R. Martin
Usenet User
Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A |
Re: The Snot Report....its a biggie this time !
Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
>
> Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
> >
> > Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
> > >
> > > Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: BMJ (parametric_equation@yahoo.com)
> > > > Subject: Re: The Snot Report....its a biggie this time !
> > > > View: Complete Thread (9 articles)
> > > > Original Format
> > > > Newsgroups: sci.research.careers
> > > > Date: 2004-11-28 09:00:00 PST
> > > >
> > > > I am having problems with google usenet posting. I hope it reaches the
> > > > intended audience correctly.
> > > >
> > > > regards
> > > > -kamal
> > > > p.s:- I may not posting much till I can get the problems resolved at
> > > > my end.
> > > >
> > > > R. Martin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > >>One of the main characters in the movie said "Who cares about Sputnik?
> > > > >>We've got rock and roll." Unforutnately, that attitude hasn't changed
> > > > >>much over the years.
> > > > >>
> > > > >><snip>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, Sputnik did give science and technology a funding burst. One
> > > > > might argue its value, but it happened. The burst came about because
> > > > > the leaders saw Sputnik as a threat from an enemy that needed to be
> > > > > countered.
> > > >
> > > > Sputnik was never a threat to americans -any more than the earth
> > > > simulator by NEC is.
> > > >The threat wasn't the satellite per se, of course, but the nuclear
> > > >warhead delivery capability that the launch vehicle implied. And
> > > >yes, that WAS a threat, and if you don't think so you should read
> > > >some history of the Cuban missle crisis and how close we came to
> > > >Armageddon. The NEC simulator isn't a threat. When did I ever
> > > >imply that it was? As a meteorologist I find it an amusing waste
> > > >of machine cycles, like many (but not all) such projects, but it
> > > >isn't a threat.
> > >
> > > For every scientific achievement, there is a dual-use application.
> > >That is an unsubstantiated, overgeneralized assumption, but even if it
> > >is true I still don't feel threatened by the Earth Simulator.
> >
> > It is true for satellite systems, optics, computers and a lot of
> > hi-tech equipment. Its even true for biological products.
>
> >Yes, but I STILL don't feel threatened by it, and I'm not going to
> >no matter how many times you say it has potential dual use.
>
> Im just stating that if you want an excuse, you can find lots of
> excuses laced with morality to deny other countries access to
> technology. In hindsight, all/most technology denial cartels and
> treaties are about greed and not (inter-)natiional security.
OK, but I keep saying I'm not looking for an excuse, yet you keep
arguing with me like I am.
>
> >
> > > Lots of countries can hit a missile at India, but the question on my
> > > mind is what they will get besides nuclear pollution by doing so? The
> > > cuban missile crisis was a result of the cold war, meaning the
> > > russians wanted to gain an edge in the on-going war.
> > >Yes, so why wasn't that a threat, or at least understandably
> > >perceived as a threat? (Or have I lost the thread of the argument?
> >
> > If you had a political agreement not to attack -it wouldn't have been
> > a threat. The fact that there was a political conflict meant that
> > sputnik was another weapon in the arsenal. A significant development
> > on Russia's part [which probably s already ahead of the US in space
> > technology] would not be a threat -because of a political
> > understanding.
>
> >I'm still not sure what your point is, nor what "political
> >understanding" you are referring to. Yes, missiles are not threat
> >if someone isn't going to arrack you with them, but your statement
> >"If you had a political agreement not to attack -it wouldn't have
> >been a threat" reveals either a stunning level of naivete on your
> >part or an equally stunning ignorance of history. The U.S. and
> >Japan were still officially in negotiations when Japan attacked
> >Pearl Harbor (OK, that was due to a screwup on the part of the
> >Japanese embassy, but the fact remains). Germany and the Soviet
> >Union had a non-agression pact in place in WWII when Germany
> >attacked the Soviet Union. Granted Satlin didn't trust Hitler
> >(or vice versa), but interestingly the attack still took the
> >Russians by surprise.
>
> The current detente between US and Russia is sufficient to ensure that
> even if one of the 2 countries develops technology to beat the other
> guy, it won't result in a nuclear attack.
I hate to start writing things that can easily be interpreted as
insults, but IMO you really are naive if you believe that. The state
of US/Russian relations is not nearly as good as you seem to think it
is, and it could go down hill in an instant. Would that necessarily
lead to nuclear war? I sure hope not, and given the the US and USSR
managed to avoid it for 40 years, I would hope that cooler heads
would prevail on both sides, but the danger exists IMO.
> Kennedy too (is rumoured to
> have) tried reaching a detente -but maybe that was too soon for the
> military industrial complex which had already invested substanial sums
> of money in the continuation of the cold war.
>
> > >You did write "Sputnik was never a threat to americans -any more than
> > >the earth simulator by NEC is", or am I mistaken?)
> >
> > FYI -the US has export control restrictions on most computers of the
> > same rating as the earth simulator. The computers are restricted for
> > export on the grounds that they can be used to build ICBMs. You can
> > consider either of those a threat to the US -if you really want an
> > excuse to do so.
>
> >I knew that. I'm afraid I need to keep needing to ask, what's your
> >point?
>
> that the NEC simulator is as much of a dual-use threat as the sputnik
> was.[But current US-Japan relations don't allow the threat to
> translate into a military threat].
That is obviously ridiculous because A) the simulator can't launch
a nuclear weapon, B) Japan has no nuclear weapons, C) Japan is an
US ally with a democratic government, instead of a dictatorship, with
a constitution that forbids it from waging war. Contrast that with
the USSR in the 1950s. Any comparison stretches credulity to the
breaking point. Could the situation change? Yes, but not nearly
as fast as the diplomatic relationship between the U.S. and Russia
or China, which already have a bunch of nuclear armed ICBMs. Sorry,
I can not begin to view the simulator as a dual use threat of
sufficient magnitude or immmediacy to give it a second thought at
this time.
>
> > But the reality is that one of the prime users of
> > supercomputers in India is the meterological bureau which does its
> > best to help farmers [who constitute 65% of India's labour].
>
> >Ahh, I think we now see the hidden sore spot that underlies your
> >tirade. As a meteoroligist I am also quite familiar with that. In
>
> I am not launching a tirade, just stating facts in black and white. It
> doesn't matter to me if they do have the policy they do. Im just
> stating their policy for the record.
Let's be clear about this: you're stating your perception of the policy.
> >fact, much of my work is intended to help farmers and other weather
> >sensitive users in the U.S. If I get my present research project
> >published, it will be available for anyone, including Indians, to
> >benefit from because AFAIK it isn't and probably can't be dual use
> >(any more than algebra can be dual use). I've already sent some
> >information to a meteorologist from South Africa. Much of the work
> >was funded by the U.S. government. FYI the results from the
> numerical
> >weather models run at our center on our supercomputers are available
> >for the cost of downloading for anyone to use (more freely available
> >than the runs from the European Center the last I heard). So there
>
> I don't work for the meteorological bureau and Im not sure if they
> need any help. I just gave an example of technology denial. There is
> another denial cartel for export of strong encryption. [Previously,
> there was a policy of banning export of any encryption -but that
> turned out to be unmanageable].
Yes, and that technology I do view as a dual use threat.
>
> >isn't really a need for India to run its own model, except for local
> >factors such as the monsoon (which may need a specialized model) or
> >prestige. Thus it is up to the leaders in the Indian government to
> >decide what is more important, weather forecasting or building bombs
> >and missiles. If it wants to renounce the latter I suspect the U.S.
> >government would be happy to allow U.S. companies to export computers
> >to India. It looks like a case of hubris on the part of the Indian
> >government. The fact the the U.S. government may be no better in
>
> Even if they do build bombs, why should you have a problem with that?
Because India and Pakistan are neighbors at each other's throats, and
I really don't want a few hundred million people nuked like came close
to happening a few years ago. At present cooler heads appear to be
prevailing, which I'm thankful for, but the world is a volatile place.
> What suggests that they are less judicious in its use than your own
> representatives? Its like saying our politicans are more corrupt than
> yours. Thats quite an insult to their expertise.
No, they are just as stupid as ours, which is to say within the
uncertainty level of it being safe to give them control of nuclear
weapons. I again take as my evidence the recent crisis. The other
problem is that Pakistan probably doesn't have the safeguards that
India has, but if Pakistan attacks the Indian government would have
to be composed of saints not to retaliate, and I'm sorry but I find
saints to be in very short supply among politicians. If you find
that position insulting, well that's unfortunate.
>
> >controlling its hubris is no excuse. But your general anti-U.S.
> >sentiment misdirected IMO, certainly when it is directed at me
> >or most of the scientists in the U.S.
>
> I don't have an anti-US sentiment, and I don't generalize.
Well, it sounds to me like you do and have, and you continue to.
Given that I've been providing you with feedback to that effect
and you continue with the same tone and rhetoric, my choices for
conclusions are limited to you can't or don't care to communicate
in a way that I can understand what your point of view actually is.
As I said, we seem to have a disconnect. That's fine with me if
you'll just drop it.
> Meaning
> every country has law-abiding people, cheapsters who work for
> political parties, politicians who are good for nothing with skeletons
> in their closet etc.. I wouldn't want to mistake one for the other -or
> lump everyone of them together with the politicians. I just stated the
> facts -but don't have a problem with you, nor do I ascribe the current
> US govt policy to you.
Thank you.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > Americans are obsessed with notions of
> > > > superiority and that is why they consider it a threat.
> > > >Please don't generalize.
> > > Alright. But it is US govt. policy to maintain a pre-eminent position
> > > in science and technology.
> > >I live in the U.S., I'm a scientist in the U.S., and I find your
> > >assertion dubious based on the funding levels appropriated by the
> > >government for science, the respect (or rather lack of respect)
> > >with which scientists are regarded in the administration, etc.
> > >Of course, I'll grant that there may be a disconnect between policy
> > >and the actions needed to implement it effectively.
> >
> > The govt has a policy alright -to maintain pre-eminent position.
>
> >You make these statements like you sit in the cabinet meetings with
> W.
> >Sorry, but in the absence of evidence I have to believe you may be
> >substituting supposition for fact.
>
> The US govt has funded the Blue gene project (in part) at IBM with
> taxpayer money specifically to improve US ranking on the supercomputer
> list. Thats evidence to you.
Yes, the government funds lots of things. It funds research into
meteorology but no one in his right mind accuses it of trying to
control the weather. As I said before, it is competition that helps
advance science, but it doesn't prove that the U.S. actually has a
policy to stay ahead of everyone in all areas of science and
technology. The U.S. doesn't even produce a domestic color television
any more. I don't know about you, but I find computers without
monitors had to use (I know; when I stared using computers they
didn't have monitors). If you want to bring the U.S. to its knees,
cut off the supply of televisions for long enough for a significant
fraction to wear out and you will see citizens rioting in the street,
especially during football season. ;-)
>
> > But
> > the way the position is maintained does not necessarily have anything
> > to do with providing people like you with good jobs. Its something to
> > do with a rat race to maintain a lead, eg:- if a theological state
> > like Iran develops nuclear weapons/enrichment facility, you bomb the
> > facility.
>
> >You REALLY need to get a grip on some facts. The U.S. has never
> >bombed Iranian weapons facilities. It may, but unless you are
> >clairvoyant, let's stick to established facts.
>
> It hasn't -but was planning to.
The military is always making plans to do all kinds of things.
They had a plan for the invasion of Iraq. If they had been
allowed to stick with that plan instead of making up a new one
for Rummy and Bush, we'd be out of there next year, IMO. Plans
in the Pentagon prove nothing accept there are too many people in
the Pentagon and they need to be given something to do to earn
their money. :-)
> I mean, its the stick in the
> carrot-and-stick policy in negotiating with Iran. BTW -I don't know
> anyone in Iran, so the destruction of their capability is not an issue
> with me.
And how is that different from any negotiation?
> > If a poor but democratic country like India develops space
> > technology, you put economic and tech restrictions to prevent them
> > from coming up.
>
> >Well, as I understand it (although I can't keep up with all the news
> >and the media here is largely focused on other topics), the rationale
> >for that is that India seems hell-bent on having nuclear armed
> missiles,
> Not necessarily hell-bent.
The country has spent a bunch of money that could well have been used
to more immediately help the large part of the population that is
poor. Of course, one can say that about all nuclear powers, but that's
a good difinition of hell-bent in my book.
>
> >and as I recall India and Pakistan were on the verge of using them on
> >each other not so long ago. Perhaps India should listen to the
> lessons
>
> Thats an over-simplification of the conflict. It served as a deterrent
> for both sides.
Gee, I'm sorry I didn't have time to write a damned thesis on
India/Pakistan relations! Look, they've been at each other's throats
for over 50 years, the last time with nuclear weapons. Perhaps the
weapons did serve as deterrents, but it was a stupid game of chicken
with hundreds of millions of lives on the line, and that bottom line
is a sufficiently detailed summary of the situation in my book. YMMV.
>
> >of history that the U.S. learned, or at least should have, during the
> >Cuban missile crisis. Perhaps that is what the restriction are meant
> >to focus the Indian government's attention on. However, India is
> >probably better off developing its own technology if it feels it
> must,
> >so restrictions may be a help in disguise. In any case, your
> I don't work for the govt, meaning am just a commoner typing what I
> like.
I never even implied that you do. You're welcome to your opinions.
I just wish you didn't state them like they are divine revealed
truth.
>
> >e-harangue at me hardly serves any purpose than to allow you to vent.
> >Well, I have other things to do than give you a subject to vent at.
> sorry about the harangue.
>
> > If a country like Japan develops a supercomputer,
> > since neither of the previous techniques will work -you fund companies
> > within US with taxpayer money to come up with something better.
>
> >And this is bad how? Why did the Janpanese want to build a better
> >computer than the U.S. makes in the first place? Either because it
> >needed a better computer than was available for the research project
>
> Its not bad, but it is the policy, something like what you read in
> comic books "the strongest man in the universe etc..".
Please, your stepping over the rhetorical line into fantasy now.
> Your govt is
> obsessed with maintaining a pre-eminent position in S&T -no matter
> what means (fair or foul) it takes to do so.
My government isn't obsessed with anything. It is too big to be
seen as a monolith. The President was obsessed with Saddam, IMO
(kind of a Freudian thing between him and his father), which is
why the country is in Iraq rather than spending the same amount
of effort finding Osama, who is a real threat. If the U.S.
government was obsessed with maintaining a preeminent position
in science and technology, it would be spending enough money to
do so.
>
> >or it wanted to compete with the U.S. in that technology, or both.
> >Well, why shouldn't the U.S. say, OK you do your best and we'll do
> >our best. It advances the technology and spurs scientific research.
> >Do you have a problem with that?
>
> No -I don't have a problem with any country making progress. My
> original issue was with US govt not wanting any other country to
> progress ahead of itself.
Even if that were true, so what? It's goals and ability to realize
those goals are two different things. As I said, the politicians
are always saying things for public consumption. No politician is
going to say, "I want us to drop to number 2, or maybe even 3, in
the world in this technology", but when it comes to funding the
research, you see a different picture. The U.S. today can not stay
number one in everything even if it wants to, IMO, becuase the money
simply isn't being spent. If it really is a policy, it is being
pursued with more than the usual level of ineffectiveness, so you're
wasting time and energy being upset about it.
>
> >
> > > Its as if some other country making
> > > progress in S&T is akin to posing a threat to the US citizenry.
> > >
> > > > The way I look
> > > > at it, a scientific achievement by another country is as much an
> > > > achievement as one by the US.
> > > >As a scientist, so do I.
> > > Alright. I meant if I were you, I would appreciate the russians'
> > > achievement.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >Along with it came an overhaul of the educational system. Regrettably,
> > > > >that same overhaul brought along with it the present collection of bogus
> > > > >theories and fruit-loop ideologies that have undermined what it was
> > > > >supposed to accomplish.
> > > >
> > > > I hope you haven't forgotten Ricardo and his theory of comparative
> > > > advantage -which is perhaps what offshoring is all about.
> > > >I have not forgotten it, but I try to ignore it and most other
> > > >blather from economists.
> > >
> > > Its not blather. Its plain economics.
> > >They are the same thing in a majority of cases. I highly recommend
> > >_Debunking Economics: The Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences_ by
> > >Steve Keen (www.debunking-economics.com). Ricardo comes off better
> > >than most economists, but Keen shows that neoclassical economics
> > >(which is the type almost universally taught these days) is built on
> > >a foundation of sand consisting of internal contradictions and often
> > >vague definitions, some of which go back to Ricardo and further. One
> > >economist who does come off well in Keen's analysis is Sraffa, but
> > >you've probably never heard of him. I hadn't seen his name in any
> > >econ literature I'd read before Keen.
> >
> > Here is the deal -anything made in the US is going to cost more
> > because the workers paid to do the job have a higher cost of living
> > aka min. wage to deal with.
>
> >Yes, but that does not encompass all of economics and economics does
> >not encompass all of reality.
> Its true for most materialistic things.
>
> >
> > > If another country can produce
> > > cheaper & better goods -it makes sense to let them do that job, and do
> > > something which you are better at(Im not sure what that would be for
> > > americans right now). No country has been able to change that basic
> > > law as yet.
> > >Just because some economists believe it doesn't make it a basic law.
> > :-)
> > Name one country that enabled inferior industry to survive/prosper
> > without paying for it dearly via taxpayer money?
>
> >If I had encyclopedic knowledge I probably could, but in any case
> like
> >I wrote above, economics does not encompass all of reality. Let us
> >take the case of tourism. I've been to places which are not as nice
>
> That is something to do with emotions.
And other things, things that economics doesn't, can't, and possibly
never may, deal with, which is one of my points about the lack of
value of economic analysis.
>
> >as other places I've visited, but I'll go back there anyway. By any
> >rational calculation there are better tourist values for the money.
> >The fact that these places are still in business after 40 years or
> >more suggests that there are factors that economics does not include,
> >since I alone don't have enough money or vacation time to support
> >these areas.
>
> Can't generalize your statement to the purchase of cars, electronic
> equipment etc..
Yes, we can. Otherwise why would some people pay more for a brand
name than a store brand when they have the same features, built by
the same subcontractor in the same factories?
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > America's leader today do not view globalization as a
> > > > > threat. They either view it as positive, or they have sold out
> > > > > intellectually to the economists or sold out literally to big money
> > > > > contributors (e.g. big business) who view it as positive. Nothing
> > > >
> > > > Much as a patriotic president or businessowner may want, he cannot
> > > > change the fact that somethings are better/cheaper made outside than
> > > > inside the US -and that is what the customer will opt for.
> > > >Not if the customer is sufficiently brainwashed.
> > > Yeah -ford & gm must be having a tough time painting the american flag
> > > on their cars to help them compete with Toyota and Honda.
> > >The French lost wine sales over not supporting the U.S. in Iraq, and
> > >that can not, IMO, be viewed as a fundamentally hostile act (IOW I
> > >don't buy the "if you're not with us, you're against us" idea). If
> >
> > They didn't lose anything with their hostile act
>
> Yes, I said that.
>
> > -and FYI french wine
> > is already more expensive than that from most other countries.
>
> "Again, I know that. And since that is true it should not have any
> market in the U.S., right, since it isn't any better either (except
> in rare vintage cases, and those are luxury goods which IMO do not
> follow even the little of the theory that can normally be believed
> from classical economics). But it does despite the presence of
> better values, and the market fluctuates for no fundamentally economic
> reasons. Another example of the failure of neoclassical economics.
> "
> They price on the basis of demand/supply.
Supply and demand is a fallacy of neoclassical econmics. It only
has meaning at equilibrium, but equilibrium can never be reached.
>
> >
> > >Japan did something to tick off enough Americans badly enough, yes
> > >Toyota and Honda sales would be hurt. And the government can crank
> > >of the propaganda machine to make sure at least some Americans get
> > They can't do anything to provide more value for money to the customer
> > -with that. You can levy tarriffs or bar companies from selling
> > products in the US, but that comes at the expense of the customer -and
> > does not do anything to improve the quality of the american product,
> > which is perhaps what you should be aiming for.
> >
> > >ticked off. It managed to convince a majority of Americans that
> > >Saddam had vast stock piles of WMD (and at last check the majority
> > >of Americans still believe it despite the lack of evidence).
> >
> > Doesn't matter if they believe it or not.
>
> >Yes, it does matter because that is exactly my point, that a
> >significant portion of people can be made to believe just about
> >anything under the right circumstances with the right propaganda."
>
> The checks and balances within your system have failed to prevent the
> Iraq invasion. But the toll on the US army acts to deter them from yet
> another invasion. And that is why the former doesn't matter.
????
It does matter precisely because it helped allow the invasion of Iraq,
which is exactly my point about the power of propaganda. What does
another, hypothetical, invasion have to do with it?
>
> > The US govt has a tough time
> > believing that they are not in a quagmire -and that is what matters.
>
> >Not to the point I was making. It may matter to you, but we seem
> >to be referring to two completely different subjects in the thread,
> >and I'm getting tired of us talking past each other.
>
> Even if the american people have given a mandate for a few more
> invasions, the costs associated with the Iraq war will suffice to
> deter them from going ahead -and so that is a more pivotal factor
> than americans' discretion.
Not if the situation and propaganda are sufficient. The U.S.
military is presently about the smallest it has been in 60 years.
If the people were convinced that a WWII level of effort was
needed, the military could be 10 times as large. I don't know
what could convince people that this was necessary, nor would
I speculate on whether or not it would ultimately be a good idea,
but since you want to play a game of hypothticals, that scenario is
at least as likely as any, a priori.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > will be done until it is viewed as a threat, and preferably from
> > > > > some specific enemy. If bin Laden could be linked to globalization
> > > > > WalMart would be buying American in a minute, if for no other reason
> > > > > that some smart competitor would run an ad implying that WalMart
> > > > > supports global terrorism.
> > > >
> > > > If the USD wasn't an inflated currency, then chinese goods wouldn't
> > > > have had an advantage.
> > > >Now you're ignoring economics. The Chinese are artificially
> > > >manipulating the yuan, just like the Japanese did with the yen for
> > > >a while. It ultimatley backfired on the Janpanese (I just read
> > > >that chapter of _Devil Take the Hindmost: A History of Financial
> > > >Speculation_ last night). It may backfire on the Chinese.
> > >
> > > The USD is inflated against just about every other 3rd world country.
> > >Well, let's face it, whatever the strengths and weaknesses of the
> > >U.S. economy, most economies in the third world are simply in
> > >awful shape (almost by definition) so of course the dollar is
> > >strong compared to those currencies. A more complete picture is
> >
> > Do you know what Purchasing power parity is? Im referring to that.
> >
> > >painted by how those third world currencies compare to the
> > >currencies of other major economic powers and how the dollar
> > >compares to the yen, euro, etc. I don't follow third world
> > >currency markets, but the dollar has tanked vs. the yen and euro
> > >lately.
> >
> > It has fallen wrt to the Indian Rupee too.
>
> >I wasn't aware that India is Third World. After all, it has so
> >many highly educated people, scientists and engineers, nuclear
> >weapons, missiles, booming free market economy. No, I don't accept
> >that India is a Third World country.
>
> Its just a label that individuals beside myself use when referring to
> India. It doesn't matter if it is indeed a 3rd world country to me.
Well, I said we should see how the dollar was faring against Third
World currencies, and you brought up the Rupee as a counter example,
and I said I thought India wasn't Third World, and now it seems that
you are agreeing that you don't think it is.
rest snipped because my software has reached its posting length limit
Cheers,
Russell
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
12-19-2004 11:02 AM
