On 10/08/2011 9:51 AM, Rich Cooper wrote:
> Dear Ron,
>
> Let's add these topics to the proposed ontology of
> self interest:
>
> 6-corporate manipulation of government and unions;
> 7-union manipulation of government and
> corporations.
>
> I had forgotten those topics over the last few
> days. Are you also willing to participate in the
> proposed ontology of self interest, as a small and
> hypothetical instance of a self interest ontology?
>
>
> If so, that brings us to five participants: DF,
> JS, AA, RW and RC. But I volunteered the other
> three; lets see if they agree on the pursuit of
> this ontology.
Can we get a grant from Homeland Security ;-) ? (01)
> -Rich
>
> Sincerely,
> Rich Cooper
> EnglishLogicKernel.com
> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Ron Wheeler
> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:16 AM
> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE:
> Why mostclassificationsare fuzzy)
>
> Big companies get what they want from both
> parties:
> - no anti-trust action
> - no shareholders rights
> - increased regulation to swamp small companies in
> paperwork and staff
> overhead
> - low corporate tax rates to increase profits so
> that higher bonuses can
> be paid to executives
> - anti-union laws (right to work - for less) so
> that the middle class
> does not eat up too much of the corporate profits
> and reduce bonuses
>
> Ron
>
> On 10/08/2011 12:05 AM, doug foxvog wrote:
>> On Tue, August 9, 2011 16:38, Rich Cooper said:
>>
>>> I agree that forced and exclusive regulation is
>>> SOMETIMES necessary, but I prefer the way the
> ISO
>>> 9000 and ISO 9001 standards committee operates,
>>> where companies that claim to practice their
>>> standards are audited by ISO-accredited
> auditors,
>>> and given a certification only if their
> practices
>>> pass the audit. Buyers can then purchase from
>>> accredited companies or not, depending on their
>>> needs and predilections.
>>>
>>> But chemicals in food or in food packages that
> can
>>> be scientifically shown to harm people should
>>> certainly be prohibited by law or regulation
>>> though, since they do violence to individuals
> who
>>> don't suspect anything is wrong, as you pointed
>>> out. But most regulations and regulatory
> bodies
>>> are not (IMHO) best forced upon the public
> without
>>> alternatives. The ISO 9K pattern is one I
> would
>>> prefer for products and services that are not
>>> inherently dangerous.
>>>
>>> There are other cases of damaging products and
>>> services which should also be prohibited, but
>>> knowing where to draw the line needs a closer
>>> look.
>>>
>>> Have you seen the recent NASA study
>> This is not a NASA study, but a paper by a
> long-term climate change
>> denier, Dr. Roy Spencer at the University of
> Alabama, who works with NASA
>> and is also a creationist. He says he became
>> "convinced that the theory of creation
> actually had a much better
>> scientific basis than the theory of
> evolution".
>> He is on the board of the Cornwall Alliance for
> the Stewardship of
>> Creation, "a conservative Christian public
> policy group that promotes a
>> free-market approach to care for the
> environment".
>> It appears to me that he has a religio-political
> agenda.
>>> that says global warming alarmism is not
> justified,
>> The article does not mention "global warming
> alarmism" at all.
>> http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf
>> Given your description, i'm wondering if you
> read it. The article does
>> not say that anthropogenic global warming is not
> occurring. It does state
>> that various feedback mechanisms are complicated
> to model and that current
>> climate models do not accurately model such
> feedback.
>>> and that the earth is emitting heat into space,
>> The Earth always does this.
>>
>>> and also
>>> adapting to higher levels of CO2 by emitting
> more
>>> heat and pushing the gas higher in the
> atmosphere?
>> Isn't this part of the standard models?
>>
> http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/8278523/n
> asa_says_computer_models_wrong_about.html
>> I note that this is a political website, not a
> scientific one. The actual
>> article is at
> http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf
>> Dr. Spencer's credibility is debunked in
>>
> http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2011/
> 07/30/is-roy-spencer-a-credible-voice-on-global-wa
> rming-research/
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43949972/ns/us_news-en
> vironment/
>> Actually, if you go to the actual article
>> http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf
>> you find that he starts with an equation which
> assumes that the
>> heat capacity of the oceans is unchanged --
> i.e., that negative
>> feedback balances any heat input. He states
> that a variation of
>> the equation would be necessary for the heat
> content of "the
>> system" to change with time:
>> "Cp dΔT/dt = S(t) +
> N(t)−λΔT (1)
>> Equation (1) states that time-varying sources
> of non-radiative
>> forcing S and radiative forcing N cause a
> climate system with bulk
>> heat capacity Cp to undergo a temperature
> change with time away
>> from its equilibrium state (dΔT/dt), but
> with a net radiative feedback
>> 'restoring force' (−λΔT)
> acting to stabilize the system.
>> ... the heat
>> capacity Cp in Equation (1) is assumed to
> represent the oceanic mixed
>> layer. (Note that if Cp is put inside the
> time differential term, the
>> equation then becomes one for changes in the
> heat content of the
>> system with time."
>>
>> Given an incorrect analysis of what the article
> says, the conclusions
>> drawn from this analysis (in the next paragraph)
> have no support.
>>> That indicates that the UN committee of global
>>> warming alarmists are just pursuing a political
>>> agenda, especially with the administration and
> the
>>> UN promoting cap and tax in the US, and other
> 1st
>>> world countries, at US and 1st world expense,
>>> while redistributing the funds to 3rd world
>>> governments (not 3rd world citizens).
>> This is a very curious proposition to be
> included in a scientific
>> paper (unless the topic is political science).
>>
>>> I am in favor of helping 3rd world citizens,
> ...
>> The point of trying to limit CO2 emissions is
> not to
>> help 3rd world citizens, but to avert a
> catastrophe.
>> Of course, some of the most affected countries
> are
>> poor, but the Kyoto Protocol and other measures
> were
>> designed for everyone, not as wealth
> redistribution
>> measures.
>>
>>> For another example, the Obama administration's
>>> intended policies of prohibiting drilling of
> oil
>>> and coal resources, even if research has shown
>>> ways to clean up the coal,
>> Sulphur can be cleaned out of the coal exhaust,
> but
>> CO2 can not be. "Clean coal" is an oxymoron,
> which
>> Obama evidently is willing to waste limited
> govt. money
>> on because it is corporate welfare.
>>
>>> is economically
>>> counterproductive. It has hurt the economy,
>>> killed (by some estimates) five million jobs in
>>> the industry,
>> Where do such ridiculous estimates come from?
> Five million is about
>> the number of jobs that have been lost in the
> recession. The increase
>> in jobless since Obama took office is less than
> five million.
>> Obama added temporary
>> restrictions on deep ocean drilling while BP was
> spewing tremendous
>> amounts of crude oil directly into the Gulf of
> Mexico, but there
>> never have been millions of Americans working on
> deep ocean drilling.
>>> and diverted our focus from what it
>>> takes to get energy independence at reasonable
>>> prices.
>> Funding for wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, and
> wave generation
>> of energy coupled with co-generation, efficiency
> improvement, and
>> reduction of excessive use of energy could
> safely put us on the
>> way to energy independence.
>>
>>> Yet NASA's evidence shows that its not a
> problem.
>> Climate disruption is probably the largest
> danger to our society.
>> It will cost the economy tens of trillions of
> dollars.
>>> Its just another way to use regulation
>>> to crowd out the small oil producers and
> refiners,
>>> and raise the cost of entry.
>> Do you actually believe that the Democrats want
> to eliminate
>> small businesses?
>>
>>> That is one example
>>> where stated remedies, like the new gas mileage
>>> the Obama admin has forced on all of us by
>>> regulation
>> The Bush Administration hurt US auto
> manufacturers as well
>> the atmosphere by stalling gas mileage increase
> requirements.
>> Low gas mileage vehicles require the US to
> import more fuel,
>> hurting our balance of trade, and end up costing
> consumers
>> more because their vehicles burn more gasoline.
>>
>>> with no alternative for those who knew
>>> the GW alarmists were up to no good with no
> good evidence.
>> Do you believe that the vast majority of climate
> researchers
>> around the world are involved in a massive
> conspiracy to
>> produce false science for some evil purpose?
>>
>>> There are only a few huge auto companies
>>> which dominate the market for good reason -
>> because small producers were bought out by
> larger ones.
>>> political pressure and donations that
>>> suck funds from taxpayers struggling to make
> ends
>>> meet.
>>
>>> Watch alternative news, such as Al Jazeera,
> Russia
>>> Today, and other country opinions of US actions
> to
>>> get the countervailing view as opposed to just
> the
>>> mainstream media which stays politically
> correct.
>>> The other side of the story is very informative
> if
>>> you are interested in the topics they discuss.
>>> One viewpoint is nearly guaranteed to be wrong
> in
>>> certain ways, and only by stepping outside of
> the
>>> prevailing views will you get a balanced
>>> understanding. Even Fox Business Channel,
> which
>>> focuses almost solely on financial issues,
>>> provides a countervailing view to CNN, for
>>> example.
>>> These compelling regulatory bodies are usually
>>> populated with people from huge companies in
> the
>>> industry being regulated.
>> Certainly when pro-corporate, anti-consumer,
> presidents
>> appoint board members. We need strong laws
> banning
>> revolving door employment between regulatory
> bodies and
>> the companies regulated.
>>
>> -- doug f
>>
>>> Guess what? The huge
>>> companies become huger and the smaller
> companies
>>> with better products and services disappear.
>>
>>> JMHO,
>>> -Rich
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>> Rich Cooper
>>> EnglishLogicKernel.com
>>> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
>>> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On
>>> Behalf Of John F. Sowa
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 12:32 PM
>>> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was
> RE:
>>> Why mostclassificationsare fuzzy)
>>>
>>> On 8/9/2011 11:50 AM, Rich Cooper wrote:
>>>> Just how much does each of us value safety,
>>> honest advertising,
>>>> cleanliness, and other honest and fair
>>> practices?
>>>
>>> I would rate those things extremely high. Most
>>> people are willing
>>> to pay extra for safe, sound, and effective
> food,
>>> drugs, restaurants,
>>> hotels, homes, cars, and appliances. But there
> is
>>> no way to ensure
>>> safety without standards and inspections. And
>>> there is no way to
>>> ensure that the information people get is
> reliable
>>> without laws that
>>> prosecute false claims and counterfeit labels.
>>>
>>> If you want to see what happens without
> effective
>>> gov't regulation,
>>> just look at what happened with the food and
> water
>>> system in China.
>>> People there are terrified that they can't
> trust
>>> their food and
>>> water supply. Look at the disastrous levels of
>>> casualties caused
>>> by earthquakes and mine disasters in areas with
> no
>>> building codes.
>>>
>>> The Chinese gov't has imposed some drastic
> capital
>>> executions
>>> for managers responsible for food that killed
>>> people. But I'd
>>> much rather have standards and inspections in
>>> advance than harsh
>>> penalties for the people who killed me.
>>>
>>> You can call that the "nanny state", but I call
> it
>>> common sense.
>>>
>>>> I disagree with one-size-fits-all regulation.
>>> The European Union has prohibited BPA as a
> plastic
>>> softener for
>>> food containers and children's toys, and
>>> California is trying
>>> to do the same. But the US still allows BPA.
> The
>>> Chinese produce
>>> plastic with and without BPA. The cost
> difference
>>> is minimal, but
>>> many manufacturers will shave pennies. So they
>>> produce both kinds,
>>> and they ship the BPA versions to the US.
>>>
>>> I am all in favor of freedom, especially for
>>> myself. But if
>>> there is no regulation, the contaminated stuff
>>> dominates the market.
>>> Worst of all, the people who produce the
>>> contaminated stuff don't
>>> want any regulations that would force them to
>>> disclose what's
>>> in their product.
>>>
>>> That is not freedom for me. That's freedom for
>>> the people who
>>> produce the contaminated goods. I have no
> choice.
>>> John
>>>
>>>
> __________________________________________________
>>> _______________
>>> Message Archives:
>>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>>> Config Subscr:
>>>
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
>>> orum/
>>> Unsubscribe:
>>> mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>>> To join:
>>>
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePa
>>> ge#nid1J
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
> __________________________________________________
> _______________
>>> Message Archives:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>>> Config Subscr:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
> orum/
>>> Unsubscribe:
> mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>>> To join:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePa
> ge#nid1J
>>>
>>
> ==================================================
> ===========
>> doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://ProgressiveAustin.org
>> "I speak as an American to the leaders of my own
> nation. The great
>> initiative in this war is ours. The initiative
> to stop it must be ours."
>> - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
>>
> ==================================================
> ===========
>>
>>
> __________________________________________________
> _______________
>> Message Archives:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>> Config Subscr:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
> orum/
>> Unsubscribe:
> mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>> To join:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePa
> ge#nid1J
>>
>
> __________________________________________________
> _______________
> Message Archives:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-f
> orum/
> Unsubscribe:
> mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePa
> ge#nid1J
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
>
> (02)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (03)
|