:26 -0700 Subject: [FoRK] GWave and the passing of the torch.... In-Reply-To: <4AD8F805.30807@remsset.com> References: <692a81590910140722g7181f521o949bdac87b929157@mail.gmail.com> <20091014143158.GG27331@leitl.org> <4AD8E84F.1020208@mithral.com> <4AD8F805.30807@remsset.com> Message-ID: <4AD8FF7E.6000403@mithral.com> paul wrote on 10/16/2009 3:47 PM: >> It's NEW!!! YOU MUST HAVE IT!!!! >> > > So, this is why I must upgrade to Win7? It's just VMS under the hood, and a bad ripoff of the Mac for a front end... But you have to give a serious consideration to "It's not Vista!" Damien Morton wrote on 10/16/2009 3:03 PM: > I think this best explains what Google Wave is for. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcxF9oz9Cu0 Hahaha, yes, that's what it's for. (and that was an awesome demo of it just being IRC 2.0). And don't forget, every key press is another packet. Cisco stockholders are walking around drooling. Much like BitTorrent, this has a strong F'-the-network design to it. -- Adam L. Beberg http://www.mithral.com/~beberg/ From ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca Fri Oct 16 16:31:42 2009 From: ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca (Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:31:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [FoRK] Global Pyramid Scheme? Message-ID: <242227.95245.qm@web33007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> An interesting perspective on the blind spot of market pricing and economists. This one's for John. http://www.grist.org/article/our-global-ponzi-economy/ ...ken... __________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com. From paul at remsset.com Fri Oct 16 17:29:20 2009 From: paul at remsset.com (paul) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:29:20 -0500 Subject: [FoRK] GWave and the passing of the torch.... In-Reply-To: <786724.60028.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <786724.60028.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4AD90FE0.7070706@remsset.com> Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo said the following on 10/16/2009 6:05 PM: > --- On Fri, 10/16/09, paul wrote: > >>>> It's not that you're missing anything important. >>> *gasp* How dare you point this out!!!? >>> >>> It's NEW!!! YOU MUST HAVE IT!!!! >>> >> So, this is why I must upgrade to Win7? >> > > Upgrade from what? > >> From 98/ME? Yup. > >> From XP? Not so much, if you like it enough that you've stayed with >> it. Stick with it 'til you need a new box. > >> From Vista? Probably. Depends on how much you dislike Vista. > > ...ken... > Upgrade from XP. I suppose upgrade is the right word. The sticker on the pc says "vista compatible". The few Vista boxes I have messed with are actually OK. To me, menu-wise, Vista compared to XP is like XP compared to Win95.... before installing IE4. Compare the NT5 beta to WinMe. NT5 Beta was very nice... even on a 486/100. It's all fun. -- _____________________________________ http://remsset.com If you can't be kind, at least have the decency to be vague. From ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca Fri Oct 16 21:28:01 2009 From: ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca (Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:28:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [FoRK] GWave and the passing of the torch.... In-Reply-To: <4AD90FE0.7070706@remsset.com> Message-ID: <621803.22232.qm@web33001.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Fri, 10/16/09, paul wrote: > > > >> From XP? Not so much, if you like it enough that > >> you've stayed with > >> it. Stick with it 'til you need a new box. > > > > Upgrade from XP.? I suppose upgrade is the right > word.? The sticker on the pc says "vista > compatible".? > You can't actually upgrade from XP to Windows 7. Literally. The only way you can get there is to, first, upgrade to Vista and then upgrade to Win7. Otherwise it's a clean install. That's why I recommended to wait until it's time for a new computer ... buy it with Win7 on it. ...ken... __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/ From eugen at leitl.org Sat Oct 17 10:27:45 2009 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:27:45 +0200 Subject: [FoRK] GWave and the passing of the torch.... In-Reply-To: <4AD8F805.30807@remsset.com> References: <692a81590910140722g7181f521o949bdac87b929157@mail.gmail.com> <20091014143158.GG27331@leitl.org> <4AD8E84F.1020208@mithral.com> <4AD8F805.30807@remsset.com> Message-ID: <20091017172745.GO27331@leitl.org> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 05:47:33PM -0500, paul wrote: > >It's NEW!!! YOU MUST HAVE IT!!!! > > > > So, this is why I must upgrade to Win7? You could upgrade to FreeBSD 7 instead. -- Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE From russell.turpin at gmail.com Sat Oct 17 14:23:00 2009 From: russell.turpin at gmail.com (Russell Turpin) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:23:00 -0500 Subject: [FoRK] Computational Complexity and Information Asymmetry in Financial Products (Working paper) In-Reply-To: <0B0FF8D3-8ECC-4FCA-91E7-8EF0765BF4D0@place.org> References: <0B0FF8D3-8ECC-4FCA-91E7-8EF0765BF4D0@place.org> Message-ID: Interesting. One of the criticisms of the derivative markets, relative to the financial crisis, is that the counterparties who sold guarantees against risk took on more than they could cover given systemic events the risk of which their models inadequately accounted. This paper suggests that such evaluation may be computationally intractable. Of course, there's another reason why such events might be inadequately accounted. If a financial firm's future is screwed, regardless, in a meltdown of certain scope, then there is a certain sense in which it is rational for the firm to completely discount the risk of such an event. It's much like an individual agreeing, in return for $10/day, and besides everything else in a contract, to pay someone a million dollars if the individual keels over dead tomorrow. Sure, I'll take that $10. Ten times over. Or a thousand times over. There's not even a need for me to take out life insurance. From my viewpoint. ;-) My taking such contracts doesn't increase the chance of me keeling over dead tomorrow. At least, not from natural cause. But large financial firms discounting that risk might, in aggregate, increase the risk of such a meltdown. And as this paper points out, domino effects are not always easy to evaluate. Which means it may be damn hard for future regulatory agencies to tell that risk-assuming counterparties are adequately backed. From sdw at lig.net Sat Oct 17 16:32:43 2009 From: sdw at lig.net (Stephen D. Williams) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:32:43 -0700 Subject: [FoRK] GWave and the passing of the torch.... In-Reply-To: <621803.22232.qm@web33001.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <621803.22232.qm@web33001.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4ADA541B.7090205@lig.net> Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo wrote: > You can't actually upgrade from XP to Windows 7. Literally. The only way you can get there is to, first, upgrade to Vista and then upgrade to Win7. Otherwise it's a clean install. That's why I recommended to wait until it's time for a new computer ... buy it with Win7 on it. > > ...ken... > > At least the educational Win7 is an "upgrade" package. However, in true Microsoft form, this apparently has a completely different meaning than it did for prior windows versions. For XP (and I think Vista), an "upgrade" version was capable of being installed on a prior OS, and in fact required it. An OEM version of Vista would install on a clean hard drive, however there was no upgrade capability. However, you were stuck with the specific version of Vista you had purchased, 32-bit or 64-bit for instance. A full retail Vista Ultimate would allow you to install any of the Vista versions, 32-bit or 64-bit, as needed. With Win7, "upgrade" means that it can "upgrade" an installed system, however they have a euphemism for operating systems that cannot be upgraded directly, something like "advanced install". Apparently, the "Windows 7 Upgrade" is not just an upgrade, but a completely version of the OS... Which is smart if they want any hope of people "upgrading" from Linux or OS X. sdw From ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca Sat Oct 17 17:09:43 2009 From: ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca (Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 17:09:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [FoRK] Computational Complexity and Information Asymmetry in Financial Products (Working paper) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <258490.23057.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- On Sat, 10/17/09, Russell Turpin wrote: > > My taking such contracts doesn't increase the chance of me keeling > over dead tomorrow. At least, not from natural cause. But large > financial firms discounting that risk might, in aggregate, increase > the risk of such a meltdown. And as this paper points out, domino > effects are not always easy to evaluate. Which means it may be damn > hard for future regulatory agencies to tell that risk-assuming > counterparties are adequately backed. > _______________________________________________ I know this has been beaten near to death but the problem with the current environment in the US and many European countries is that there really isn't any risk. The belief was that nobody would be allowed to fail and that was pretty much borne out. Going forward, the belief that there's no risk in such behaviour will be even stronger, thus even riskier behaviour should be expected. If there had been some consequences so that future risk would actually be perceived, regulatory work would be simpler. ...ken... __________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com. From aaron at bavariati.org Sun Oct 18 00:45:22 2009 From: aaron at bavariati.org (Aaron Burt) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:45:22 -0700 Subject: [FoRK] Hatching startups Message-ID: <20091018074521.GA19717@aaron-x31> Since I'm moving back to Portland this year and have a passion for mixing network and power engineering, I've got myself involved in a series of meetings/seminars for a Smart Grid Startup Project at a business incubator in Beaverton. O wise denizens of FoRK, any wisdom to share for socially inept engineers about these sort of affairs? (I can't think of a incubator without thinking of hatching chicks, and the improbable task of sorting the ones that will eventually make eggs from the ones who will only ever make noise.) Thank you, Aaron From jebdm at jebdm.net Sun Oct 18 05:53:34 2009 From: jebdm at jebdm.net (Jebadiah Moore) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:53:34 +0100 Subject: [FoRK] Suing chiropractic critic for libel Message-ID: <69ae910f0910180553o550d4af8ud7d5157ac4674af0@mail.gmail.com> Online petitions are a bit sketch, but this one has some moderately important-looking signatories, and the issue is fairly interesting: "The law has no place in scientific disputes" http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/334/ We the undersigned believe that it is inappropriate to use the English libel laws to silence critical discussion of medical practice and scientific evidence. The British Chiropractic Association has sued Simon Singh for libel. The scientific community would have preferred that it had defended its position about chiropractic for various children's ailments through an open discussion of the peer reviewed medical literature or through debate in the mainstream media. Singh holds that chiropractic treatments for asthma, ear infections and other infant conditions are not evidence-based. Where medical claims to cure or treat do not appear to be supported by evidence, we should be able to criticise assertions robustly and the public should have access to these views. English libel law, though, can serve to punish this kind of scrutiny and can severely curtail the right to free speech on a matter of public interest. It is already widely recognised that the law is weighted heavily against writers: among other things, the costs are so high that few defendants can afford to make their case. The ease and success of bringing cases under the English law, including against overseas writers, has led to London being viewed as the "libel capital" of the world. Freedom to criticise and question in strong terms and without malice is the cornerstone of scientific argument and debate, whether in peer-reviewed journals, on websites or in newspapers, which have a right of reply for complainants. However, the libel laws and cases such as BCA v Singh have a chilling effect, which deters scientists, journalists and science writers from engaging in important disputes about the evidential base supporting products and practices. The libel laws discourage argument and debate and merely encourage the use of the courts to silence critics. The English law of libel has no place in scientific disputes about evidence; the BCA should discuss the evidence outside of a courtroom. Moreover, the BCA v Singh case shows a wider problem: we urgently need a full review of the way that English libel law affects discussions about scientific and medical evidence. -- Jebadiah Moore http://jebdm.net From jbone at place.org Sun Oct 18 09:52:01 2009 From: jbone at place.org (Jeff Bone) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:52:01 -0500 Subject: [FoRK] Adverse selection in insurance Message-ID: <830B3CB3-40EF-421C-8590-2DD3471BC4DC@place.org> More confusion. (I.e., on the CEA --- not EconLog.) http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/10/obamas_cea_on_a.html Closely related to the moral hazard issue -wrt- insurance as well. jb From b at b3k.us Sun Oct 18 11:28:26 2009 From: b at b3k.us (Benjamin Black) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:28:26 -0700 Subject: [FoRK] Adverse selection in insurance In-Reply-To: <830B3CB3-40EF-421C-8590-2DD3471BC4DC@place.org> References: <830B3CB3-40EF-421C-8590-2DD3471BC4DC@place.org> Message-ID: <4ADB5E4A.30804@b3k.us> Jeff Bone wrote: > > More confusion. (I.e., on the CEA --- not EconLog.) > > http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/10/obamas_cea_on_a.html > > Closely related to the moral hazard issue -wrt- insurance as well. > > jb > "Moreover, a significant proportion of individuals may be uninsured because many of them are charged high rates as a result of medical underwriting and many of them choose not to pay those rates." This economist trickery of saying not that someone can't afford to pay a given rate, but that they choose not to pay those rates has worn quite thin. If I have no money, I am not starving because I choose not to pay the going rates for food. Market religion results in some very strange notions about how people behave and why. Greenspan discovered a 'flaw' in his model of the world. Who, even someone as intelligent, experienced, and connected as Greenspan, might have guessed that promoting amoral psychopaths to positions of enormous power in the financial industry would result in their treating it like a machine for creating bubbles and harvesting money from the rest of the population? Might there be a similar flaw in the current health care system model? Or are an awful lot of people with no money simply making a bad choice about how they spend their insurance dollars? b From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Sun Oct 18 12:13:04 2009 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 12:13:04 -0700 Subject: [FoRK] Adverse selection in insurance In-Reply-To: <4ADB5E4A.30804@b3k.us> References: <830B3CB3-40EF-421C-8590-2DD3471BC4DC@place.org> <4ADB5E4A.30804@b3k.us> Message-ID: <0A30FA6D-05C0-480B-940B-76C441C43E22@ceruleansystems.com> On Oct 18, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Benjamin Black wrote: > Greenspan discovered a 'flaw' in his model of the world. Who, even > someone as intelligent, experienced, and connected as Greenspan, might > have guessed that promoting amoral psychopaths to positions of > enormous > power in the financial industry would result in their treating it > like a > machine for creating bubbles and harvesting money from the rest of the > population? Might there be a similar flaw in the current health care > system model? The "flaw" is in all extant health care system models: mal-regulation that cannot deliver the supposedly desired outcomes even in theory, never mind in practice. As long as policy is driven by willful ignorance and childish delusions this will continue to be the case. We may not want creationists running our schools but we have the economic equivalent of creationists running our regulatory policy. There is plenty of anti-science to go around. Regulatory action is designed to stroke biases, not solve problems in any kind of rigorous systemic sense. You can't regulate your way to a well-functioning system when regulatory capture is complete and regulatory incompetence is pervasive. Existing problems in the financial and health care markets have largely been created by regulatory complexity, so most proffered solutions are an attempt to "fix" things while aggressively ignoring root causes for the problems. Is it any wonder that regulatory changes in heavily regulated industries invariably amount to nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic? One of the biggest flaws in our current system is that regulators are never held to be responsible for the state of systems in which the regulators are defining the equilibria. From gojomo at boxbe.com Sun Oct 18 12:42:02 2009 From: gojomo at boxbe.com (Gordon Mohr) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 12:42:02 -0700 Subject: [FoRK] Adverse selection in insurance In-Reply-To: <4ADB5E4A.30804@b3k.us> References: <830B3CB3-40EF-421C-8590-2DD3471BC4DC@place.org> <4ADB5E4A.30804@b3k.us> Message-ID: <4ADB6F8A.6020709@boxbe.com> Benjamin Black wrote: > "Moreover, a significant proportion of individuals may be uninsured > because many of them are charged high rates as a result of medical > underwriting and many of them choose not to pay those rates." > > This economist trickery of saying not that someone can't afford to pay a > given rate, but that they choose not to pay those rates has worn quite > thin. If I have no money, I am not starving because I choose not to pay > the going rates for food. Market religion results in some very strange > notions about how people behave and why. Your objection may apply if someone is living hand-to-mouth. But what if, instead of buying health insurance at going rates, some individuals are spending several times the cost of insurance on discretionary pleasures like first-run movies, cable television, video games, leisure travel, live events, or designer clothes -- or even gambling, tobacco, alcohol, or other drugs? What if others with the exact same income allocate it to health insurance instead? *Then* can we economic tricksters and market religion true-believers say these individuals "choose not to pay those rates"? Or is there still an objection? - Gordon From b at b3k.us Sun Oct 18 12:48:04 2009 From: b at b3k.us (Benjamin Black) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 12:48:04 -0700 Subject: [FoRK] Adverse selection in insurance In-Reply-To: <4ADB6F8A.6020709@boxbe.com> References: <830B3CB3-40EF-421C-8590-2DD3471BC4DC@place.org> <4ADB5E4A.30804@b3k.us> <4ADB6F8A.6020709@boxbe.com> Message-ID: <4ADB70F4.2070202@b3k.us> Gordon Mohr wrote: > But what if, instead of buying health insurance at going rates, some > individuals are spending several times the cost of insurance on > discretionary pleasures like first-run movies, cable television, video > games, leisure travel, live events, or designer clothes -- or even > gambling, tobacco, alcohol, or other drugs? What if others with the > exact same income allocate it to health insurance instead? > > *Then* can we economic tricksters and market religion true-believers say > these individuals "choose not to pay those rates"? Or is there still an > objection? > Certainly! Now you just have to prove that is what is going on. That they are not properly insured we know. That they are _choosing_ that state (by deciding health insurance is useless, by buying luxuries, etc.) we do not know. b From sdw at lig.net Sun Oct 18 20:49:45 2009 From: sdw at lig.net (Stephen Williams) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 20:49:45 -0700 Subject: [FoRK] Adverse selection in insurance In-Reply-To: <4ADB70F4.2070202@b3k.us> References: <830B3CB3-40EF-421C-8590-2DD3471BC4DC@place.org> <4ADB5E4A.30804@b3k.us> <4ADB6F8A.6020709@boxbe.com> <4ADB70F4.2070202@b3k.us> Message-ID: <4ADBE1D9.2050708@lig.net> Benjamin Black wrote: > Gordon Mohr wrote: > >> But what if, instead of buying health insurance at going rates, some >> individuals are spending several times the cost of insurance on >> discretionary pleasures like first-run movies, cable television, video >> games, leisure travel, live events, or designer clothes -- or even >> gambling, tobacco, alcohol, or other drugs? What if others with the >> exact same income allocate it to health insurance instead? >> >> *Then* can we economic tricksters and market religion true-believers say >> these individuals "choose not to pay those rates"? Or is there still an >> objection? >> >> > > Certainly! Now you just have to prove that is what is going on. That > they are not properly insured we know. That they are _choosing_ that > state (by deciding health insurance is useless, by buying luxuries, > etc.) we do not know. > > b > There is more nuance than that they just don't choose to buy insurance. For one thing, if you are not able to buy into a good group insurance plan at your employer, health insurance may look drastically less attractive and less rational than it does for most of us most of the time. It is a fairly large step function. Add to that the fact that most companies at least partially subsidize health insurance. Additionally, few insurance companies will agree to insure an individual who is middle-aged or beyond or who has practically any pre-existing condition. Anyone not working for a company or agency large enough to have a reasonable negotiated group plan is pretty much completely left out of the insurance market unless they are young and have never had any issue in any of a large number of categories. This especially includes self-employed entrepreneurs, which is ironic since the GOP likes to go on about how health-care reform would hurt small business. In truth, the current system benefits large companies much more. I will use myself and my current state, California, as an example. I'm in probably the top 5% or better of my age group for healthiness, being in shape, having the lowest risk factors for cancer of any kind, heart disease, diabetes, etc. I ran a 5 hour marathon earlier this year, and a couple more in the last few years. I periodically go for 9-12 mile kayak trips in big waves on the bay or off the coast of Oahu. I can keep up with the Oahu hiking club for very strenuous mountain hikes. Low to optimum blood pressure. Etc. Etc. I have no detectable medical issues that are severe, might get worse, or could be expected to cause any significant expense, ever. And I have an FAA medical certification to prove a lot of that. Earlier this year, while on COBRA and a self-employed consultant / entrepreneur, I found that I could not qualify as an individual for any health insurance plan in California (or anywhere in the US apparently). My last company had paid my insurance at 100%. If I could have qualified, a substantially worse (much higher deductables, copays, limitations, etc.) plan than my old employer was paying $450/mo. for would have cost me about $800/mo. (with some quotes at $1200/mo.) Since I did not qualify, my only option after 18 months of COBRA was to try to get a HIPAA / MRMIP plan, which seems unlikely: [1], or to go to work for another larger company. So, I now work for a larger company and pay about $185/mo. after ~$400 subsidy. (All my rates are adult+children, but not family (i.e. 2 adults + children.)) If someone doesn't have health insurance, they generally cannot afford it and often cannot get it anyway. Since they can get emergency coverage in most counties most of the time, sooner or later, it only takes a little fatalism or general avoidance of medicine to make health insurance seem like a bad idea. Additionally, if you have health insurance, you are presumed by the medical system to be able to pay whatever you may incur. If you can barely afford health insurance, you are likely to then incur copays and deductables that are then beyond your remaining budget. If you had not had health insurance or any reasonable income, you would have been put in the destitute bin and not had an issue. If you have health insurance, you'll have bill collection, credit, and other issues pretty much forever. The net result is that unless you have substantially more income than just covering health insurance premiums, it may not appear to make sense to pay for your own health insurance. So, back to: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/10/obamas_cea_on_a.html The "June report" says: > To address adverse selection risks, most insurers use medical > underwriting and incorporate a risk premium into the actual price of > coverage. As a result, the price of health insurance that a typical > person would face in the individual market greatly exceeds the average > cost of covering him or her. Moreover, a significant proportion of > individuals may be uninsured because they are denied coverage as a > result of medical underwriting. Henderson: > The first sentence says that adverse selection is not just a, but the, > most important market failure. But then the next three sentences deny > that adverse selection is a problem: under adverse selection, people > of different risks tend to be charged the same premium--that's what > leads to adverse selection. But the CEA notes correctly that insurers > are not so ignorant--they use medical underwriting. The report is not denying that adverse selection is a problem: they are saying that the presence of that problem led the insurers to charge higher rates to lower risk people to counter the problem. Does he not understand or is he being willfully ignorant to try to make a biased and unsupported point? The report's usage of "incorporate a risk premium" is indicating that they are charging more for people than underwriting would indicate is appropriate without the presence of adverse selection tendencies. Henderson doesn't get it: The insurance companies are preventing adverse selection by charging all individuals high risk rates on the assumption that only high-risk individuals would pay those rates. Since they screen out high-risk individuals to begin with, it is only the high risk that might slip through that they are trying to prevent being gamed by. Why does auto insurance not have this problem very much? A) Everyone driving has to have insurance and B) much of insurance is for things that other people do to you, and C) the potential losses are much more limited and predictable. [1] http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-blueshield15-2009oct15,0,3875854.story?track=rss Note: California has 55 million residents, but an MRMIP high-risk pool cap of 7,100 enrollees, which is often closed. > California has ousted Blue Shield, the state's second-largest > not-for-profit health plan, from the state's high-risk medical > insurance pool because its premiums were too high. > > The pool, known as the Major Risk Medical Insurance Program, or MRMIP, > insures more than 6,700 Californians who have been shut out of the > private health insurance market because of pre-existing conditions. > > Through MRMIP, such people are able to buy coverage from private > insurers at premiums that are supposed to be 25% higher than the > market rate for a comparable policy. The state reimburses the insurers > for any losses they incur. > > ... > > High-risk pool officials said they put Blue Shield on notice last year > over concerns about its high premiums. And the insurer's participation > slipped to about 80 enrollees this year. > > Blue Shield's "rates continue to be at a level far higher than the > other plans' rates," PriceWaterhouseCoopers said in a recent report to > the MRMIP board. For single subscribers, the report said, Blue > Shield's 2010 proposed rates would have been "1.5 to nearly 3 times > higher than those of the other plans." > MRMIP, the high-risk pool, is capped at 7,100 enrollees and is often > closed. But, as of its last count, the program had room for about 200 > new enrollees. Therefore, I have first-hand proof that the current arrangement is severely broken. Adverse selection should be addressed, and it will probably only be addressed by new regulation. Probably by requiring everyone to be covered, possibly by assigning high-risk individuals randomly as a fair percentage of every company's pool. I really don't like the latter, however if high-risk were defined with a much higher threshold, it might not be bad. sdw From andrew at ceruleansystems.com Sun Oct 18 21:48:24 2009 From: andrew at ceruleansystems.com (J. Andrew Rogers) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:48:24 -0700 Subject: [FoRK] Adverse selection in insurance In-Reply-To: <4ADBE1D9.2050708@lig.net> References: <830B3CB3-40EF-421C-8590-2DD3471BC4DC@place.org> <4ADB5E4A.30804@b3k.us> <4ADB6F8A.6020709@boxbe.com> <4ADB70F4.2070202@b3k.us> <4ADBE1D9.2050708@lig.net> Message-ID: <5F02C536-3138-499B-8043-86528D6180F4@ceruleansystems.com> On Oct 18, 2009, at 8:49 PM, Stephen Williams wrote: > Additionally, few insurance companies will agree to insure an > individual who is middle-aged or beyond or who has practically any > pre-existing condition. That is because regulations frequently do not let insurance companies sell, you know, insurance. Part of the problem is that 95+% of all Americans are deeply ignorant about the concept of insurance, so the regulatory destruction of insurance happens without anyone noticing or caring. But there is no shortage of people who are upset that insurance seems dysfunctional -- they have only themselves to blame. The choice comes down to actual insurance with real potential for adverse consequences in a minority of cases and a gross moral hazard that guarantees systemic adverse consequences over the long-term. Moral hazards are attractive here for the same reason they are everywhere. > Anyone not working for a company or agency large enough to have a > reasonable negotiated group plan is pretty much completely left out > of the insurance market unless they are young and have never had any > issue in any of a large number of categories. This especially > includes self-employed entrepreneurs, which is ironic since the GOP > likes to go on about how health-care reform would hurt small > business. In truth, the current system benefits large companies > much more. Yes, the current system is strongly biased toward large companies. This is a regulatory and statutory result, not an intrinsic characteristic. The GOP is not necessarily wrong, it really depends on the kind of reform we are talking about. Most of the proposed reforms are non-constructive travesties of one type or another, since useful reform is politically difficult in a way that makes the current steaming pile look politically easy. > If someone doesn't have health insurance, they generally cannot > afford it and often cannot get it anyway. Since they can get > emergency coverage in most counties most of the time, sooner or > later, it only takes a little fatalism or general avoidance of > medicine to make health insurance seem like a bad idea. > Additionally, if you have health insurance, you are presumed by the > medical system to be able to pay whatever you may incur. If you can > barely afford health insurance, you are likely to then incur copays > and deductables that are then beyond your remaining budget. If you > had not had health insurance or any reasonable income, you would > have been put in the destitute bin and not had an issue. If you > have health insurance, you'll have bill collection, credit, and > other issues pretty much forever. The net result is that unless you > have substantially more income than just covering health insurance > premiums, it may not appear to make sense to pay for your own health > insurance. Again, all this is a regulatory result. This is a natural consequence of the mountain of stupid laws and regulations regarding such things that essentially force or encourage insurance companies to offer the products they currently offer. All of which is compounded by equally broken tax laws regarding such things. Most (all?) states have myriad expensive, stupid things written into their insurance laws that are nothing more than rent-seeking by a diverse range of special interests. And people that buy insurance get to pay for it whether they want to or not. > Probably by requiring everyone to be covered, possibly by assigning > high-risk individuals randomly as a fair percentage of every > company's pool. I really don't like the latter, however if high- > risk were defined with a much higher threshold, it might not be bad. I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about insurance. My mistake. One of the more obnoxious policy lies is the use of the term "insurance" to denote policies that are in fact redistributive social welfare. The term "insurance" has a precise meaning that has nothing to do with distributing individual healthcare costs. If you want to give high-risk individuals or individuals with pre-existing conditions social welfare, say as much and stop using the term "insurance" as a politically friendly euphemism for it. The argument has not been about insurance at all, even the GOP proposals are only marginally more about fixing insurance. The argument is over how many Americans are we going to officially add to the welfare rolls, but people never like the sound of that so the talking heads blather incoherent things about "insurance". From sdw at lig.net Sun Oct 18 22:49:25 2009 From: sdw at lig.net (Stephen Williams) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:49:25 -0700 Subject: [FoRK] Adverse selection in insurance In-Reply-To: <5F02C536-3138-499B-8043-86528D6180F4@ceruleansystems.com> References: <830B3CB3-40EF-421C-8590-2DD3471BC4DC@place.org> <4ADB5E4A.30804@b3k.us> <4ADB6F8A.6020709@boxbe.com> <4ADB70F4.2070202@b3k.us> <4ADBE1D9.2050708@lig.net> <5F02C536-3138-499B-8043-86528D6180F4@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: <4ADBFDE5.4030901@lig.net> J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > > On Oct 18, 2009, at 8:49 PM, Stephen Williams wrote: >> Additionally, few insurance companies will agree to insure an >> individual who is middle-aged or beyond or who has practically any >> pre-existing condition. > > > That is because regulations frequently do not let insurance companies > sell, you know, insurance. Part of the problem is that 95+% of all > Americans are deeply ignorant about the concept of insurance, so the > regulatory destruction of insurance happens without anyone noticing or > caring. But there is no shortage of people who are upset that > insurance seems dysfunctional -- they have only themselves to blame. Everyone who complains about dysfunctional insurance is to blame for it? > > The choice comes down to actual insurance with real potential for > adverse consequences in a minority of cases and a gross moral hazard > that guarantees systemic adverse consequences over the long-term. > Moral hazards are attractive here for the same reason they are > everywhere. > >> Anyone not working for a company or agency large enough to have a >> reasonable negotiated group plan is pretty much completely left out >> of the insurance market unless they are young and have never had any >> issue in any of a large number of categories. This especially >> includes self-employed entrepreneurs, which is ironic since the GOP >> likes to go on about how health-care reform would hurt small >> business. In truth, the current system benefits large companies much >> more. > > Yes, the current system is strongly biased toward large companies. > This is a regulatory and statutory result, not an intrinsic > characteristic. The GOP is not necessarily wrong, it really depends on > the kind of reform we are talking about. Most of the proposed reforms > are non-constructive travesties of one type or another, since useful > reform is politically difficult in a way that makes the current > steaming pile look politically easy. What regulations encourage it? I find that it is more a natural consequence of insurance companies having to negotiate with most of their clients (large companies / agencies) and of individuals having no way to negotiate effectively. While regulations twist many aspects of the situation, that specific problem seems more caused by a lack of regulations. > >> If someone doesn't have health insurance, they generally cannot >> afford it and often cannot get it anyway. Since they can get >> emergency coverage in most counties most of the time, sooner or >> later, it only takes a little fatalism or general avoidance of >> medicine to make health insurance seem like a bad idea. >> Additionally, if you have health insurance, you are presumed by the >> medical system to be able to pay whatever you may incur. If you can >> barely afford health insurance, you are likely to then incur copays >> and deductables that are then beyond your remaining budget. If you >> had not had health insurance or any reasonable income, you would have >> been put in the destitute bin and not had an issue. If you have >> health insurance, you'll have bill collection, credit, and other >> issues pretty much forever. The net result is that unless you have >> substantially more income than just covering health insurance >> premiums, it may not appear to make sense to pay for your own health >> insurance. > > > Again, all this is a regulatory result. This is a natural consequence > of the mountain of stupid laws and regulations regarding such things > that essentially force or encourage insurance companies to offer the > products they currently offer. All of which is compounded by equally > broken tax laws regarding such things. > > Most (all?) states have myriad expensive, stupid things written into > their insurance laws that are nothing more than rent-seeking by a > diverse range of special interests. And people that buy insurance get > to pay for it whether they want to or not. Absolutely, the state-by-state insurance mess is terrible for all kinds of insurance. I don't know of any benefits, other than perhaps that incremental experimentation to fix things is localized and contrastable to other states. > >> Probably by requiring everyone to be covered, possibly by assigning >> high-risk individuals randomly as a fair percentage of every >> company's pool. I really don't like the latter, however if high-risk >> were defined with a much higher threshold, it might not be bad. > > > I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about insurance. My mistake. I was talking about insurance for high-risk individuals. Those that are already costing a lot are in an different category since they are no longer a risk, they are a reality. > > One of the more obnoxious policy lies is the use of the term > "insurance" to denote policies that are in fact redistributive social > welfare. The term "insurance" has a precise meaning that has nothing > to do with distributing individual healthcare costs. If you want to > give high-risk individuals or individuals with pre-existing conditions > social welfare, say as much and stop using the term "insurance" as a > politically friendly euphemism for it. > > The argument has not been about insurance at all, even the GOP > proposals are only marginally more about fixing insurance. The > argument is over how many Americans are we going to officially add to > the welfare rolls, but people never like the sound of that so the > talking heads blather incoherent things about "insurance". I agree with that as an issue. On the other hand, I think it may be a bit of a red herring / one off in the sense that we should be reasoning about a system as if it had been in place since birth for everyone involved. Presumably, a correct solution will have that quality after some years. At that point, it is real insurance for everyone. And from that point of view, even if someone has already realized a risk, they should be accounted for in the "new system" in such a way as would be equivalent to where they would have been if the system had been in place already. If we are talking about full mutual insurance in any sense, then, in effect, the sentiment that current losers shouldn't be "rewarded" amounts to: "It sucks to be you, go away and die quietly." If you follow that logic blindly, perhaps only babies born after the new plan is in place should be allowed to benefit from it? If we were talking about auto or house insurance, perhaps losses beforehand are just too bad. (Of course, we often invent aid methods even then in large cases.) With live people, it just doesn't apply the same way. These are probably at the base of most disagreements about health care reform: Is health care a right? To what degree and in what sense? Do we want true mutual insurance? How is it limited? Do we allow people to opt out? Do we penalize them now or later? Do we penalize people for lifestyle? (Smoking, what they eat, weight, too much alcohol, drugs, etc.) How? There are practicality limits on all of these. The big issues: How do we keep funding effective medical research in a lucrative way, create true competition for appropriate goals such as ever more efficient and effective care, while having fair mutual insurance with little overhead? sdw From b at b3k.us Sun Oct 18 23:02:54 2009 From: b at b3k.us (Benjamin Black) Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 23:02:54 -0700 Subject: [FoRK] Adverse selection in insurance In-Reply-To: <5F02C536-3138-499B-8043-86528D6180F4@ceruleansystems.com> References: <830B3CB3-40EF-421C-8590-2DD3471BC4DC@place.org> <4ADB5E4A.30804@b3k.us> <4ADB6F8A.6020709@boxbe.com> <4ADB70F4.2070202@b3k.us> <4ADBE1D9.2050708@lig.net> <5F02C536-3138-499B-8043-86528D6180F4@ceruleansystems.com> Message-ID: <4ADC010E.2080908@b3k.us> J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > > Again, all this is a regulatory result. This is a natural consequence > of the mountain of stupid laws and regulations regarding such things > that essentially force or encourage insurance companies to offer the > products they currently offer. All of which is compounded by equally > broken tax laws regarding such things. > > Most (all?) states have myriad expensive, stupid things written into > their insurance laws that are nothing more than rent-seeking by a > diverse range of special interests. And people that buy insurance get > to pay for it whether they want to or not. > Yes, pity, the poor, put upon insurance companies who can't afford to spend millions on lobbying legislatures to get exactly the regulations they want passed, often having written them for the legislators. Instead, the people of the states have risen up to smite them with their awesome democratic power. Give it a rest. The notion that insurance companies, working hand in glove with the health care providers and big pharma, are victims rather than perpetrators is ludicrous. The companies in these industries do not want reform because the system we have works extremely well for them. Those rent-seeking special interests? They're the health care industry. b