| Thursday,
Dear Dr Pournelle,
I read with interest the case of the
Dell customers who sent back their computer because they couldn't read
the software licence agreements without agreeing to them in advance
(shrink-wrap licensing). In particular, their note that:
"After all this, we *did* try to boot off a Linux install
CD. That just took us to the same screen as before. So we had to go into
the BIOS so that it would try to boot off the CD before the hard disk,
but after we did that, Windows
started to boot, without having
displayed the "press a key to agree" screen. We quickly
powered the machine down before Windows started. [Though now you no
longer get the "press a key to agree" screen when you
turn it on, even with the BIOS settings back the way they were.]"
A couple of years ago, Netscape/AOL
lost a case involving a click-through licence. (See for example,
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-269673.html?legacy=cnet
). Click-through licences are for this purpose very similar to shrink-wrap
licences. (See for example:
http://www.golds.co.uk/articles/articles_corp_contracts_online_july01.htm
).
Till then, click-wrap agreements were usually
enforceable, but the client had to perform some act showing agreement. The
effect of this Federal decision was that parties in dispute didn't have to
go to arbitration - the licence agreement was not enforceable. Had the
Dell customers continued with their Windows install, they would have had a
good legal basis for arguing that they did not have to abide by the terms
of the shrink-wrap licences.
If you've clicked on the agreement, a later decision
(U.S. District Court) ruled that you're liable for the terms of the
contract even if you failed to read the agreement - provided you were
given a reasonable opportunity to inspect the terms, say by a hyperlink.
This is analogous to old cases involving railway tickets. These are
legally contracts for carriage and port - but the terms weren't on the
tickets. Instead the traveller was directed to an extensive list of
conditions of contract, pasted up near the stationmaster's office.
But in the Dell case, no reasonable opportunity was
given. All the options suggested by the Dell service centre
implicitly required breaking the seals to read them.
Regards, TC
--
Terry Cole SA, OU Maths & Stats (tcole@maths.otago.ac.nz)
PO Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand. Tel:64 3 4797739
====================
Dr. Pournelle,
Harry Erwin is mistaken.
Or perhaps when he wrote "the UK" he meant
"England".
My son went to Edinburgh University at the age of 17
and a half.
I've no idea if they did background checks on all
their staff; it seems unlikely, and frankly I don't care, since he is well
capable of looking after himself.
Best Regards,
Andrew Duffin
Perhaps he did mean "England"; people
tend to forget that there are differences in English and Scottish law and
administrative practices.
But in fact:
It's a new law. I'm an admitting officer for one of
the undergraduate courses and was briefed on the age requirement (and why)
last year. Our church only became aware of the clearance requirement in
the last six months--it applies to volunteer organizations, too. It caused
lots of problems for the primary and secondary schools last year when the
agency responsible for doing the clearances turned out to be understaffed
for the job.
-- Harry Erwin, PhD, Senior Lecturer of
Computing, University of Sunderland. Computational neuroscientist modeling
bat bioacoustics and behavior. <http://osiris.sunderland.ac.uk/~cs0her/index.html>
=========
Dear Dr Pournelle, An age ban on matriculation
earlier than 17.5 years at English Universities wouldn't surprise me, but
if true it's a sad development. ("Subject: Gifted and Talented but
Too Young for University"). It's a popular subject for discussion at
this department, as you might imagine. Harry Erwin's observation does seem
to be correct - see for example
http://www.femail.co.uk/pages/standard/article.html?
in_article_id=192243&in_page_id=110
There have been several cases of brilliant young
mathematicians entering University at an early age because it would be a
criminal waste to have them wait five to seven years. The classic example
to my mind is Ruth Lawrence, who I think graduated PhD at some astonishing
age, 14 if memory serves.
Many of the recent applicants were Asian, including
the youngest ever In recent times (1998) practically the entire Yusof
family (Iskander, Zuleika, Noraisha and Sufiah) were high achievers along
the same lines. Iskander, Noraisha and Sufiah went to Oxford and Warwick
at age twelve or so. Like Ruth Lawrence, their Dad became a full-time
educator.
Their sister Zuleika, at that time, was four - but
was clearly headed in the same direction. What's going to happen to her
now? It's my bet they will head to the US. There has already been
speculation on this (see http://www.financialaidoffice.org/archives/2003_08.html).
Regards, TC
-- Terry Cole admingt@maths.otago.ac.nz System
Administrator Dept. of Maths and Stats, Otago University PO. Box 56,
Dunedin tel:64-3-4797739 NEW ZEALAND fax:64-3-4798427
==========
Dear Jerry:
I'm looking at the Congressional Budget Office
letter to Senator Robert Byrd, dated September 3rd. It is 55 pages long,
but on the very first page it puts the number of troops "in and
around Iraq" at 180,000. Add to that the more than 20,000 positions
which were formally military jobs but are now performed by civilian
contractor Brown and Root (part of Haliburton) and you have 200,000, which
was the very number that then Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki testified
to before Congress and for which he was forced from his job and into
retirement by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.
Today, the reporting on the latest move by Powell to
make up with the UN is careful to distinguish between the Joint Chiefs
(who support it) and the "civilian leadership of the Pentagon".
Anyone care to make book on how much longer Rumsfeld will be SecDef?
Sincerely, Francis Hamit
Interesting. It's pretty clear we need to rethink
the needs of Empire. We certainly need an army capable of defeating anyone
who can challenge us. That means an armored field army, heavy armor with
air support, cumbersome, with a big tail and lots of artillery and support
troops.
But that's probably not the optimum expeditionary
force for such places as we are now involved with. We have to keep a heavy
armored army in being lest someone else decide to challenge our lighter
forces with something of that sort; but it need not be always at full
strength.
We need the lighter combat forces. But good
combat armies don't make for good occupation forces.
We need an occupation army, of lighter forces,
more police than army. But how do you keep such a structure? How do you
recruit such people? And except for the true warriors, what soldiers would
prefer that kind of duty to endless training for full combat? These
are all matters that so far as I know have not been thought out.
There is a logic to empire. We do not seem to
have studied that.
As for instance:
Nice War. Here's the Bill. By DONALD HEPBURN http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/03/opinion/03HEPB.html
APPAN, N.Y. — In 1991, America's so-called
Operation Tin Cup got enough money from its allies to cover the costs of
the first Persian Gulf war. In contrast, what could be called
"Operation Begging Bowl" after the latest war in Iraq has come
up empty, leaving us stuck with the bill for the invasion and occupation
— the full extent of which is only now becoming apparent.
The Bush administration's recent willingness
to consider a greater United Nations role on the ground is the first sign
that it is aware of how vastly mistaken its assertions about the
occupation were. Contrary to the prewar view that Iraq's oil revenues
would greatly offset American costs, we now know that Iraq — with its
shattered economy, devastated oil industry and plundered national wealth
— is incapable of making any significant reimbursement of the invasion
and occupation costs. And the military expense is only a fraction of the
total expense of making Iraq into a functioning country.
<snip>
I do not entirely agree with this, but the
numbers are suggestive. Iraq must pump oil, pump it fast, and pump it now,
or this imperial adventure is going to end badly.
The neo-cons got us into this, and for a while it
looked as if that were a better idea than I thought it would be; now comes
the test. If Iraq can start producing oil, lots of and fast, then all may
yet turn out all right...
Here is one analyst on the subject
He appears to be assuming a world price of
oil no higher than $20/barrel (reasonable <grin>), but is not
considering that a one-time "rebuild" can (and should) be
financed by bonds backed by Iraqi oil revenues. The bonds would be senior
to all other Iraqi debt and would be guaranteed by the U.S. government
(and the oil revenues by the U.S. Military). The U.S. 30-year bond is
currently yielding about 5.3%, and at that rate $20 billion/year would
support north of $375 billion in debt.
There is much partisan yammer and little
information in all this. All we can do is watch. But if oil prices aren't
brought down the US is in trouble. If they are, it may yet turn out well.
Pump oil! Pump it now!
And see below
=======
From Joanne Dow:
Subject: CDs may go the way of vinyl
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/09/03/cd.future/index.html
{^_^}
Fascinating...
====================
Hi,
In your September 1st view you complained about
Viagra spammers. I thought, since they and other spammers are trying to
sell something, they have to go through some bank for credit card
verification. If one wrote a program which repeatedly tries to order their
stuff using a false credit card number, this program would jam the bank's
system and hopefully the bank would be fed up and close their account. A
few years ago one bank even charged for each card verification test, this
would bankrupt the spammers.
Unfortunately the same program could be used to mess
with legitimate companies like Amazon.
Regards
Attila Kozma
Interesting.
And I will admit this next one gets to me. Hard
to believe indeed...
Subject: Checkerboard illusion
http://www-bcs.mit.edu/people/adelson/
checkershadow_illusion.html
Very strange … if you move back about 10 feet from
your monitor, you can see the shades in better perspective.
I guess people have taken this into Adobe Photoshop
and compared the shades to prove they are the same.
Hard to believe, though.
Tracy Walters
Indeed
=================
Dear Dr. Pournelle: With
respect to the need for more troops in Iraq, I think that we really have
two problems, not one.
First, the overall military is not large enough for
the missions assigned to it. It's not just retiring Army generals making
speeches about a ten-division Army and a twelve-division strategy, it's a
Chief of Naval Operations openly admitting that he has 375 ships worth of
requirements - but not enough money to operate a 300-ship Navy. And the
Marines have wanted a third division for years. The simple fact is that
the Armed Forces are operating at about 75% of the force levels they
need.
Second, I agree that there is a clear need to
organize occupation/peacekeeping divisions separate from the battle force.
Frankly, what the Army is learning is the lesson that Sir Julian Corbett
worked out for the Royal Navy a century ago - that the forces required to
win a pitched battle are not those required to exploit the victory. The
Army is slowly getting parts of the idea, but hasn't quite gotten the
point that a balance between heavy battle forces and light occupation
forces must be struck.
What scares me are the antics of both
political parties. The situation is terrifyingly reminiscent of 1965 - a
Government that has gotten the nation into a war, but which is too busy
with domestic policies and programs to bother winning. It grates on me
that a bunch of politicians who would never dream of sending their own
kids off to college in a ten-year-old car will send someone else's kids to
war in twenty-year-old tanks, thirty-year-old airplanes, and
forty-year-old ships. And not enough even of those antiques.
I supported the war, but we could use some
sensible priorities awfully well right now.......
V/R: Mike McDaniel
I didn't think the war was a good idea, in large
part because of such matters. Now that we are in it, and have Iraq, we
must rethink these matters.
Empire costs a lot. It may be made to pay for
itself but that takes thought. US hegemony costs a lot.
Self government that minds its own business and
defends itself but not everything else doesn't cost so much.
We are the friends of liberty everywhere but the guardians
only of our own. The question is, does guarding our own liberty require
all this overseas involvement and imperial action? Many including many of
the readers of this site, strongly believe so. They may be correct, but it
has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction. What has been demonstrated
is that it will be a very costly enterprise.
Dear Jerry:
I went through the CBO letter to Senator Byrd report
after my last. It makes interesting if depressing reading and a good
illustration as to why Economics is called the Dismal Science.
Every contingency seems to be explored here,
including the formation of temporary constabulary units and the expansion
of the Army. It is the Army which will bear most of the burden and even
adding a couple of divisions cannot be done overnight. There is absolutely
no way to simply put in more troops and honor our other commitments.
Adding those new divisions would take as much as five years. If the rest
of the world worried about our oversized military power, that problem is
now solved. Iraq will keep us busy and increasingly less able to respond
to crises for years to come. Combined with the tax cuts it may well
bankrupt us.
I have the uneasy feeling that we were played for
suckers here. That someone used the overweening ambition of the neocons to
do us in, big time. The only way to fix this is radical action, but any
way you cut it, we're very screwed. That includes mounting an effective
campaign against the real terrorists. As for "empire"-- the gods
laugh.
Yours, Francis Hamit
Well, historically, tax cuts have increased
revenues, not deficits. I'd be astonished if this set of tax cuts doesn't
increase revenue. It won't be nearly enough to cover war costs.
Pump oil. Pump oil. Pump oil. I can't think
of anything else that can bring in some revenue from that adventure.
And see below
Jerry,
On 9/4/2003 you wrote (in part)
"We need an occupation army, of lighter
forces, more police than army. But how do you keep such a structure? How
do you recruit such people? And except for the true warriors, what
soldiers would prefer that kind of duty to endless training for full
combat? These are all matters that so far as I know have not been thought
out."
What you've described sounds a great deal like the
job the Marine Corps was tasked with between 1898 and 1939; the era I've
heard referred to as 'The Banana Wars'. Indeed, not a few Marines were
tasked to constabulary duties - NCOs were given officers rank (and duties)
leading native constabulary forces. When they came back to their regiment
they reverted back to NCO.
We _have_ done this before, it's just been a few
years.
Brian Dunbar USMC: 1985-1993 brian.dunbar@plexus.com
System Administrator - Plexus
Savage wars of peace; Max Boot; but interestingly
he and his friends do not seem to have learned the lesson.
I put up the following:
It's perplexing, though perhaps it should not be,
that we can spend so much money on our military and yet have it so
undermanned and undersupplied for the missions we ask of it. It seems
we're short on parts for the equipment, short on manpower, short on the
right type of manpower for current missions, short on translators, and
long on overseas mission requirements. I have a couple ideas and things to
just complain at the cosmos or the government for all the good it will do.
A recent news item making the rounds of TV and print
is that we are planning to lease, not buy, about a hundred tanker aircraft
from Boeing, despite the fact that we will pay an extra 5.5 billion
dollars for leasing, and in the end not have airplanes to show for it.
This is a boondoggle for Boeing, who is having difficulty selling their
767 aircraft and have powerful friends in Congress. If we need more tanker
aircraft, which I'm willing to believe we do, then we should use the
cheaper way to fund them.
This seems to be part of a pattern; while we spend
enormous sums of money for our military, much of it seems designed to
enrich defense contractors rather than meet the mission.
Here's a gripe along these lines: Exactly what Air
Force are we likely to face that has a chance in a stand-up fight for air
superiority or supremacy? Everywhere I look, our potential adversaries are
using vintage aircraft, usually of Soviet design, which are no match for
what we have now. Saddam didn't dare lift one aircraft off the ground
against us. Yet we're paying untold billions for the F22, the F35, and the
Joint Strike Fighter, apparently to be ready for a fight we wont see in
any time frame I can see. If we really do need another advanced fighter
why don't they pick one and use the money from the others to get us some
more translators and MP troops and such? Apparently those troops don't
enrich the defense contractors enough.
Why are we phasing out the A-10 Warthog without
replacing it? It seems to me it has been one of the best aircraft for the
money we've ever had, but the Air Force doesn't want to do close air
support but doesn't want the Army to do it either. I'll wager we could buy
a lot of A-10's for the cost of one of those redundant advanced fighters.
Since we need peacekeeping troops but don't want to
take the edge off our combat troops to fulfill this mission, and don't
have the numbers of them to do it anyway, perhaps we need to start a new
peacekeeping branch of the military. I'd suggest a 3 year enlistment in
this branch, which would be seeded with veterans of the other service
branches to begin with. One year training, one year deployment, one year
helping train the next class, and in return we pay for college for US
citizens, and for foreign troops we give them citizenship. Is this
impractical, and if so what is the alternative?
Just some food for thought.
Norman Short
without immediate comment, and wait for replies.
==================
On The Asteroid Strike:
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/index.html
Note - since this is the front page at the moment,
it is probably subject to change.
Reference is 2003 QQ47. http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/2003qq47.html
<snip> As astronomers continue to monitor an
asteroid and measure its position, more precise predictions can be made.
On September 2, new measurements of QQ47's position allowed us to narrow
our prediction of its path in 2014, and thus we could rule out any Earth
impact possibilities for 2014. In our Impact Risk Page for 2003 QQ47, the
entry for the year 2014 has now disappeared, although a number of
potential impact events remain for later years. We expect that these too
will be ruled out in the coming days as astronomers continue to track the
object and we refine our orbit predictions.
Jim Woosley
And we are not doomed. Pity.
=======
Hi there -
Just have to comment on the following:
>In another place there
was a discussion of the probable effects >on our economy of
variations in oil prices. One question was what >might happen with a
tax on oil: > >A tax on oil would raise the U.S. saving's rate (caeteris
paribus). >Given that the U.S. has maintained its prosperity (as
measured by >consumption, GDP growth, employment) over the last few
years by >relentlessly ratcheting down its savings rate, an oil tax
would >be a BAD THING. However, with a current account deficit of 5% of
>GDP (and rising), the party will be over soon enough anyway. >
>Peter
First of all, increasing a tax on oil has limited
direct effect on the US savings rate. The US savings rate is determined by
taking the sum of all wages and salaries, adding to that transfers, then
subtracting the cost of living, personal outlays for consumer durable
goods and financial costs of all sorts until you get a residual value that
represents that portion of total personal income that is not consumed,
i.e. saved. In the world of economics, anything not consumed is considered
to be saved, but we need to be careful of using the word
"savings".
However, this does NOT represent what people are
"saving", since investments such as 401k and the like are, of
course, taken out of income before taxes and hence are not part of income
that is available (i.e. income is considered to be not the sum of all
monies paid to you, but rather disposable personal income, income that you
have the right to dispose of as you desire: this way you discount liens
against the income of bankrupt debtors, etc).
Given this aspect of the National Income and Product
Accounts (NIPA), exact descriptions of which are available on the Burea of
Economic Analysis web site, changes in oil taxes can only **increase**
consumption, since the consumer pays more for gas and has less left over,
and not **decrease** it, as was suggested. Then the question becomes:
"By how much does the tax increase, and what is the effect on
consumption patterns?"
And ultimately GDP growth in the US - and anywhere
else, for that matter - is determined by the growth of total productivity
of the economy. As a matter of fact, this is sort of obvious when you
realize that GDP is Gross Domestic Product, defined as the value added in
the economy. Now, value added can increase based on changes in factor
inputs, but ultimately it boils down to increasing productivity.
As a professional forecaster - nigh on 15 years of
forecasting the supply side of the economy (it's relatively easy to do the
demand side, i.e. where is the value added used, but much more difficult
to do the supply side, i.e. where does the value added come from, since
you need to know quite a bit about all sectors of the economy) - it's
really hard to forecast productivity growth, since so much is dependent on
technological development that comes out of the blue. When I forecast the
electronics industry world-wide, I used to be a member of the IEEE just to
get the technical journals dealing with improving chip manufacturing
productivity and the like. But I disgress: GDP can be used only after it
has been created, and this growth comes from productivity.
Getting back to the question: simply said,
variations in oil prices change industrial prices, depending on the oil
intensity of the industry involved, which change consumer prices depending
on the oil and industrial intensity of the good being consumed. How much
it changes can be determined by the elasticities of demand - increasing
prices does no good when simple and easy alternatives exist - for the
goods involved and the ability of industrial and consumer users to change
their energy mix preferences. This can be determined by the intelligent
use of input-output tables, including the energy satellite tables (nothing
to do with satellites, but is a terminus technicus that describes adjunct
tables to the I-O use/make tables) and some empirical work on energy
supplies.
Anyone willing to pay me to do this is more than
welcome to do so. It is a non-trivial task.
Best regards!
John F. Opie Senior Economist Feri Research GmbH
Haus am Park Rathausplatz 8-10 61348 Bad Homburg tel: +49 (0)6172 916 3216
fax: +49 (0)6172 916 1216 www.feri-online.com john.opie@feri.de
==============
Neil Schulman sends this:
Subject:
Fwd: Cold Fusion Isn't Dead...
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB106270936017252700,00.html
SCIENCE
JOURNAL
By SHARON BEGLEY
Cold
Fusion Isn't Dead,
It's Just Withering
From Scientific Neglect
"Well,
we're here," said physicist Peter Hagelstein to the 150 scientists at
the 10th International Conference on Cold Fusion in Cambridge, Mass., last
week. "Many people in the scientific community feel we should be
shot."
That,
actually, would be a big step up for the beleaguered community of cold
fusioneers.
It has
been 14 years since two little-known electrochemists announced, at an
infamous news conference on March 23, 1989, what sounded like the biggest
physics breakthrough since Enrico Fermi produced a nuclear chain reaction
on a squash court in Chicago. Using a tabletop setup, Stanley Pons and
Martin Fleischmann, of the University of Utah, said they had induced
deuterium nuclei to fuse inside metal electrodes, producing measurable
quantities of heat. (Deuterium, a.k.a. heavy hydrogen, has one proton and
one neutron in its nucleus.)
Although
nuclear fusion is supposed to be impossible at temperatures much below
those in the sun or a hydrogen bomb, the Utah duo said they had managed
the feat at room temperature.
That was
the opening bell for one of the craziest periods in science. Cold fusion,
if real, promised to solve the world's energy problems forever. (There is
enough deuterium in seawater to provide electricity for millennia).
Scientists around the world dropped what they were doing to try to
replicate the astounding claim.
Some
did, most didn't. When a U.S. Department of Energy investigation concluded
in November 1989 that cold fusion was a mirage born of bungled
measurements and wishful thinking, the field became a pariah.
Yet the
cold fusioneers persist. In paper after paper last week, scientists
reported that when a metal, usually palladium, absorbs huge amounts of
deuterium into its atomic lattice, the result is more heat than plain old
electrochemistry can explain, as well as particles thought to be
by-products of nuclear fusion.
Some of
the most extensive work has been at the Naval Research Laboratory, whose
scientists found both excess heat and a telltale sign of fusion, particles
of helium-4, in dozens of experiments. And Michael McKubre of SRI
International, Menlo Park, Calif., is still, after hundreds of thousands
of experiment-hours and $4 million, getting more heat from his cold-fusion
cells than can be explained conventionally.
<snip>
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW |
CLICK HERE for
a Special Request. 
