vanishing, squishy qualifier

>>>>> "kevin" == kevin parker <[email protected]> writes:

  kevin> Hello Kendall, You write [with my comments]: (The funding of
  kevin> computer technology is often provided by the public,
  kevin> especially in the case of the Internet, the Web, and much
  kevin> free software. The costs and risks of development are [often?
  kevin> how often?] borne by the public; 

That sentence is meant as an abstract elaboration of the one before
it; so you can read it like this: "foobar happens often. foobar is the
blah, blah, blah." So in what sense did the qualifier inappropriately
vanish?

Would you say the qualifier vanished in the following:

"Often I get asthma attacks. Such attacks consist of breathing
restriction, chest pains, and anxiety"

??

	 the profits, payoffs, and
  kevin> control of the technology are reaped by corporations and
  kevin> investors [aka, "the public?"]-- neat trick, huh? -- as part
  kevin> of the ongoing corporate assault on (the very idea of) public
  kevin> space.)  --- 

The public that funds is all taxpayers; the public that reaps the
profits of such funding is a much, much smaller part of the
population, roughly, the investor class; say the top 5% of the
country.

	 Of course, exactly what you mean by "often"--and
  kevin> how you back up the claim--is pretty important in this case.

Yes and no. I don't think I have to quantify *precisely* what I mean
by 'often' because my point is that our society being setup this way
*at all* is intolerable. Further, I'm not sure anyone has quantified
it precisely, and I am not an economist so it's not for me to
do. However, the warrant for my claim is important. I'm talking about
a general structural feature of the US economy and, in particular, a
sector-specific feature too. In general public bailouts and socialized
costs, together with privatized profits, put the lie to the claim that
the US has a *market* or capitalist economy. In specific, in the
technology sector of our economy, the federal government's technology
transfer program insures that publicly-funded technology is available
for conversion into private profit. Hence my citing of the Internet,
the Web, and free software -- not an exclusive list, by any means, but
one I and my audience are specially interested in.

If you really just have to have a number to go with 'often', how about
"at least $70 billion"? See NNTC.edu for details.

  kevin> Also that you drop the word "often" in the next sentence.
  kevin> Neat trick.  

Two things: I've explained another way to read these two sentences,
and it's in fact the way I intended them to be read. That doesn't seal
the deal but it's some more information upon which you might reread
more charitably.

But, second, even if you don't take my amended reading, how about just
assuming that I've misspoken? I don't understand why you assume I'm
playing some trick on the reader. I'm not, and, more crucially, I
don't see how you have any grounds for such a claim.

In other words, my point was to enlighten, not to deceive. I'm
probably guilty of *sucking* at it, but that's very different than
playing tricks on the reader.

	 Finally, I think "the public" does a fair job of
  kevin> maintaining control of technology when it wants to.  Ignoring
  kevin> market and PR pressures, there are tools like bans (for
  kevin> cloning), intimidation (for violent games and movies),
  kevin> regulation (for nearly everything), and complex tax codes
  kevin> (for encouraging or discouraging sundry behaviors).  

Again, yes and no. We didn't control the Internet, did we? It slipped
into private hands in the mid-90s before most folks even got to use
it. And, more generally, by "control" I mean actual, in fact
democratic control over technologies the public funds, not the
existence of various formal mechanisms for regulation, some or most of
which are often unused, ineffective, or improperly deployed.

We don't manage to control the defense industry's technology very
well, do we? I suspect most people, given the choice, would not like
America to continue to be the world's leading exporter of weapons,
the development of much of which is funded by taxpayers. Are we
controlling the defense industry? No.

How about the SMDI? I haven't looked at polls, but I suspect that, on
a fair poll, with the issue framed properly, many, if not a majority
of, Americans oppose spending another $30B of their tax dollars on
SMDI when schools and infrastructure are crumbling around their ears.

The examples are legion.

	 That
  kevin> said, I agree--drop the funding and let those who may profit
  kevin> bear the risks with their own money.

I certainly agree that would be a vast improvement over the present
situation.

Thanks for writing.

Best,
Kendall Clark