Recently in Philosophy, Politics & etc. Category

     Whenever I read titles of articles like "Will Coral Reefs Disappear?" my head starts to swim. The answer to such catastrophic questions is always yes. Yes. Coral Reefs will disappear if things change. They will also reappear elsewhere. We know from historical records that the ocean and land has changed as time has past. It is amazing, though, how much emphasis we place on changes over a short period of time that really have to real significance in the grand scheme of life on planet earth. We think that because we can measure changes with greater detail today that somehow they are more significant than they were ten, twenty or one hundred years ago. 

An interesting observation that I may one day delve further into: Heliocentrism is the work of many men, but one made it popular against all odds by one. In his time, Copernicus faced the abuse of the Church and colleagues who couldn't admit or concede he was correct.
Much of the scientifically backed commentary being thrown about today - whether dealing with the earth's temperatures or economics - are full of voodoo theories and emotional conjecture. Much like Copernicus experienced, the momentum was against him. Even in today's age of science, we continue to choose theories that defy statistics, logic and a simple principle known as Ockham's Razor. For some reason, like in certain areas of religious dogma, we wish to hold to theories regardless of their consequences or reliability.
Copernicus, Galileo and men like them are heros. We could learn from them (again).

Sowell on 'giving back' from Cafe Hayek

     Roberts comments remind me that all to often we view or are told things completely out of context. To play by my own desired rules, the context in which I view these statements relate to local political issues - of which I've suddenly become interested. We hear statements about our emotive state instead of the reality with which we are surrounded. Statements usually start out with, don't we want?... or it follows that... When looking at the context of the arguments made, we might not agree so readily with the speakers arguments.
     Anyway, Sowell nails it: we give back to society. We can't give back to people from whom we haven't taken a damn thing. (And we ought not be treated like we have by our friends on the neo-socialist right.)

In traveling more than most Americans, I think, since I was sixteen, the idea that Americans are generally overweight doesn't seem all that foreign to me. A quick trip between Frankfurt and Chicago airports always seems to confirm this. The numbers, however, in a Flash based map on cnn.com don't seem to make sense. The described increase in obesity in the US seems statistically unlikely (in my mind) and I'm wondering if the rapid increase is due to the criteria for obesity changing along with moderate increases.

Take a look for yourself: CNN.com/heath: Obesity in the U.S. from 1985 to 2006

At the bottom of the map, Obese is defined as having a Body Mass Index of 30 or higher. In the Wikipedia article on Body Mass Index, it states:

"In 1998, the US National Institutes of Health brought US definitions into line with WHO guidelines. They decreased the normal/overweight cut-off from BMI 27.8 to BMI 25. About 30 million Americans who were fine before, are now seen as overweight. The World Health Organization uses the term "pre-obese" where the USA uses "overweight"." (link: Wikipedia Body Mass Index)

With this type of statistical reporting and the obvious questions that should arise if the numbers aren't recalculated based upon one type of value versus another, how are we to trust what our eyes are being told? Furthermore, how are we to trust the people providing the numbers without placing them in the appropriate context?

- Note: the direct source of the map is at this link: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/fit.nation/obesity.map/spread.3.swf

I've been mulling how to explain my thoughts on an observation that has become more and more clear over the past few years. I avoid televised news whenever possible. The closest I get to watching the news on broadcast television or cable news networks is when there is something specific that is happening right now that I can't find videos of on the net. Otherwise, whether it is NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, CNN, etc. I always get the feeling that the reporting staff is talking down to me and has an agenda they just can't refuse to push upon me.
In the reporting about weather trends, specifically what has been coined as global warming, I am shocked by the blatant disregard for facts. I know. There are lies, damn lies and then statistics (I guess, a sort of fact). Context is irrelevant and facts are what you make of them. The earth is warming and it is due to humans - so we are told to believe. We know that the earth was extremely cold some ten to thirty millennia ago. In order for the polar caps and glaciers to have receded, it must have gotten warmer. This was all without modern human industry. It happened because that was the process nature was going through at the time. Some attribute it to God, others to pure geological evolution and natural event. Either way, man had no control over it and those that were alive at the time were probably hopping up and down doing some sort of rain dance because they had to believe there was a magical force that they could influence through their miniscule and likely irrelevant actions.
Regardless about how you feel about the climate (e.g. pro or contra global warming theory), it is amazing seeing humanity search for the next great religion. When facts are ignored and we succumb to dogma because it just might be true, we are talking about a sort of religion. (I am not attacking religion nor theology and a search for greater meaning in life. I am attacking dogma that amounts to statements that are not open to debate. Religion has this, normal human action is wrought with this, and science is especially prone to this, even though your average scientist claims it is not.) Statistics have been presented on both sides of the argument and, for what appears to be emotional reasons, not logical ones, we have generally taken on the crusade of one side of the debate.
Out with Christianity (or organized religion) and in with dogmatic science. Suddenly our society seems obsessed with what everyone else is doing and not with what they are doing themselves to better their lives and their surroundings. When the news spends 80% of its airtime on images from the paparazzi, how can we claim to be interested in generic information - i.e. knowledge - so that we can make relatively informed decisions? We can't. This obsession must have something to do with the emptiness in our own personal lives. I can't think of any other reason why anyone would spend a majority of their valuable time reading about whether Britney Spears has shaved her head or how bombed she got last night. We are concerned with what others are doing instead of making sure that we are being responsible with our own lives. Couple this voyeurism with the need for a cause and you find topics like global warming at the forefront of every conversation - conversations devoid of depth and devoid of substantial statistics bearing knowledge.
I wonder if I feel like Copernicus or Descartes must have; mind overflowing with pure data about the world around them, yet a refusal of the status quo to accept that there was more to the world than they were being led to believe. I'm not placing myself anywhere near either of the above gentlemen in terms of their sheer genius. I am only making the comparison in terms of their (likely) amazement that people would rather be fed with ideas they can believe without critique, than challenged with thoughts that said not only are we not in control, but nature is much greater than we can possibly fathom. We are yet a speck of sand on a vast ocean of beach and the impact we have on our surroundings is less than what we wish it were. We wish we were powerful and we constantly search for means by which to gain this power - whether religion or science - and we continually fantasize about how powerful we'll be if we only do this or that in a certain specific manner. We cannot accept that we are part of a larger game that cares as much about our actions as a river does a pebble being thrown into the rapids.
How frustrating it must have been to have seen and learned that we know so little and yet are convinced of our power out of sheer arrogance and perhaps, hope.

It's quiet all through the house, not a creature is stirring, not even a mouse... I had to take a picture of a Sirah I'm enjoying on so many levels. I have about 20 minutes worth of homework left for the evening and I'm hoping tonight will be one of those nights where I actually sleep when my head hits the pillow.
Today has been one of those days where I had meant to accomplish so much, yet achieved so little. I spend far more time on understanding MovableType 4.x and fastcgi than I wish to admit. (I do feel better about the server configurations we have in place, but there is still much to learn.)
I also still owe this little weblog of mine an update on my philosophical battles with thoughts on Walworth County funding private operations like WCEDA. I noticed a piece in the Janesville Gazette Xtra from Mr. Burkhardt about the necessity of WCEDA in providing the County with planning guidance so that we can enjoy the benefits of bringing more tax revenue our way. Tomorrow, I'll tackle that issue with some more direct comments, but for now, I am still stunned that people believe in economic planning. There are plenty of fancy arguments for government creating zones for economic development, etc. None, however, are more powerful than an easy to read legal guide to a given municipality and low taxes. Only big business seems to be interested in games and tax dodge schemes. The small guys - i.e. those like us or to be more specific, between $50,000-$200mil per year in revenues (perhaps that top number should be higher) - prefer rules they can know and that they will generally be left to go about doing their business as they see fit. If we provide to the market we intend to serve in an efficient and responsible manner, business will come and our revenues will grow (positive revenues, not just money for the sake of making more, but more profits, etc.). There is no honest person out there who would argue otherwise.
Planning means that a person expects to forecast the future. No bureaucratic body has ever succeeded in doing so for any amount of time. History appears to be ignored again. By the way, ad hoc development is what an efficient market is about. Ad hoc means to concentrate on a specific mission and good businesses typically find ways of doing just that.
Back to work so I can go off to bed.

I received a call from a colleague a few days ago about a meeting coming up over Thanksgiving. In the process of talking about said meeting, we drifted off onto other subjects relating to some decisions our county board is going to be making. One of the issues that will be coming up is whether or not the county (Walworth County, WI) should refund a development project that is nothing more than paying consultants to tell the county how to subsidize businesses they feel are the key to the long term growth in our county. The presentation that was given yesterday at Gateway College makes the following statements:
- We are living in a rapidly changing economy where industries are coming into existence which a) never existed ten years ago and b) are being valued at higher numbers than companies with greater physical assets and who have been in existence longer.
- Market driven forces have been the foundation of said changes.
Yet, in the same breath, the presentation makes the claim that local and state governments should be involved in fostering growth by:
- Researching and predicting the future industries that will bring the greatest benefit to the area being served - e.g. Walworth County.
- Provide incentives for said industries.
I argue that businesses like Google, Apple, Yahoo!, and Microsoft exist despite government interference and not because of it. Google's phenomenal growth is due to dollars and eyeballs. They built a platform on which people would be drawn to their service - i.e. search engine/search results - and in the process presented with ads that generate revenue to support further developing their search techniques. Apple has gone from a perceived second rate, second tier software and hardware developer to a class A developer of equipment, software, and ideas. Their brand is recognized on the level of a fashion icon in an industry known for beige box, bland hardware. No one could argue in any intelligent manner that the government was responsible for helping foster the growth of these two winners. There are basic infrastructure services that we have allowed the government to assume responsibility for that have helped in the growth of the companies, but I would argue that inconsistencies in policy and regulatory burden burn more human creative energy at both companies than is necessary. It is despite government that these companies exist, not because of government.
The propaganda being thrown about in Walwroth County via the new WCEDA initiative is akin to socialist market planning. If you remove subject identity indicators from their reports, you find that the goal is to research historical changes in the county and use those statistics, coupled with information on industries that have shown to be high-growth and high-paying, and mash them together to create a plan for the future. What? Historical statistics have done nothing more than show that the market changes much faster than any government could possibly react. Yet, somehow we are going to delude ourselves into believing that the government can foster growth by predicting the winners? Nonsense. The way government can assist in fostering growth is by making the rules of the game simple and easy to read. In order to enter the business market, you mustn't be required to hire lawyers and consultants to found your business. Company XYZ shouldn't be given advantages over Company ABC because they are perceived to be more vital to the growth of the County. The market will determine which provides greater benefit to the area residents and prosperity will follow. It always does. What makes us in Walworth County think that we can divine otherwise?

I don't know how to be more concise: ICANN's decision on .xxx : dumbass :: riding a bike with no seat : just plain stupid
Whoever put pressure on ICANN to nix the decision to create a "porn only" domain is missing something so completely valuable: you aren't going to rid the net of pornography, period. You would have made it a lot easier for administrators like myself to be able to at least block a whole TLD that we don't want people to have access to, instead of having to depend on poor software AI to figure out which domains have pornographic content and which don't. Regardless of my opinion of the state of pornography on the net, this is a lose lose for everyone involved. Shame on ICANN for bowing to what can only be conceived as political pressure.

Well, you just decided to allow for a situation wherein it is difficult and prone to error managing who can and cannot see those sites - 'cause you certainly can't control it.

Eventually, open access will be defeated in the courts or through legislation. Aside from my distaste for such concepts (regulating use of private property for others at a discounted price - similar to rent control), it will bring about competing services only over the short run, stagnate investment in cable/telephone equipment and eventually create higher prices for consumers. It happened with the telephone companies until the FCC removed some of the open access requirements. It took 5 years for SBC to finally think about offering high speed internet via DSL in Delavan, WI - before then they had to compete with other operators (who eventually went bankrupt) who were offered services over their equipment at deeply discounted prices. I think that the only CLECs and DSL providers that survive will be those that have a stake in the capital investments required by cable and telephone companies. Until that happens, the prices are only subsidized by lack of services offered to the consumers. The comment in Court hears arguments in FCC cable internet case:

But an attorney for the state of California, which is challenging the FCC's decision, said that customers in California and Vermont "will be at the mercy of an unregulated cable monopoly" due to the lack of competition.

Customers are only at the mercy of someone if they are forced (through state regulated monopolies) to use a given provider's services. The best way to promote competition is to let a given provider to price themselves out of existence - or make their prices so high that competitors have a financial reason to invest in that market. Government involvement = stagnation, NOT progress.

The facts surrounding why DARPA has pulled funding from the OpenBSD project aimed at providing a more secure open source platform are uncertain to say the least. de Raadt has never been shy of giving his opinion, and even though he may often come off as being arrogant, I respect the guy for holding to his guns. I find the pulling of the grant even more typical of government mismanagement of money - and this is pure speculation in relation to the project being discussed - why give money to a program and only after most of it is spent, realize that it was a mistake. Dutiful research should be done as to the intended use of the money and whether there will be eventual issues brought up by its disbursement. Anyway, I find it unfortunate, as OpenBSD continues to push the envelope with security related issues and a so-called secure system. They have taken the voluntary effort of a few in relation to the halls of employees at companies like Microsoft, Sun and AOL and come up with one of the most stable and secure computing platforms available today. And on top of that, it is free.
It would be nice to know why...

Link1: DARPA pulls OpenBSD funding
Link2: DARPA pulls OpenBSD Funding
(yes, two postings, same title)