![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Nomic Worlds
Jul. 29th, 2004 01:40 amHere's an interesting article about virtual worlds, gaming and economics and questions about models of game worlds that are far more flexible in the behaviors they allow than anything that is currently ongoing.
Jul. 29th, 2004
Geology of Montreal.
Jul. 29th, 2004 02:41 pmI just came across a pdf of the Geology of Montreal. I find it makes interesting reading, if you have any curiosity about the rocks underfoot. One thing that I hadn't known, Mont Royal is NOT an extinct volcano, as I've always been told! It is, in fact, a pluton, caused by magma intrusion. In other words, a hot bubble of magma rose from some deep hotspot and tried to form a volcano. It never succeeded, but it did push a large column of rock up out of the ground during the attempt. The hills of Saint-Bruno, Saint-Hilaire, Rougement and Johnson are also of the same type and were probably all caused by a now inactive hot spot under the Saint Laurence somewhere.
On the other hand, Ile Saint Helen WAS the result of, if not a volcano, at least a "violent exhalation of magmatic gas", some 350 million years ago, long before Mount Royal was extruded.
On the other hand, Ile Saint Helen WAS the result of, if not a volcano, at least a "violent exhalation of magmatic gas", some 350 million years ago, long before Mount Royal was extruded.
Collaborative Filtering of Email.
Jul. 29th, 2004 04:18 pmOne of the many things that NWO is supposed to support is collaborative filtering of email. Now, I've been thinking about that on and off for some time, and I've found myself wishing that some small part of the system were already working, so that I could use it to help filter the gazillions of megaquads of tech discussions that arrive in my inbox every day.
Then it occured to me that I could take a simple and free webmail client, and try writing some collaboration software for it, to try out the idea I've had. Currently though, I don't have a good design. The only ones I have are big and elaborate. I think what I need to start doing is concentrating on what is the smallest useable subset of the technology I've been thinking about, so that I have something that can be written rapidly. Maybe something that just stores and supports metadata lookups. Hmm.
Then it occured to me that I could take a simple and free webmail client, and try writing some collaboration software for it, to try out the idea I've had. Currently though, I don't have a good design. The only ones I have are big and elaborate. I think what I need to start doing is concentrating on what is the smallest useable subset of the technology I've been thinking about, so that I have something that can be written rapidly. Maybe something that just stores and supports metadata lookups. Hmm.
More RFID stupidity.
Jul. 29th, 2004 08:40 pmIt looks like the hardware makers are even stupider than I imagined when it comes to RFID tags, as there doesn't seem to be anything to stop you rewriting the data on the tags, while browsing in a shop...
I've been thinking of writing some essays pointing out (amongst other things) that the changes currently being (or about to be) wroght by technology will require a change in perspective. A paradigm shift, to repurpose an overused term back to its originally intended meaning. There are world views that may or may not have had any validity in the past but which certainly have no place in the future.
One of these is thinking that widening the gap between the rich and the poor is a bad thing. Now, I don't think this was ever a good measure of anything. The first time a caveman invented fire, he created a group of haves and a group of have-nots. That invention widened the gap. That's what happens whenever a new form of wealth appears. And that is simply because technology acts to multiply whatever you have going for you.
Here's a thought experiment: people are trying to determine how best to spend a budget surplus.
A) The first group proposes that the money can be used to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor. They plan to do this by increasing welfare, starting training programs, rebuilding areas of urban decay and essentially spending the money so as to most directly help the poor.
B) The second group proposes that the money be spent on developing new technology which will improve the world's standard of living. It will certainly help the poor, but it will help the rich much much more than the poor.
Which is better? Lets assume that the average Mr. Poor makes $10,000 a year, and is barely surviving, while Mr. Rich makes $100,000 per year and is doing quite well.
Under scenario A) we manage through diligent effort to move the average Mr. Poor to a salary of $30,000 while not helping Mr. Rich at all. We have narrowed a $90,000 gap to $70,000, a 22% reduction in the size of the gap. We could easily call this a success.
Under scenario B) the new technology multiplies everyone's salary tenfold. Mr. Poor is now making $100,000 a year, and Mr. Rich is now Mr. Very-Rich and is making $1,000,000 a year. The gap has just gone from $90,000 to $900,000 and has increased 1000%
In which scenario would you rather be Mr. Poor, in which one would you rather be Mr. Rich? You will also note that even in scenario B) its going to be Mr. Poor's lifestyle that will be most profoundly affected by the change, not Mr. Rich's.
Now, I'm not saying that social programs are wrong, or that technology cures all evils or any such nonsense as that. I am saying something that I believe to be far more basic and important for everyone to know:
I think that this stupid meme about narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor has only worked due to the total innumeracy of the average North American. They think that in a 'totally fair world' that everyone would have the exact same income and that the gap would be zero. This wouldn't be possible even if everyone were clones and had identical potential. Statistical flukes would insure that there were haves and have-nots in any society. No, in a 'totally fair world' everyone would have enough to live a full and content life without ever having to work for a living, so that you were free to devote your time to whatever you wished. We won't get there by trying to drag down the rich or push up the poor. We'll only get there if we concentrate on multiplying everyone's wealth to such an extent that even the poorest have enough. Over history the poor have been slowly getting less poor, while the rich have been getting much richer. In the next hundred years, this will accellerate enormously. The poor will make great strides in overcoming poverty, and the rich will get obscenely more rich. For myself, I am doing my best to hasten this process.
One of these is thinking that widening the gap between the rich and the poor is a bad thing. Now, I don't think this was ever a good measure of anything. The first time a caveman invented fire, he created a group of haves and a group of have-nots. That invention widened the gap. That's what happens whenever a new form of wealth appears. And that is simply because technology acts to multiply whatever you have going for you.
Here's a thought experiment: people are trying to determine how best to spend a budget surplus.
A) The first group proposes that the money can be used to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor. They plan to do this by increasing welfare, starting training programs, rebuilding areas of urban decay and essentially spending the money so as to most directly help the poor.
B) The second group proposes that the money be spent on developing new technology which will improve the world's standard of living. It will certainly help the poor, but it will help the rich much much more than the poor.
Which is better? Lets assume that the average Mr. Poor makes $10,000 a year, and is barely surviving, while Mr. Rich makes $100,000 per year and is doing quite well.
Under scenario A) we manage through diligent effort to move the average Mr. Poor to a salary of $30,000 while not helping Mr. Rich at all. We have narrowed a $90,000 gap to $70,000, a 22% reduction in the size of the gap. We could easily call this a success.
Under scenario B) the new technology multiplies everyone's salary tenfold. Mr. Poor is now making $100,000 a year, and Mr. Rich is now Mr. Very-Rich and is making $1,000,000 a year. The gap has just gone from $90,000 to $900,000 and has increased 1000%
In which scenario would you rather be Mr. Poor, in which one would you rather be Mr. Rich? You will also note that even in scenario B) its going to be Mr. Poor's lifestyle that will be most profoundly affected by the change, not Mr. Rich's.
Now, I'm not saying that social programs are wrong, or that technology cures all evils or any such nonsense as that. I am saying something that I believe to be far more basic and important for everyone to know:
As a measure of economic well-being, the distance between the Richest and the Poorest members of society is almost totally useless. In the narrow confines of the areas where it IS a usefull measure, you want to increase it, not decrease it!
I think that this stupid meme about narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor has only worked due to the total innumeracy of the average North American. They think that in a 'totally fair world' that everyone would have the exact same income and that the gap would be zero. This wouldn't be possible even if everyone were clones and had identical potential. Statistical flukes would insure that there were haves and have-nots in any society. No, in a 'totally fair world' everyone would have enough to live a full and content life without ever having to work for a living, so that you were free to devote your time to whatever you wished. We won't get there by trying to drag down the rich or push up the poor. We'll only get there if we concentrate on multiplying everyone's wealth to such an extent that even the poorest have enough. Over history the poor have been slowly getting less poor, while the rich have been getting much richer. In the next hundred years, this will accellerate enormously. The poor will make great strides in overcoming poverty, and the rich will get obscenely more rich. For myself, I am doing my best to hasten this process.
Technology Multiplies Productivity
Jul. 29th, 2004 11:52 pmIn my zeal the write the previous screed, I forgot to mention this interesting article that talks about how technology effects productivity. It didn't so much as inspire me to write the previous message, as remind me that I had wanted to use that as a topic.