We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Yes it’s the Rugby World Cup, and in the early hours of this morning London time, the mighty Fijians came within a point of suffering a shock defeat at the hands of plucky little USA.
USA captain Dave Hodges paid tribute to his players after coming within a kick of beating Fiji.
“No-one in the world of rugby gave us a chance, but we came out with a good game,” said Hodges, whose team lost 19-18, having spurned a chance to win.
Fly-half Mike Hercus kicked for glory after Kort Schubert’s try, but narrowly missed with the last action of the match.
“It was a good effort from all the players. We were very, very disappointed,” said Hodges.
This rugby tournament still hasn’t had a decent surprise result, having instead suffered an abundance of one sided results along the lines of Goliath 70 David 10, the most extreme of which so far has been England 84 Georgia (the one next to Russia – every name except one ending either in -dze or -vili) 10. Rugby is that sort of game. If one team is well on top the points will accumulate. Running over a line with a rugby ball in your hand and planting it down on the ground (in rugby touching down actually does mean touching down) is relatively easy. So, in rugby, upsets are rare, and it only gets really exciting when the teams are pretty evenly matched, as Fiji and USA turned out to be today, and as will be the case in the later rounds of this tournament, but has has tended not to be the case in the early round games now being played. So this Fiji USA game was very refreshing, and I eagerly await the recorded highlights of the game this evening.
In soccer, by contrast, a team can have all the possession and a string of chances, and have nothing to show for it. And then the other guys can run up the other end and score a goal with their one attack. Converting a solid chance into a soccer goal still takes some doing. Even open goals are appallingly easy to miss, as you will know if you’ve ever played this game, and when chances are missed the sturdiest shoulders can drop and underdog spirits can soar.
The Soccer World Cup not so long ago contained many upsets, with France (sensationally beaten by their own ex-colony Senegal) and Argentina, to name two famously strong and fancied teams, both going home after the first round of games. This is one of the many reasons why soccer is now the great World Game, while rugby is not. Soccer minnows can (sometimes) take great bites out of soccer sharks, so the fans of the lowliest soccer nations can still dream of fantasy results with their heroes winning.
Samizdata readers in particular will surely never forget how the mighty Portuguese – sporting no less a person than Luis Figo of Real Madrid – were humbled 3-2 by … plucky little USA.
I went out for a drink this evening and had two, which given my (in)ability to function under the influence of alcohol is the equivalent of more like four or five. So this posting may be erratic and won’t have any links. But it’s been a slow day here, so every bit helps.
I picked up a nice political anecdote while imbibing. It seems that not long ago, Blair’s media enforcer Alastair Campbell wanted the political editor of the Sun, Trevor Kavanagh fired. Kavanagh is the sort of bloke we like and who would like us, and may actually like us for all I know.
So anyway, Campbell invited himself to the office of Kavanagh’s boss, a man called … can’t remember but it may come to me. But this Boss, the editor I assume it must have been, was not as easily intimidated as Campbell would have liked. Because, as soon as Campbell started in on his usual effing and blinding and threatening and carrying on, the Boss pressed a button on his desk, which had the effect of broadcasting all this Campbellising all over the Sun offices. Everyone could hear it, and they were both appalled at its barbarity and amused by its presumption.
The usual description of Alastair Campbell is that he is, or was, a “Spin Doctor”, a job description which implies nuance, subtlety, finesse, and also mental stability and poise. None of that is true. “Attack Dog” would be nearer the mark, and it says a hell of a lot about Tony Blair’s true character that he should have such a bizarre and unbalanced individual as his Number Two, and for so long. Campbell in full flood is apparently a remarkable sound, but this time, it hurt him more than it hurt his victim.
Trevor Kavanagh kept his job. I still can’t remember the Boss’s name for sure, but it may have been Yelland. David Yelland, I think. Commenters feel free to correct me.
As I say, this wasn’t that long ago. Politically, in Britain now, the times they are a-changing.
This looks really interesting, from one of the constantly excellent not-so-political pages of the New York Times:
Monkeys that can move a robot arm with thoughts alone have brought the merger of mind and machine one step closer.
In experiments at Duke University, implants in the monkeys’ brains picked up brain signals and sent them to a robotic arm, which carried out reaching and grasping movements on a computer screen driven only by the monkeys’ thoughts.
The achievement is a significant advance in the continuing effort to devise thought-controlled machines that could be a great benefit for people who are paralyzed, or have lost control over their physical movements.
As seems to be the usual practice nowadays, a technology fraught with general implications for mankind and his ever increasing power to manipulate his environment is first presented as a mere trick to enable cripples to do just a bit less badly. But okay, if that’s what it takes. And I suppose that this is where the first big money for this stuff has come from and the first money-making applications will be applied.
That trivial grumble aside, just think of it … Soon we’ll all be able to put on our Telekinesis 5.2 helmets and do the washing up while still at the office just by thinking about it. We will be able to live our entire lives without ever getting out of bed.
I gave up believing a long time ago that robots would ever be much use at telling themselves what to do other than in the case of totally repetitive tasks like car making. Any job requiring initiative, like pouring out a cup of tea, say, or flower arranging or doing a half decent blog posting, needs a human in charge. If, in the future, Metal Mickeys get to push vacuum cleaners around our houses this will be because real men (well maybe not Real Men but you know what I mean) are operating them in some House Cleaning Control Office nearby.
And now that day is nearer, because our ability to communicate our wishes to the Metal Mickeys just got better.
Great piece by Mark Steyn about the Arnie Californian triumph, making entirely justified fun of the Euro-sneerers.
California’s problem was that it was beginning to take on the characteristics of an EU state, not just in its fiscal incoherence but in its assumption that politics was a private dialogue between a lifelong political class and a like-minded media. It would be too much to expect Le Monde and the BBC to stop being condescending about American electorates. But they might draw a lesson and cease being such snots about their own.
Steyn also makes the point that Arnie won not just with his classically American Immigrant biography, but with his better policies. He says he’ll cut taxes and get the Californian economy moving again. It was policy what did it. This is what the EUro-media don’t get or refuse to get. And they wouldn’t, would they?
Is Arnie telling the truth? In my opinion the best summary of his victory came from an anonymous Californian voter interviewed on Brit TV during the last few days. I have no idea when this was, or for what programme, or what the guy does for a living. But I do remember what he said. He said: “I rolled the dice. Gray Davis was the devil I know, and I know he’s running the state diabolically. Arnie says he’ll do better. I hope he’s telling the truth. My reason for being optimistic is that so far he’s done a damn good job of running his own life with fiscal effectiveness. Maybe he’ll do the same for California. I sure hope so.” Those were not the exact words, but that was the substance of it. It was impeccably logical, utterly clear-eyed. GD was a guarantee of ghastliness. Arnie has been competent being Arnie. Maybe – no certainty was expressed here, only the rational hope – maybe he’ll be competent enough to do what he promises for California. It was a democratic rerun of the Parable of the Talents, in other words. “Thou hast been faithful in a small thing, viz: being Arnold Schwarzenegger, so now we’ll make Master of a Great Thing, viz: Governor of California. And as for you, you idiot, you lose everything.”
If Arnie messes up, as Steyn makes clear, prattling away in a funny voice about how he made good as a funny voiced immigrant won’t save him from public obloquy.
Maybe we at Samizdata.net go on about this Arnie election too much here, when we ought to be telling all you Americans things you don’t know, British things.
Maybe my next posting will be about that Conservative plan to have a locally elected “Sheriff”, instead of every police force everywhere no matter how insignificant being controlled by London, and of how disdainful everyone has been about that. “I mean, my dear, who knows what ghastly people will be chosen?” I say “everyone” will be disdainful. Maybe the voters will quite like it. Although electing a Sheriff is another thing Americans know more about than we do, of course.
I know that we’re not supposed to be this gung-ho about democracy here. But if the choice is between US-democracy and EU-plutocracy – US-democracy being the system that allows body-builders etc. to become plutocrats as well and sort things out if the regular plutocrats do nothing except steal and swank around and mess things up like they do in EUrope – then I say US-democracy is often better.
Big Mother
Here’s another of those Has This Person Been Reading White Rose? pieces, this time by Jemima Lewis in today’s Telegraph:
Some pestilential scientist has invented a device that allows parents to trace their child’s location via his mobile telephone. This is the latest in a rash of new gadgets designed to make sure children never get a moment’s privacy. There is the tracker watch, which uses Global Positioning System satellites to pinpoint a child’s whereabouts (and which, once affixed around the poor blighter’s wrist, cannot be removed without alerting the police). There are similar devices that can be sewn into the child’s clothing or school bag, or – creepiest of all – surgically implanted under the skin. And last month we saw the unveiling of a gadget which, when installed in the family car, reports back to parents where, and how, their child is driving.
It seems extraordinary that, at a time when children’s rights are more loudly invoked than ever before, there is not an uproar over this invasion of their civil liberties. There is no statistical justification for it: children in Britain are no more likely to be abducted by a stranger now than in 1975. It can serve only to foster parental paranoia and make children feel more hounded than ever.
Who would want to be young in the reign of Big Mother?
Often one says at this point: read it all. But that’s all of it. It’s just a diary bit in a longer piece which is about lots of other things as well. So, no need.
Today I received an email from the LSE (that’s London School of Economics) Hayek Society. I’ve been in occasional touch with this operation over the years, and have attended a few of their events, which have always been lively and well organised. It would appear that, this academic year, under the leadership of Nick Spurrell (whom I met again a few weeks ago at the office of the International Policy Network office where he was helping out over the Summer, alongside samizdatista Alex Singleton), the Hayek Society is keeping all this going in fine style.
They have elected a new Committee. Here it is:
President: Nick Spurrell; Vice-President: Lauri Tahtinen; Treasurer: Sarah Meacham; Secretary: Natalia Mamaeva; Financial Officers: Vicky Yuen, Peter Bellini; Events Officer: Szymon Ordys, Louis Haynes, Oliver Dully; Editor-in-Chief: Erica Yu; Co-editors: Michael Chen, Harry Cherniak; PR Director: Daniel Freedman.
Now apart from Nick, I don’t know who these people are whose names I’ve just put up here in lights. But I like it that many of these names are female (Sarah, Natalia, Vicky, Erica), and that many are non-British (Tahtinen, Mamaeva, Yuen, Ordys, Yu). All the non-Brits could just be Americans, but I’m pretty sure that there are more places of birth involved that that. These people are bound to attract lots more people, of lots of types, from lots of faraway places. I mean, if each of them invites four friends … In a university, a mere two or three people can make a huge difference. The Hayek Society already has a definite thirteen, and the year has only just started. Extraordinary.
The Hayek Society has for years now been dosing the LSE with the message of limited government liberalism – liberalism, that is, when it really was liberalism and before the socialists of the sort who infested the LSE during an earlier era got hold of the word liberalism and turned it on its head. And through the LSE, the Hayek Society will dose lots of other places besides in the years to come. Get them when they’re young …
The LSE is an important place and always has been. For good or ill, what they think today, the world thinks tomorrow. And this time around it’s for good.
I don’t believe we picked up on this, from from silicon.com on the 1st of this month.
A “perfectly secure” electronic identity card will be in use in France by 2006, French Home Secretary Nicolas Sarkozy has announced. The card will carry a chip which will combine “the standard type of personal data you get in this type of document and an electronic certification system”. A digital authentication system with a public key infrastructure (PKI) will be used to guarantee the authenticity of the holder and ensure confidentiality.
But when it comes to whether the card will contain biometrics, Sarkozy said it is still too early to tell but underlined that the card is still in the project stage. For Sarkozy, the potential applications for the card are far clearer, however. Citizens will be able to use the card with central government, local authorities as well as businesses, he said.
This next paragraph makes this sound particularly nasty:
The minister also announced that “a strategic blueprint for electronic public services from 2003 to 2007” will be published in the coming weeks. “It’s no longer up to the citizens to come to e-government, it’s up to e-government go to them”, he said.
They’re coming to get you.
But the question of the protection of personal data hasn’t gone away …
No indeed.
There is nothing a power-freak likes better than replacing a muddle with a slab.
Natalie Solent
Here’s a White Rose Relevant speech in the House of Representatives, from April 16th of this year, by Representative Ron Paul of Texas. Apologies if it’s already been flagged up here, but I don’t believe it has. Paul is not the kind of man who gets to decide the law, but his opinions still count for something.
First two paragraphs:
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Patient Privacy Act. This bill repeals the misnamed Medical Privacy regulation, which went into effect on April 14 and actually destroys individual medical privacy. The Patient Privacy Act also repeals those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 authorizing the establishment of a “standard unique health care identifier” for all Americans, as well as prohibiting the use of federal funds to develop or implement a database containing personal health information. Both of these threats to medical freedom grew out of the Clinton-era craze to nationalize health care as much as politically possible.
Establishment of a uniform medical identifier would allow federal bureaucrats to track every citizen’s medical history from cradle to grave. Furthermore, as explained in more detail below, it is possible that every medical professional, hospital, and Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) in the country would be able to access an individual citizen’s records simply by entering an identifier into a health care database.
Cards on the table. The bosses of this blog are out of town, and although they may be able to stick stuff up here from time to time, they may be distracted. I’m one of the people they hope will keep things buzzing in their absence. So I googled a few obvious things like “surveillance” and “privacy” and got little that was new, and then I tried “Freedom versus Security”, and got to this piece at Mr Blog, from way back in August.
Mr Blog has this to say on the matter:
Defining the debate as “freedom versus security” circumvents the question of whether the various proposals, in fact, improve security. Where is the evidence for this assumption that any of these measures can help ensure security?
He then attacks various supposed US security measures on cost effectiveness grounds. This critique is good as far as it goes. Indeed we do not want to hand on to our grandchildren a society bankrupted by a million futile security measures which weren’t. That’s true.
But I think Mr Blog is making a fundamental error of omission here. The really big consequence of framing things as “freedom versus security” is to smuggle past you the notion that “freedom” can never ever be any good for “security”. Yet plainly it can.
If the populus is numbed into a state of brainless inertia by laws that take away their freedom, and which simultaneously promise to create security, then a major source of security, in the form of individuals protecting themselves and each other, may be switched off, and by the very measures which were supposedly going to make us all more secure. The “cost” of “security” measures isn’t only that they cost us a ton of money, or even that they cost us freedom. What if, by costing us freedom, they also reduce security? That’s the biggest problem with framing this argument as “freedom versus security”.
As I have probably said here before, this debate reminds me of the Economic Calculation debate of a hundred years ago, and Mr Blog is just like one of those anti-economic-planning grumblers of days gone by who complained that planning would be more of a muddle and less of a spur to prosperity than pro-planners fancied, and that it would eat up our freedoms to insufficiently good effect. But that was to miss the vital point about prosperity, which was that in order to get it, you had to have freedom. No freedom, no prosperity.
What if security is the same? No freedom, no security. I think it is, and I think that’s true. And I want some latter day Von Mises to write a huge book which proves it.
Mr Blog’s error is all the more distressing because he frames the question so clearly.
The problem with using technology to look after children is that it is liable also, in due course, to be used to look after adults.
As part of writing for this, I occasionally buy the Times Educational Supplement, and on page 5 of the most recent issue (October 3 2003) it says this (paper only):
Pupils will soon be asked for a thumb-print instead of a password to enter internet chat-rooms.
A firm in the north-east of England has spent three years developing a scanner that will make it harder for paedophiles to prey on youngsters via the internet.
Think2gether, which is based in Gateshead, says the scanner is the first secure access system for chatroom users.
For about £30 schools will be able to buy the thumb-print scanner, which is already being used at the South Tyneside city learning centre and in Leicester education action zone.
Alan Wareham, director of Think2gether, said the system had attracted interest from as far away as Singapore.
“The problem is that children often tell other people their password, which is something adults tend not to do,” he said.
“A child can pass on this information in all innocence and the adult can then lon on as that child and pretend it is them using the chat-rooms.
“The scanner removes this possibility by scanning the child’s thumb-print three times before letting them in. We are also developing hardware which will monitor and record conversations in chatrooms, as additional protection.”
As so often when someone is quoted, the last bit is the scariest.
Alice Bachini sincerely wants to be rich.
Hello. While I am on light blogging duties, I thought I would set you all some homework. Regular readers of this blog will have noticed that my quest to become a hard-nosed international millionaire businesswoman is still pretty much in its pre-foetal stages. I have considered many career paths, and various means of propulsion along them, including the possibility of multiply launching the whole set, yet somehow time still feels short (which, as we all know, is merely a conceptual illusion and not a true insight on anybody’s reality), learning still seems really difficult due to the technomoronicism curse, and generally other more urgent things seem to get in the way. You know, things like making toast and gallivanting around London.
Therefore, I am calling upon my readers yet again to offer their suggestions, tips and positive ideas (no need to tell me I’m an idiot doomed to failure, thank you) in a financially-improving direction. Whatever I do has to be extremely flexible, realistic, and clever enough to work for me. And that means clever. But you people are clever, right?
Some calling himself “I’m serious, and I’m too lazy”, supplied this really rather intelligent comment:
Interview the twenty richest persons in the UK. Or set your sights higher, and interview the twenty richest people in the world. Write it all down. Find a publisher. Title it, How the twenty richest people in the world became that way and how they keep it. Or just title it, How? and put a big green dollar sign on a yellow background, or pound or euro if you wish. Put your picture on the back in dark glasses (see above). You will make lots if you find a publisher. Even if not all twenty give you an interview, the reasons why they won’t will make a book that sells. If none of this works at least you will have had fun gallivanting, and you will made some excellent contacts and some good stories to tell your grandchildren. By all means wear those dark glasses and only remove them once you have the interview booked.
Anyone here got anything to add to that? Read Alice’s blog a bit to find out what kind of person she is, and then tell her what to do. (You people are clever, right?)
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
