It’s time, once again for the Monday Message Board. Post comments on any topic. As usual, civilised discussion and no coarse language.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
John Quiggin 
Google Search is such a great resource that it has become an embedded, indeed essential, element of the Webastructure (okay, so I’m not that great at making up new words). While a number of Google Inc. initiatives are fantastic, there is the itching question as to whether it is sensible to trust Google as the repository of the web’s historic content. Of course there is plenty of duplication around the web of bits and pieces, but it is the combination of search function and data repository that is important.
Somewhere in the future some law cases may be entirely dependent upon electronic archives as part of the “crime scene evidence”, as it were. For example, electronic documents that are created and circulated for the purpose of committing a criminal act might only exist – nominally temporarily – in the web ether, and never as a physical presence such as paper copies. Furthermore, there are now quite a few cases in which it is apparent that some highly frequented Blogs and other notionally “permanent” records suffer from serious after-the-fact revisionism. By this I am referring to the manner in which closed threads may be later edited by the blog administrator to remove or alter the content of blog posts, so as to convey a different discussion on a thread than the one which actually occurred. To be clear: I am referring here to blog topics that have been closed, and then silently revised after-the-fact (ie after being closed to further comments), and not to ongoing live threads in which blogging policy is being enforced.
A few of the more skilled among us use the Google archive/cache facilities to ping people who have done just that kind of silent revisionism. Without impugning Google Inc. I can foresee future scenarios in which criminal cases are supplied mis-leading evidence through the reliance upon a single source of etruth. I’m perfectly aware of the webprints left by such revisionism now; the point I’m attempting to make is that while small fragments of the versioning of what is presumed to be fixed, permanent archive econtent may have been captured by observant outsiders, there isn’t any practical way of performing (legal) discovery so as to find and use these outsiders as witnesses, or to use their locally archived variants as part of a chain of evidence. Instead, we hope that reconstruction of the evidence of revisionism may come entirely from Google Inc, a company that is now the defacto repository of our web history.
Just a jumble of thoughts. Any legal eagles out there who have a more informed current knowledge of this subject matter? I’m curious about the impact that the Web and the many assumptions underpinning its use may have upon the law.
whilst i cannot comment on the legal aspect i find the general problem of so much information and history essentially hanging in space ready to be switched off very concerning,
i myself am now trying to find a way of pulling as much information that interests me onto my own machine,
i started doing it by just copying whole articles with links and pasting them into big InDesign documents,
but they are not searchable or tagable,
i have been meaning recently to see if i can find a system that works like the web within my own machine,
storable, tagable and searchable documents,
i amm not a technical database kind of person though, any thoughts?
there will be no meaningful change until off-balance sheet accounting is history,
again, making a mockery of the idea that there is meaningful regulation
@smiths
I have a similar dilemma – lots of interesting articles archived that I can’t find when I need to refer to them. Are you using a mac by any chance? Spotlight can index things like rtfd files from textedit. I wouldn’t use indesign for archiving articles. You should at least use something that is non-proprietary so you can future proof it. The volume of information on hard-drives is becoming a concern. I keep a lot of podcasts, but without a way of searching them they maybe pretty much useless in the future. I often discuss this with my colleague and we have come to the conclusion that the operating systems will eventually do a lot of meta tagging as background processes. Things like face recognition, geo-tagging, recognising date formats etc. will eventually be available everywhere.
john, i am sure you read zerohedge anyway, but if not,
theres a video here of stiglitz and some of the zombies
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/joe-stiglitz-slaps-invisible-hand
i am using a mac michael,
with regard to Indesign, i run up documents to about 60 pages and then pdf them,
i like using InDesign because i use it for work and i can put them all into consistent style
Smiths #2
You could paste things into Google Docs – they’re fully indexed. Joke? No actually. I put a lot of stuff into Google notebook. Notebook is no longer available for new users but you can do something similar in Docs.
There are quite a few applications you can put on your own computer that will do full text indexing and keywording but they all have a cost and maintenance overhead. InDesign is probably not a good choice. Think about backups and your data surviving pc upgrades. As soon as you put something on your pc you need to figure out how to look after it. Lots of people who should know better have come unstuck. I do IT for a job and that’s enough for me; I try to minimise my effort to maintain our home PCs. Google’s free cloud storage suits me. You can access it anywhere, and share and publish it if you want to. There’s others (Zoho, Thinkfree, …) who will do similar for a moderate monthly sum if you don’t like Google’s terms (“we own everything, but we are good guys”).
i like words, but sometimes they serve to distract
the graph at the link tells its own story
http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/where_has_all_the_income_gone_look_up/
interestingly the data and the graph end in 2007,
so heres my prediction,
the top 400 households income goes up, not down, during the financial crisis of 2007 …
smiths,
If you are using the international accounting standards (as most countries now are) the only way you can have anything transfer off your balance sheet is if “substantially all” the risks and rewards of ownership lie with someone else.
Even in this event the standards require you to recognise a liability (at full value) if it is more likely than not (i.e. 50% possible or more) that you will have to pay out. If this test is not met you need to disclose any contingent liability that exists, unless the probability that it will occur is “remote”.
Of course, governments can change the standards that apply to them (as Greece’s may have) but companies are bound by these standards. If they intentionally do not meet them and losses are incurred by investors or others as a result then both the company and the individuals responsible are open to criminal prosecution for fraud.
Legally, therefore, off-balance sheet accounting is history.
In 2008 the US supreme court over turned the long standing laws prohibiting hand guns in New York. The laws were said to be unconstitutional. At the time I pondered what impact this would have on murder rates. My guess was that murder would decline with the ready availability of legal hand guns providing a rebalancing of power between good guys and bad guys. According to an article on the ALS blog by David Leyonhjelm the stats now show that murder did decline. Apparently by 25%. Interesting.
john, on the recently discussed subject of right wing libertarians
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/06/tory-madrasa-young-britons-foundation
If I return to the USA, and I walk into a coffee shop – say NY Strbcks (although unlikely in reality) – and I see some Joe Blow openly packing heat, what am I meant to think? That somehow I am safer because of the presence of an individual I have never met, who is clearly not security or police or FBI, someone who could go Postal? No, I will take the obvious precaution of upping and leaving, and ringing the NYPD to report the presence of an armed individual.
If the scene is repeated, but this time a significant number of different groups of people are advertising blam-blams, then what am I going to do? I’m going to take the obvious precaution of upping and leaving, and ringing Strbcks to express my severe disappointment at being unable to buy a coffee and relax, due to the presence of random groups of people imposing a potentially lethal environment upon me. And, for good measure, I’d ring the NYPD to warn them of the presence of several different groups of armed individuals congregating at one location. Who knows, maybe they are separate gangsta stripes out to settle a few scores. Or not.
i honestly don’t know why you responded to that one Donald
Or maybe I’ll go and purchase a grenade launcher or a machine gun or something – you know, just in case the other gun-carrying individuals are macho-bound to carry something more substantial than an automatic or six-shooter, not that those weapons are free from causing horrific trauma to a shot individual – I’m sure that if you talk to local NY hospitals about Friday-nite and Saturday-nite trauma victims, it would be a sad tale. Perhaps some rummaging might pull up the stats on shooting victims and the related injuries.
As to the statistics of overall crime, that certainly needs further examination in order to eliminate other causes for the alleged drop of 25%. Further context required for a reasonable evaluation of claim. If state by state the US states remove their restrictions upon carrying (concealed) firearms, it will be interesting indeed to see at what point enough non-gun owners break and decide that they too must pack heat – to be safe! I seem to recall a discussion on this blog before, concerning the bistability of two population state: of all those eligible to own and carry a firearm, the two states are A, in which virtually noone carries a firearm, and B in which virtually everyone packs heat. If the laws that ensure A are removed, I wonder how quickly open promotion by vested interest groups (Libertarians, gun-slingers, people who must deal with disgruntled clients (eg those about to be cut-off from unemployment benefits, or ripped off on an insurance claim, etc) will force a transition from state A to state B. I’ll bet it’s far quicker than taking meaningful action upon GHGs, poverty alleviation, mental health service improvements, and the like.
From Vincent Fournier (Alice Cooper, “Lost in America”, from “The Last Temptation”, 1994):
http://shockedinvestor.blogspot.com/2010/01/jpm-derivatives-are-larger-than-worlds.html
but this is what makes me laugh,
people describe the central bank governors of the US, UK and Australia as the second most powerful people in each country, ha, ha, yeah, right
reminds me of this story from a while back
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/dec/14/obama-raps-bankers
you could buy a suitcase nuke from an al-Queda sleeper cell and destroy a whole generation of bad guys Donald, thereby destroying three myths in one move
That would be more intelligent than spouting silly stories about how you are scared of guns and can’t enjoy a coffee at starbucks. I mean some people are scared of pooftas and some people are scared of Jews and some people are scared of spiders but none of those mean there is a case for banning homosexuality, Jewish symbols or spiders tatoos.
smiths,
The notional value of the derivative portfolio is not a very useful a measure of anything at all. The net open position is the useful information and that is nothing like $79tn. Maybe you should look at destroying the myth that somehow totalling up the notional of all those derivatives and puting that as a headline number is somehow important.
ok, but the explosive growth in the derivative total is a valuable indicator …
the total notional amount of credit default swaps went from US$2.69 trillion in 2003 to US$54.6 trillion in 2008,
and credit default swaps make the financial system more complex, more opaque and exacerbate the systemic problems
I don’t know if I’m missing an irony alert, but on face value you have misunderstood the issue raised by Don Oats: people (quite reasonably) fear they may be maimed or killed by the people with guns who are in the same physical space as they are. And actually people (including children) are indeed maimed and killed by guns.
Unless you believe in a “wild west” mentality then increasing gun ownership could reasonably be seen as having a negative impact on the civility of society.
Sovereign (quasi)defaults turn ugly:
The crisis spurred a series of demonstrations from usually phlegmatic Icelanders, who recited poetry and TOSSED YOGHURT POTS and rocks at government buildings to protest what they deemed the greed, ineptitude and spinelessness of the governing elite.
smiths,
I would agree it is interesting information – but only in the context of “Wow! Look at that number” sort of stuff. By comparing it to GDP is implicitly saying that in some way the comparison is useful. It is not. Only the use of the net open position is actually useful in any way whatsoever.
You and Don may be scared of somebody who has a side arm and is drinking coffee but your irrational fears don’t warrant a case for public policy. I’m not sure why the addition of a uniform and a public pay cheque alter Dons level of anxiety but again his personal axieties don’t make a case for prohibition.
Of course if gun prohibition actually did lower homicide there would be a case for it. However that wouldn’t then be a public policy based on personal phobias.
It makes sence to screen who can own a gun, just as we screen who can become a police officer, however it doesn’t make sence to have a blanket ban. People of good character and demonstrated technical skill should be free to own and carry a side arm. For airline pilots it probably should be mandatory. However I also trust doctors, teachers, radiologists and electrical engineers.
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
I don’t really want to get into a debate about guns, but police officers presumably aren’t just screened to carry guns, they are trained and regulated about when and how they carry their guns. Unless I’m completely wrong about the US they can’t just shove their revolvers down their pants.
It sure would make sense to screen who can carry firearms but there are lots of potentially dangerous activities that are just outlawed because it would be very expensive to set up a regulatory framework for the public to get involved such as fireworks and using explosives. In this day and age there isn’t a high frequency of scenarios where guns are necessary in modern cities so banning them makes economic sense too.
Michael – most gun owners are prepared to bear the cost of training and practice. And testing and certification isn’t that expensive and costs can be readily recovered on a user pays basis. It isn’t that complicated.
What is the economic argument?
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
The economic argument is that if a dangerous activity is permitted by law then the activity needs to be regulated and that regulation must cost something. I don’t have any figures at hand, but are all the costs of regulating gun ownership and the potential misuse of the guns borne by the owners? It should be theoretically possible for screened, responsible and trained members of the public to safely operate shoulder mounted rock launchers. Should these be permitted? Would there be a cost in regulating the sale and use of these devices?
Argumentum a-la-frootloop.
I.e.
1) wee’z libertarianz, and we needz gunz. Gummint kaint deny us gunz.
2) we are quite reasonable people who are prepared to pay the cost of government mandated certification.
3) wee’z libertarianz, and we needz gunz. Gummint kaint deny us gunz, AND theyz kain’t make us pay to proov thet weez aint crazy MOFOs. UN kaint take over the worlz!!!
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
I’m genuinely curious to know if anyone apart from gun advocates actually produces any material related to the subject? I’m not an gun enthusiast or a campaigner for gun control so I have to admit I’m not up with the debate.
@SJ
Maybe there should be a catch 22 like screening for guns. If you want one then your not a suitable candidate to have one, if you don’t want one then you can be trusted to have one.
@SJ
LOL SJ – that about sums it up – seriously funny – gunz meanz freedom – just what every libertarian dreams of – one helluva big gunz show cabinet and a lot of horns and stuffed animal trophies in their denz (or is that dense?) – one more post and Ill be swamping like Terje gets away with regularly!
Hmm…perhaps those that bear arms should pay the social and health costs imposed on society by their activities – the health cost of fixing up those injured from gun wounds, the additional costs imposed on law enforcement, and the lost income and productivity for those affected by gun related deaths (many thousands in the US alone).
That would be true “user pays”. And indeed, the calculation isn’t that complicated.
It looks like Terje is in agreement with the narrator, lead character and arch gun runner in the movie “Lord of War”.
“There is one gun for every 12 people on earth. Some people think this is a bad thing. I think, how can I sell guns to the other 11?”
The logical extension of Terje’s beliefs is that we would all be much safer if every adult in the world had a weapon. I presume Terje does not want to see minors with weapons… but I could be wrong.
Seems there could be plenty of grief left. Looks like the snake oil merchants managed to sell lots of CDSs to entities that ought to know better.
Sorry but that does not follow. Most people don’t need or want a gun. We would probably be safer if nobody had a gun but outside of controlled environments that isn’t an achievable scenerio. And even within airports it is difficult and expensive to be sure.
I don’t personally own a gun, I never have owned a gun and I don’t wish to own a gun. Some of you have a hard time sorting the political from the personal.
Prohibiting guns has serious unintended consequences. To ignore them due to prejudice or bigotry is counter productive.
you recently complained terje that the federal government stopped you shooting pigs in national parks,
now you say you don’t own a gun,
what were you intending on shooting them with, the power of your ideas?
Sorry, had to say …..classic!
Timothy Geitner, 2010
Terje said:
Personally, I’m against attempting to prohibit guns. It’s probably not technically feasible in most jurisdictions. I am however in favour of regulating their storage and usage in such a way as to make their illegal use much less likely, and imposing the cost of such regulation largely on gun owners.
I’d like to see each weapon manufactured with multiple passive RFID devices that would allow the carriers to be tracked in something like real time. I’d like the weapons to be stored in approved gun safes that were biometrically locked. Every time the gun safe was opened the event would be logged centrally and the weapon tracked. If a no signal event occurred, the authroties would investigate the gun or the setting or the safe for faults. And when the person was out with his or her weapon(s) their RFID embedded permit would be with the weapon, sending out real time data about the carrier.
I’d like those applying for permits to have both an adequate reason for possession (sporting, have an AVO out, security guard etc) and to justify their choice and range of weapons for that purpose. I’d also like them to have regular independent and random checks for mental fitness and for that information to be available in every jurisdiction.
With the freedom to carry comes responsibility.
I admire your faith in technology, I’ll hazard a guess that you don’t work in I.T. RFID devices can be read by law enforcement and anyone else with the right technology. This is why there is concern over the idea of putting them in passports.
“After the State Department proposed last February to include RFID chips in passports, privacy groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation expressed concern. Because some RFID chips can be scanned remotely, criminals may be able to covertly scan groups of passport holders at airports, the EFF said in April. RFID passports could thus act as “terrorist beacons,” as well as indiscriminately exposing U.S. residents’ personal information to strangers.”
Maybe these issues have been satisfactorily dealt with but I’m not sure that having the ability to detect firearms is always unproblematic.
Fran – I don’t think many people dispute the need to screen and register gun owners. The LDP in Australia support it as does the US NRA. However there isn’t any evidence of additional safety being achieved by the actual registration of the firearms themselves. I can see what you are trying to achieve in your RFID proposal but I don’t believe it is practical. Even the police fail to measure up to existing storage regulations. And the government can’t even install insulation without widespread rorting and stuff ups. Even Howards gun by back saw guns disappear (after being bought back) into the black market.
@Michael
For the record
I kind of do work in IT — as it is part of my teaching brief …
Your objection for passports may be fair enough, though even here it might be possible to have a device that was readable only by something with the right decryption key …
However that might be though I’m not sure why this should be a problem with guns within a given jurisdiction. If you are not carrying the gun illegally and not about to commit an offence, why should you care who knows that you are carrying? In some jurisdictions, the gun advocates think they should be able to display their weapons openly.
It’s a matter of some interest that in the US firearms are amongst the more commonly stolen items. Being able to track them across state and local boundaries would be no bad thing.
p.s. It is worth noting that in Australia firearms are not even the primary weapon used in murder. Typically people get beaten to death with fists and feet.
Fran – police weapons are also lost and stolen. Would they have RFIDs also?
just a quick note on Greece, looks like the EU leaders did not agree with almost everyone here that recommended default of some sort,
it also looks like the supposed weakness of the european monetary union that was thrown around here quite liberally has been shown to be strength and resilience,
do you think soros has the balls to really have a go at Germany, no chance
all those stories of secret hedge fund meetings and trades of a lifetime against the Euro… equine waste product,
my bet is that Euro will retrace and we will suddenly start reading about some other little country outside the euro that Nial Ferguson and Ambrose Evans have been informed they must start attacking
truth be told, i was had as well,
i believed that Greece might default and send a wave of default through the eurozone,
i now feel annoyed and embarrassed that the mouthpieces are so damn effective
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
Terje said:
Is that so? Then let us bring them up to standard.
Done to death lib-bot talking point. Ironic too as the weakness in the program was the lack of bureaucrtic oversight, the desire to allow small entrepreneurs to run the system in conjunction with the notional beneficiaries. If the government really had been installing insulation (as opposed to handing out money to private contractors to do it) far fewer would have been installed, the standard would have been higher and the cost would have been a good deal higher per installation.
You can’t just map the latest talking point de jour onto every proposal that has the word government in it.
The broader point is this. In Australia, possibly for cultural and geographical reasons, the problem is far smaller than in the US, even allowing for the scales involved. We don’t have a common border with a developing world economy carrying massive traffic and having a drug war. So the problem isn’t as pressing as in the US.
Nevertheless, it could be done. Population in Australia is actually quite concentrated. The infrastructure to support the system would be cheap per capita to install. So it is totally feasible, financially and technically. It might not be worth doing because the problem isn’t that great.
The problem with Howard of course was that his principal constituency was 50-50 on the whole concept and so he did a half-arsed job was done at the back end.
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
Why not?
And for the record on the RFID on passports thing, it’s entirely possible that the only data sent by the said ID might be the unique ID for the particular passport authenticating the passport rather than the passport holder. That information might then only be available to the relevant US government departments and anyone with whom they were sharing data on request — e.g. interpol, a foreign customs service for verification in realtime etc.
The range on passive RFID can be quite small — in most cases less than 10 metres with line of sight if you want it that way (though in the case of the ones for guns you would want a lot more than that). Accordingly, intercepting the signal would be difficulty for non-authrised person and almost useless.
@Fran Barlow
Well my experience with I.T. is that it often doesn’t live up to expectations (Microsoft surface, zune, sharepoint, almost everything MS produces…..), is often over budget for various reasons (Myki in Victoria) and can lead to unintended consequences (facebook).