PNAC.info - Exposing the Project for the New American Century
Maureen Down, writing in the NYT, claims that the "New American Century Manifesto" is Rumsfeld's game plan and that he's been following it religiously.
Tuesday, September 30, 2003
NYT Magazine: Vegetative states and the nature of consciousness
What if There Is Something Going On in There?
I've long felt that consciousness was simpler than commonly assumed, and was as much illusion (and delusion) as it was a "real" state. So I find this fascinating ...
The results of the study offered hints about the nature of consciousness. High-level thought -- like language and memory -- occurs in networks of neurons located at the surface of the brain in a thin layer of tissue called the cortex. These networks also form loops, however, that dip deep within the brain, where they converge and then return to the surface. According to a theory proposed by Rodolfo Llinas of New York University, a special set of neurons deep in the brain synchronizes the activity of the loops of higher thought. The harmony of all the different thought processes gives rise to a coherence that we call consciousness. Schiff and his colleagues say they suspect that when a number of these loops or the region that synchronizes them is damaged, the brain slips into a vegetative state. Yet even after extensive brain damage, they argue, some of the loops may still function, though in isolation -- like fragments of mind.
I've long felt that consciousness was simpler than commonly assumed, and was as much illusion (and delusion) as it was a "real" state. So I find this fascinating ...
Monday, September 29, 2003
What Microsoft worries about: US Govt purchasing decisions mandating reliability and security.
To Fix Software Flaws, Microsoft Invites Attack
Buyers have traditionally not valued security or reliability, and vendors have met buyer's requests. I think this is a fundamental problem related to the inability of humans to make the "right" decisions in a world of fantastic complexity -- we need a wetware upgrade.
The changes in US Federal s/w purchase plans has been in the works for a while. "Change the industry" is a code-phrase for "displace Microsoft".
I suspect Microsoft was given early warning of this even before 9/11. Microsoft worries about only a few things:
1. European anti-trust legislation. Not so bad ... EU legislators can be bought.
2. Linux, in particular China or India mandating use of Linux solutions. A tough problem, but Microsoft may yet find a way to destroy Linux. (Consider their support of the SCO suit merely a minor skirmish.) Given Microsoft's cash reserves, they can buy a lot of key developers at $1-10 million apiece. OTOH, there are a lot of people in the world.
3. The US Federal government mandating security and reliability standards for government used software.
This last, I think, Microsoft's biggest fear. It's driving most of their current focus on security and their pending elimination of Symantec and the antivirus industry. I think they've already paid big money to US politicians to buy breathing time, but the price of a further delay may be getting a bit steep. Can they get their .NET/Palladium/Passport/Hailstorm solution set in place? What choice do the Feds have anyway?
....By and large, vendors build what people are willing to pay for,' said Edward Lazowska, a professor of computer science at the University of Washington. 'People have historically been willing to pay for features -- not reliability or security.'
There is evidence, though, that corporations and the federal government are placing a greater emphasis on obtaining secure software. Within the last two years, the government has pushed security initiatives in its technology policy, especially in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Recent moves by the government include placing greater emphasis during the purchasing process on software design and reliability standards like the Common Criteria and the National Security Telecommunications and Information Systems Security Policy No. 11, a Pentagon directive that went into effect 14 months ago.
Such standards now apply mainly to the Department of Defense and national security agencies, but Congress is looking to extend similar standards to other federal agencies. The federal government is the world's largest buyer of information technology, spending nearly $60 billion a year.
'If the government made a serious commitment to buying better software, it would change the industry,' said Mary Ann Davidson, chief security officer of Oracle, the big database software company.
Two weeks ago, the House Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the Census, which is under the Committee on Government Reform, held a hearing on the impact of the Pentagon's programs to link procurement to tighter security standards for software.
Representative Adam H. Putnam, the Florida Republican who is chairman of the subcommittee, said he saw great promise for adopting similar standards.
Buyers have traditionally not valued security or reliability, and vendors have met buyer's requests. I think this is a fundamental problem related to the inability of humans to make the "right" decisions in a world of fantastic complexity -- we need a wetware upgrade.
The changes in US Federal s/w purchase plans has been in the works for a while. "Change the industry" is a code-phrase for "displace Microsoft".
I suspect Microsoft was given early warning of this even before 9/11. Microsoft worries about only a few things:
1. European anti-trust legislation. Not so bad ... EU legislators can be bought.
2. Linux, in particular China or India mandating use of Linux solutions. A tough problem, but Microsoft may yet find a way to destroy Linux. (Consider their support of the SCO suit merely a minor skirmish.) Given Microsoft's cash reserves, they can buy a lot of key developers at $1-10 million apiece. OTOH, there are a lot of people in the world.
3. The US Federal government mandating security and reliability standards for government used software.
This last, I think, Microsoft's biggest fear. It's driving most of their current focus on security and their pending elimination of Symantec and the antivirus industry. I think they've already paid big money to US politicians to buy breathing time, but the price of a further delay may be getting a bit steep. Can they get their .NET/Palladium/Passport/Hailstorm solution set in place? What choice do the Feds have anyway?
Productivity and unemployment issues start to go mainstream ...
O'Reilly Network: Can computers help reverse falling employment? [Sep. 29, 2003]
Interesting not because the suggestions are useful or the analysis deep, but because the issues of structural unemployment in our "new world order" are starting to go mainstream. At least the dialog is beginning.
Interesting not because the suggestions are useful or the analysis deep, but because the issues of structural unemployment in our "new world order" are starting to go mainstream. At least the dialog is beginning.
Saddam only THOUGHT he had WMDs?
TIME.com: Chasing a Mirage -- Oct. 06, 2003
There's an aphorism somewhere along the lines of "Never assume conspiracy when incompetence will suffice". The newest theory on the disconnect between international intelligence and (apparent) Iraqi reality is that Saddam was delusional, and that his advisors were unwilling to contradict his delusions and were massively corrupt besides. He really did think he had something to hide.
Definitely a desperate and crazed sounding explanation, but we left the tracks of reason a while back ...
Over the past three months, TIME has interviewed Iraqi weapons scientists, middlemen and former government officials. Saddam's henchmen all make essentially the same claim: that Iraq's once massive unconventional-weapons program was destroyed or dismantled in the 1990s and never rebuilt; that officials destroyed or never kept the documents that would prove it; that the shell games Saddam played with U.N. inspectors were designed to conceal his progress on conventional weapons systems—missiles, air defenses, radar—not biological or chemical programs; and that even Saddam, a sucker for a new gadget or invention or toxin, may not have known what he actually had or, more to the point, didn't have. It would be an irony almost too much to bear to consider that he doomed his country to war because he was intent on protecting weapons systems that didn't exist in the first place...
...The Iraqi dictator was crazy for weapons, fascinated by every new invention—and as a result was easily conned by salesmen and officials offering the latest device. Saddam apparently had high hopes for a bogus product called red mercury, touted as an ingredient for a handheld nuclear device. Large quantities of the gelatinous red liquid were looted from Iraqi stores after the war and are now being offered on the black market.
Saddam's underlings appear to have invented weapons programs and fabricated experiments to keep the funding coming. The Mukhabarat captain says the scamming went all the way to the top of the mic to its director, Huweish, who would appease Saddam with every report, never telling him the truth about failures or production levels and meanwhile siphoning money from projects. "He would tell the President he had invented a new missile for Stealth bombers but hadn't. So Saddam would say, 'Make 20 missiles.' He would make one and put the rest in his pocket," says the captain. Colonel Hussan al-Duri, who spent several years in the 1990s as an air-defense inspector, saw similar cons. "Some projects were just stealing money," he says. A scientist or officer would say he needed $10 million to build a special weapon. "They would produce great reports, but there was never anything behind them."
There's an aphorism somewhere along the lines of "Never assume conspiracy when incompetence will suffice". The newest theory on the disconnect between international intelligence and (apparent) Iraqi reality is that Saddam was delusional, and that his advisors were unwilling to contradict his delusions and were massively corrupt besides. He really did think he had something to hide.
Definitely a desperate and crazed sounding explanation, but we left the tracks of reason a while back ...
Sunday, September 28, 2003
Bush officials guilty of a federal crime? (Can you say ... impeach ...?)
Bush Administration Is Focus of Inquiry (washingtonpost.com)
A few interesting things about this:
1. This is not cheating on one's spouse. This is a federal crime of a high degree. More than one senior administration official is thought to be involved, with Karl Rove on the hot seat.
2. The media has been curiously slow to investigate. Don't look for much from Fox News or the WSJ.
3. Several journalists declined to use the leaked information, they thought it was a security risk and irrelevant to the story. Robert Novak was the administration shill. His credibility as a journalist may be shot.
4. If Bush was involved, this is an impeachable offense -- no doubt.
With the Washington Post weighing in, the blood is in the water. Now, loose the sharks of print!
At CIA Director George J. Tenet's request, the Justice Department is looking into an allegation that administration officials leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer to a journalist, government sources said yesterday.
The operative's identity was published in July after her husband, former U.S. ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, publicly challenged President Bush's claim that Iraq had tried to buy 'yellowcake' uranium ore from Africa for possible use in nuclear weapons. Bush later backed away from the claim.
The intentional disclosure of a covert operative's identity is a violation of federal law.
A few interesting things about this:
1. This is not cheating on one's spouse. This is a federal crime of a high degree. More than one senior administration official is thought to be involved, with Karl Rove on the hot seat.
2. The media has been curiously slow to investigate. Don't look for much from Fox News or the WSJ.
3. Several journalists declined to use the leaked information, they thought it was a security risk and irrelevant to the story. Robert Novak was the administration shill. His credibility as a journalist may be shot.
4. If Bush was involved, this is an impeachable offense -- no doubt.
With the Washington Post weighing in, the blood is in the water. Now, loose the sharks of print!
Friday, September 26, 2003
No Iraqi WMDs.
The Failure to Find Iraqi Weapons
What the heck was Sadaam thinking? I'd love to know what his strategy was. Even France and Hans Blix thought Iraq was hiding WMDs, the arguments were all about how to respond to Iraqi WMDs, what the real threat was, etc.
If I were running the US, I'd have every intelligence chief in the nation in front of me for 3 days of grueling interrogation.
A draft of an interim report by David Kay, the American leading the hunt for banned arms in Iraq, says the team has not found any such weapons after nearly four months of intensively searching and interviewing top Iraqi scientists....
... Yesterday, Secretary of State Colin Powell met with Times editors. Asked whether Americans would have supported this war if weapons of mass destruction had not been at issue, Mr. Powell said the question was too hypothetical to answer. Asked if he, personally, would have supported it, he smiled, thrust his hand out and said, 'It was good to meet you.'.
What the heck was Sadaam thinking? I'd love to know what his strategy was. Even France and Hans Blix thought Iraq was hiding WMDs, the arguments were all about how to respond to Iraqi WMDs, what the real threat was, etc.
If I were running the US, I'd have every intelligence chief in the nation in front of me for 3 days of grueling interrogation.
Poverty in America
Number of People Living in Poverty in U.S. Increases Again
So 12% of Americans are very, very poor. Another very large chunk lives pretty close to the edge. That's a lot of very poor people. The article didn't provide many references, but I suspect the poverty rate is still lower than in the early to mid 1990s. The problem is next year, and the fundamental causes of poverty in the United States.
First -- next year. Other administrations have targeted recessional fiscal stimuli to help low income families directly. The Bush administration fiscal stimuli is considered by most economists to be extremely inefficient in terms of near term support for low income Americans. I think we should all be worried about what next year's numbers will look like. Will we give up all the progress of the 90s?
Then there are the fundamentals. The world in which we live is increasingly demanding in a classically Darwinian fashion. Rewards go to the elite -- those gifted by genetics, environment, experience, and inheritance. The non-elite lose out. They become poor, and their children become poor. At the bottom of the heap are the 8-10% of all humans who have serious psychiatric disorders (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder), low IQs (in theory half the population has an IQ < 100, but in practice I think it's about 30% are less than 100), or bad luck (such as parents with the above, or just plain bad luck).
In a real sense, a lot of humanity that was "able" in the 19th century would be, practically speaking, "disabled" today. Someone with a good temperament and an IQ of 90 could be a well regarded laborer or farm worker in 1942; in 2003 I think they'd be out of luck. That's a lot of people.
Of course the Bush administration, and many Republicans and religious conservatives, seem to consider prosperity as a sign of God's favor. So non-elite status is a mark of God's disfavor. Who's to argue with God? If that's what you believe, then you may believe that the poor are best left to fester in quiet. (Except eventually they join Al-Qaeda II, but that's another story.)
If, on the other hand, one has a wee bit more compassion and understanding (and a desire for self-preservation?), then it's time to rethink approaches to hard core poverty -- and all those folks who live on the edge of the precipice. Maybe the high disability rates in Nordic countries need to be examined with a slighly different perspective. If the market solution to 21st century disability is unpalatable, then maybe we need to consider other solutions.
Poverty rose and income levels declined in 2002 for the second straight year as the nation's economy continued struggling after the first recession in a decade, the Census Bureau reported Friday.
The poverty rate was 12.1 percent last year, up from 11.7 percent in 2001. Nearly 34.6 million people lived in poverty, about 1.7 million more than the previous year....
... The poverty threshold differs by the size and makeup of a household. For instance, a person under 65 living alone in 2002 was considered in poverty if income was $9,359 or less; for a household of three including one child, it was $14,480.
So 12% of Americans are very, very poor. Another very large chunk lives pretty close to the edge. That's a lot of very poor people. The article didn't provide many references, but I suspect the poverty rate is still lower than in the early to mid 1990s. The problem is next year, and the fundamental causes of poverty in the United States.
First -- next year. Other administrations have targeted recessional fiscal stimuli to help low income families directly. The Bush administration fiscal stimuli is considered by most economists to be extremely inefficient in terms of near term support for low income Americans. I think we should all be worried about what next year's numbers will look like. Will we give up all the progress of the 90s?
Then there are the fundamentals. The world in which we live is increasingly demanding in a classically Darwinian fashion. Rewards go to the elite -- those gifted by genetics, environment, experience, and inheritance. The non-elite lose out. They become poor, and their children become poor. At the bottom of the heap are the 8-10% of all humans who have serious psychiatric disorders (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder), low IQs (in theory half the population has an IQ < 100, but in practice I think it's about 30% are less than 100), or bad luck (such as parents with the above, or just plain bad luck).
In a real sense, a lot of humanity that was "able" in the 19th century would be, practically speaking, "disabled" today. Someone with a good temperament and an IQ of 90 could be a well regarded laborer or farm worker in 1942; in 2003 I think they'd be out of luck. That's a lot of people.
Of course the Bush administration, and many Republicans and religious conservatives, seem to consider prosperity as a sign of God's favor. So non-elite status is a mark of God's disfavor. Who's to argue with God? If that's what you believe, then you may believe that the poor are best left to fester in quiet. (Except eventually they join Al-Qaeda II, but that's another story.)
If, on the other hand, one has a wee bit more compassion and understanding (and a desire for self-preservation?), then it's time to rethink approaches to hard core poverty -- and all those folks who live on the edge of the precipice. Maybe the high disability rates in Nordic countries need to be examined with a slighly different perspective. If the market solution to 21st century disability is unpalatable, then maybe we need to consider other solutions.
The consequences of angering Microsoft ....
Company disowns author of critical MS report
I hope Geer expected to be canned and had a good severance clause in his contract -- otherwise he was being rather naive.
Security vendor @stake Inc. has dissociated itself from a report critical of Microsoft Corp.'s OS dominance, and says that the report's instigator, former @stake Chief Technical Officer Dan Geer has left the company abruptly.
Geer and several other researchers wrote a report which argued that Microsoft's dominance of the desktop and server OS markets posed an inherent danger to security. The report was sponsored by the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA).
I hope Geer expected to be canned and had a good severance clause in his contract -- otherwise he was being rather naive.
Thursday, September 25, 2003
The Bush Administration lies about their Bible studies?
Is There Anything the Bush Administration Doesn't Lie About?: Archive Entry From Brad DeLong's Webjournal
Next we'll learn that Bush is actually a neo-Pagan. What a weird bunch.
Next we'll learn that Bush is actually a neo-Pagan. What a weird bunch.
Brad DeLong: Krugman's essay on income inequality
My Favorite Paul Krugman Essay: Archive Entry From Brad DeLong's Webjournal
A coincidental f/u to one of today's postings, a 1998 essay on wealth concentration in America.
A coincidental f/u to one of today's postings, a 1998 essay on wealth concentration in America.
Marines in Liberia: 25% got malaria!
Malaria, the Terrorist's Friend
That's an amazing attack rate. Some of those marines may suffer from malaria for the rest of their lives. Liberia has been far more dangerous, on a percentage basis, than Iraq.
When the United States Marine Corps went ashore in Liberia in August, it discovered an enemy that had no ties to the various factions in the civil war there. More than 50 of the 225 service members, roughly a quarter, who landed in Liberia last month were hospitalized because of a longtime scourge of mankind: malaria.
That's an amazing attack rate. Some of those marines may suffer from malaria for the rest of their lives. Liberia has been far more dangerous, on a percentage basis, than Iraq.
Friedman: Bush war on terrorism is a hobby.
Connect the Dots
Friedman has tried hard to be kind to Bush. Looks like he's run out of patience. In this case it's the stupidity of US position on world trade that set him off.
And one thing we know about this Bush war on terrorism: sacrifice is only for Army reservists and full-time soldiers. For the rest of us, it's guns and butter. When it comes to the police and military sides of the war on terrorism, the Bushies behave like Viking warriors. But when it comes to the political and economic sacrifices and strategies that are also required to fight this war successfully, they are cowardly wimps. That is why our war on terrorism is so one-dimensional and Pentagon-centric. It's more like a hobby -- something we do only until it runs into the Bush re-election agenda.
Friedman has tried hard to be kind to Bush. Looks like he's run out of patience. In this case it's the stupidity of US position on world trade that set him off.
How to eliminate a species
A Bug's Death
I really think the paragraph in parentheses should have appeared higher in the article! So this particular technique won't be used to wipe out humans. Phew.
Specicide -- the deliberate extinction of an entire species -- could be engineered by exploiting the biology of selfish genetic elements. These are segments of genetic material found in the genomes of all organisms; they contribute nothing to the well-being of their hosts, but simply proliferate themselves. And proliferation is something they excel at. A feature of all selfish genetic elements is that they cheat at Mendel's rules of inheritance and so have better odds for getting into eggs and sperm than regular genes do. As a result, a selfish genetic element can spread through a population extremely fast -- far faster than a regular gene -- even if it is harmful to its host.
... (The risk to us from this technology is negligible. Even supposing an extinction gene appeared in humans — by accident or by malice — it would take thousands of years for extinction to be effected. During this time, it is inconceivable the gene's spread would go unnoticed; once noticed, it could easily be stopped.)
I really think the paragraph in parentheses should have appeared higher in the article! So this particular technique won't be used to wipe out humans. Phew.
Argentina North: The New America
U.S. Income Gap Widening, Study Says
The Economist covered this as well. The US is heading towards a South American wealth distribution. Over 20 years the wealthiest Americans tripled their income, the poorest increased by 13%. Cuts in capital gains and estate taxes will accelerate this effect.
Eventually, people will start to notice.
...In 2000, the top 1 percent of American taxpayers had $862,700 each after taxes, on average, more than triple the $286,300 they had, adjusted for inflation, in 1979.
The bottom 40 percent in 2000 had $21,118 each, up 13 percent from their $18,695 average in 1979.
Mr. Shapiro also analyzed the budget office data in tandem with a recently updated study on income by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research organization in Cambridge, Mass. The bureau study found that in 2000, the top 1 percent income group had the largest share of before-tax income for any year since 1929...
... The center's analysis said the highest income Americans had grown richer from 1979 to 2000 both from gains in income because of economic prosperity and from tax cuts. Huge gains in executive pay were a significant factor, Mr. Shapiro said.
Federal tax burdens for most Americans had declined over the previous two decades, and not risen as some conservative policy experts have asserted, the center said. Congress enacted tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that were heavily weighted to the top 1 percent, which supporters said would encourage them to invest more to the benefit of all Americans.
The Economist covered this as well. The US is heading towards a South American wealth distribution. Over 20 years the wealthiest Americans tripled their income, the poorest increased by 13%. Cuts in capital gains and estate taxes will accelerate this effect.
Eventually, people will start to notice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)