craschworks / 2002 / April

How to Measure a Mutual Fund's Performance

30-Apr-02

By Bill Barker

http://www.fool.com/school/mutualfunds/performance/measure.htm

You can also measure your fund, once you know its style box categorization, at SmartMoney: Mutual Fund Snapshots. SmartMoney's site has lots of pretty colors and an interesting function that allows you to compare funds with other funds for one-, three-, and five-year periods. To get a good glimpse of how the funds in your 401(k) plan are doing compared to the appropriate index fund, here are the places to compare your funds to Vanguard's style-box-specific index funds:

Small-cap funds: NAESX (Russell 2000 Stock Index)

Mid-cap funds: SPMIX (S&P Midcap 400 Index)

Large-cap value: VIVAX (BARRA/S&P Value Index)

Large-cap blend: VFINX (S&P 500 Stock Index)

Large-cap growth: VIGRX (BARRA/S&P Growth Index)
Vanguard has recently started a mid-cap index fund (VIMSX), a small-cap value fund (VISVX), and a small-cap growth fund (VISGX). However, none of these funds is old enough to provide meaningful information. If you are looking to assess mid-cap funds, it is probably best to compare them to the California Investment Trust S&P Midcap Fund (SPMIX). If you are looking to assess the quality of small-cap value funds or small-cap growth funds, at the present it is probably best to compare your fund with the small-cap blend index funds, such as Vanguard's Small Cap Index Fund (NAESX).

Happy Tax Freedom Day!

27-Apr-02

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday.html

Here's the take home message kids:

“…Americans [in 2002] will work longer to pay for government
(117 days) than they will for food, clothing, and shelter combined (106 days),
write J. Scott Moody and David Hoffman in their report. ” Only in the
last decade have taxes exceeded spending on these basic necessities….”

Washington Bulletin: National Review's Internet Update for
April 26, 2002

http://www.nationalreview.com

By John J. Miller, NR national political reporter

Happy Tax Freedom Day
And many happy returns.

You probably thought you were done paying your taxes nearly two weeks
ago, on April 15–but you really wonít be done until tomorrow.

Thatís because Saturday, April 27 is Tax Freedom Day. This is the day
ìwhen Americans will finally have earned enough money to pay off their
total tax bill for the year,î according to the Tax Foundation, which
calculates Tax Freedom Day annually. April 27 is the 117th day of 2002.

This marks progress over last year, when Tax Freedom Day came on April
29, and also the second year in a row thereís been an improvement. In
2000, Tax Freedom Day fell on May 1, the latest date ever.

The recession and the Bush tax cut explain the improvement. If neither
had occurred, the < http://www.taxfoundation.org/ > Tax Foundation says
this yearís Tax Freedom Day would have fallen on May 4. If Al Gore had
been elected, there still would have been a recession but there would
not have been a tax cut–and Tax Freedom Day would have fallen on May 1.

Much remains undone. At the start of Bill Clintonís presidency, Tax
Freedom Day arrived on April 20–exactly where it was all the way back
in 1969. This may be the real Clinton legacy: In the span of eight
years, he managed to rob Americans of a whole week of their economic
lives every year for the foreseeable future.

ìAmericans [in 2002] will work longer to pay for government (117 days)
than they will for food, clothing, and shelter combined (106 days),î
write J. Scott Moody and David Hoffman in their report. ìOnly in the
last decade have taxes exceeded spending on these basic necessities. In
fact, Americans will work longer to afford federal taxes alone (80 days)
than on any other major budget item.î

Hereís how Moody and Hoffman explain their methodology: ìAll income
thatís officially called income by the government is counted, and
everything the government considers a tax is counted. Taxes at all
levels of government are included, whether levied by Uncle Sam or state
and local governments.î

This means that personal Tax Freedom Days will differ, with place of
residence accounting for much of the variation. Yesterday, for instance,
was Tax Freedom Day in Arizona, Delaware, Nebraska, New Hampshire, and
Ohio. Sunday is Tax Freedom Day in Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

Alaskaís Tax Freedom Day is the first in the nation, on April 8. The
suffering citizens of Connecticut are last to throw off the yoke of
government, on May 14. Only 13 states have Tax Freedom Days that fall
after the national average, but theyíre some of the biggest: California
(April 29), New York (May 6), and Illinois (April 29).

Assuming the economy recovers from recession and there are no further
tax cuts, the national Tax Freedom Day will resume its march into May.
ìThe current tax cuts have just about played themselves out,î says
Moody. ìIn a growing economy, we need a tax cut every year just to keep
bracket creep in check.î

In other words, a prosperous economy bumps people into higher tax
brackets, meaning they surrender a greater share of their income to
government. Moody says it would take a tax cut of about $25 billion each
year just to stop Tax Freedom Day from slipping to later in the year.

ìIn the absence of a double-dip recession, weíll need more cuts and
deeper cuts to continue seeing the improvement of the last two years,î
he says.

Anyone want Oakland A's tickets?

26-Apr-02

One of my officemates has two tickets to the Oakland A's game tonight at 7:00 p.m. He can't use them? Anyone want them? I'm in Los Altos, CA.

Gimme a call at:

650 814 8459

Business As Usual, During Alterations

25-Apr-02

Excerpt from an interesting Slashdot discussion:

Imagine that there was a “duplication device” that could clone whatever you put into it – a watch, a TV, a car, whatever. Imagine it only cost $.20 per use….

Interestingly enough, there was a science-fiction short story published in Analog … exactly along those lines… some alien race dumped a matter duplicater and the plans for it on the human race, with the apparent intent of causing human society to self-destruct. Instead, the humans worked out the obvious solution: since anything could now be duplicated, the only thing that has value is unique originals, and the way to make a living is to design and create unique originals of things.

Ralph W. Slone (writing as “Ralph Williams”), “Business As Usual, During Alterations”, Asounding, July, 1958. Great story.

Constructive criticism?

25-Apr-02

I have a friend who has spent almost a year writing a screenplay.

She's asked me to critique it. It's supposed to be a farce about Silicon Valley. (Think Brazil meets Ally McBeal meets Pirates of Silicon Valley).

I've read the synopsis, and based on that, I'm worried that I'm going to think it, well, stinks.

On the one hand, I want to give honest, useful criticism. On the other, I don't want to crush her hopes unduly. After all, a number of movies that sounded bad initially (I thought I would hate Ghostbusters), I've actually liked.

How does one give gracious, useful criticism?

What if the economics of the real world were like the economics of the digital world?

25-Apr-02

(Note: this was a note I wrote back in October, 2000 in a thread in David K. Levine's Economic and Game Theory Forum. The links below may or may not work.)

Logically, it makes sense that the ability to inexpensively make and
distribute copies of books/movies/music would decrease the incentive
to purchase legal copies, which would in turn decrease the incentive
of the creator to make the intellectual product in the first place. However, I would point out that the empirical evidence to date is mixed on whether Napster has harmed CD sales–for example, see this overview, Does
Napster Harm Music Sales by About.com's Chris Sherman.

Some quotes of interest:

From the article, Napster
boosts CD sales by Lisa M. Bowman, ZDNet News, July 21, 2000.

However, the Jupiter study refutes those charges, saying instead that
people who use services such as Napster are 45 percent more likely to
have increased their music buying than non-users.

On the other hand, from the legal brief,
A&M
Records v. Napster, Inc. United States District Court, Northern
District of California at Gigalaw.com:

However, Jay's overall conclusion was that “[ t]he more songs Napster
users have downloaded,” the more likely they are to admit or imply
that such use has reduced their music purchases.

Even if it could be shown that Napster decreases CD music sales, it is
not clear that the majority of citizens are better off with copyright law.

What if, once someone built Disneyland, anyone could recreate the
“Disneyland experience” almost instantly, almost free, of almost equal
quality as the “live” experience anywhere in the
world? (I think this is a better analogy than the “perfect counterfeit
ticket” scenario, since counterfeit ticket holders would impose additional
operating costs (increased parking lot size, litter, lines) beyond the initial
sunk costs; Napster users impose few, if any, additional costs on the
record companies.)

Assuming that this were possible, would we be better off allowing
anyone to recreate and distribute the “Disneyland experience”, or
would we be better off by granting to the Disney company a legal
monopoly on the right to recreate and distribute the “Disneyland experience”?

One of the primary reasons that I think the legal recognition of
property rights for physical objects is a good thing is that it helps
prevent costly conflicts over inherently limited resources. I'm glad
that there are generally recognized rules to distinguish between
“proper” and “improper” exchanges of material goods–I would hate to
have to constantly defend my car against attempts to take it. In addition, my cars loss would mean sharp curtailment in my ability to travel, and the loss
of substantial fraction of my income.

However, I would be much more nonchalant, if the car cost me five
cents to begin with, and if a car “thief” could
“steal” my car by pushing a button, and creating an exact
duplicate 2000 miles away. Likewise, intellectual objects, once
created, can be duplicated and distributed at relatively small cost
(bandwidth, hard drive space, and operator time), so the argument from
scarcity is much less compelling.

Let's assume that unlimited copying/distribution were legally allowed. The question then becomes, why would Disneyland (or GM), invest in
development to begin with?

As with costs of music production and distribution, were instant duplication of Disneyland
and GM cars possible, I suspect that the cost of creation and
distribution would be dramatically lower than it is now.

However, that still leaves some initial cost to be paid for. And
certain kinds of intellectual products are quite costly to
create–”Titanic” cost >$500 million.

My suspicion is that such products will continue to be able to derive
revenue sufficient to continue to create from several different
sources. For example, a budding new band gives away their first 3
albums. After a while, assuming they are good, they will have a fan base. I expect that they will
then have several potential revenue streams:

advertising (commercial endorsements)
live performance (rock concerts)
convenience (anything that saves time, or reduces the cognitive complexity
of getting the music. For example, Amazon can charge more because
xthey have a reputation for having a wide selection, many people
already have accounts there, and they're easy to use. Similarly with
MP3.com.)
“Pay now, create later” schemes–a popular band refuses to
release their next album, unless 100,000 fans send in $10.
auxiliary products (hats, t-shirts, etc.)

My prediction:

If downstream licensing were eliminated, while you may see a dramatic
change in the structure of the music industry, the quantity or quality
of music (as measured by samplings of music sales/music downloads, and
consumer surveys) available to the consumer would remain the same, but at much
lower cost and with greater convenience.

Aside:

It would be nice if it were legal to use real money to put one's money
where one's mouth is, via Robin Hanson's idea futures market proposal.

Volvo of Desire

25-Apr-02

http://www.nerve.com/regulars/lifeswork/jerk/

I bet some bulls are turned on by their collectors.

I had a colleague who was collecting dairy bulls and didn't even have to have the artificial vagina. They would recognize his car. He'd drive up, and the bulls would be standing at the breeding stations, getting erections just from the sight of his Volvo.

Amid the sprawling agricultural landscape of California Polytechnic State University, fifty-year-old Dr. Steve Wickler is teaching his students about animal anatomy, equine physiology and the diseases animals can give to humans. He's also about to show them how to excite a 2,000-pound bull and collect its ejaculate. — Ross Martin

So how do you make a bull come?
Manually, using artificial vaginas. You can train bulls to recognize you walking up with it. They'll get an erection and mount almost on command.

This artificial vagina, is it rubber?
There's one called the Missouri AV, which has a leather outlining with a plastic intersleeve. The Colorado AV is plastic. You fill the space between the waterproof lining and the outer shell or jacket with warm water. Just as you might imagine with humans, part of it is getting the temperature right, and part of it is getting the friction.

How do you get him in the mood?
That's a big issue. First you need to have the female in “estrus,” the period in which she is reproductively receptive. The bull will put his muzzle on her hindquarters, come up and lick the vaginal area.

So then what, you fake him out?
When he starts to mount her, you interfere and grab the penis. Once they've kind of initiated the moaning and reflex, they'll jump up, you divert the penis into the artificial vagina, and they pump away.

Do you wear hockey pads to protect yourself?
We wear a collecting helmet. Having a 2,000-pound bull stomping around is scary. Their forelimbs are up on the female, they start dancing as they try to have intercourse. You've got to watch the penis and their feet or they'll step on you. I'll tell you, that'll ruin the moment.

Do they mind your being there?
No — it's really quite amazing — once they start. But they're conscious of having people around. It may be very difficult for them to get into the mood if they're not used to it.

Some airports in Europe blast Aretha Franklin on runways to scare away pigeons. I'd think you'd want the opposite effect, you know, maybe some Al Green?
Did I just hear that on the news the other day, that they were using Al Green — no, Barry White — for some shark reproduction? It doesn't surprise me.

How long does it take the bull to ejaculate?
Seconds.

Do you have to do some of the pumping or does he do all the work?
He does. You're mostly concerned with keeping the artificial vagina close to the penis.

And steady.
When it's 2,000 pounds thrusting, the concept of steady is relative.

Once he ejaculates, do you have to get every drop?
You don't have to be that comprehensive. It's a very forceful ejaculation. There's a collection tube at the end of the vagina so you can see the material going in.

How long is a bull penis, anyway?
Well, they make walking sticks out of the sigmoid flecture. So, you know, a meter?

Do you wear gloves?
Yeah, mostly to prevent you from contaminating it.

Bull semen is even sold online. How do you establish quality?
You actually quantify. There are automated optical methods for measuring motility. We determine what percentage of the population of semen are moving away or moving in a straight line. Some semen spin in circles and that's less likely to be effective sperm. You look at sperm morphology. Are they normal? Do they have a normal head, normal tail, normal mid-base piece? The total volume is ten cc's. And of those sperm, ninety percent are progressively motile.

The alternative to the artificial vagina is called “electro-stimulation”?
Yes, a rectal probe goes over the accessory sex glands but sits close to the nerve bed of the spine. If I provide some artificial electro-stimulation, I can produce the same ejaculation reflexes they get normally. You put in an electrical current; they get an erection, they get pre-semen, then they ejaculate. Generally, if you use an artificial vagina, you get a very clean sample, higher concentrations of sperm. Whereas with electro-ejaculation, you don't get nearly as pure a sample.

How do you make this fun for students?
With the difficulty of talking about sex, when you do it in a very clinical setting, the students are really enthralled. I point out that it's important for assessment of their reproductive soundness. Everything that is happening is physiologically explainable and it's anatomical and so they kind of see the whole process. It's really quite wonderful.

Have you learned anything about sex from your bulls?
I would say no, but I haven't taught them anything about it either.

Has your wife ever tried to collect? Not from you, but a bull, I mean.
I don't know, I've never asked her. She's very familiar with the technique, though.

What's a bull like after he orgasms?
Hard to tell any difference.

He doesn't get standoffish or want to take a nap?
He's not like, “Okay, well, now let's go eat.”

I bet some bulls are turned on by their collectors.
I had a colleague who was collecting dairy bulls and didn't even have to have the artificial vagina. They would recognize his car. He'd drive up, and the bulls would be standing at the breeding stations, getting erections just from the sight of his Volvo.

War Prayer

23-Apr-02

“O Lord our Father,

Our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle — be Thou near them!

With them — in spirit — we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe.

O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells;

help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead;

help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain;

help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire;

help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief;

help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it;

For our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet!

We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts.

Amen.”

From The War Prayer by Mark Twain via Flutterby

In search of Methuselah: estimating the upper limits to human

21-Apr-02

Olshansky SJ ; Carnes BA ; Cassel C

In search of Methuselah: estimating the upper limits to human
longevity.

Abstract: Estimates of the upper limits to human longevity have
important policy implications that directly affect forecasts of
life expectancy, active life expectancy, population aging, and
social and medical programs tied to the size and health status of
the elderly population. In the past, investigators have based
speculations about the upper limits of human longevity on
observations of past trends in mortality. Here the estimate of
the upper bound is based on hypothesized reductions in current
mortality rates necessary to achieve a life expectancy at birth
from 80 to 120 years and an expectation of life at age 50 from 30
to 70 years. With the use of conditional probabilities of death
from complete life tables for the United States, reductions in
mortality required to achieve extreme longevity (that is, 80 to
120 years) were compared with those resulting from hypothetical
cures for all cardiovascular diseases, ischemic heart disease,
diabetes, and cancer. Results indicate that in order for life
expectancy at birth to increase from present levels to what has
been referred to as the average biological limit to life (age
85), mortality rates from all causes of death would need to
decline at all ages by 55%, and at ages 50 and over by 60%. Given
that hypothetical cures for major degenerative diseases would
reduce overall mortality by 75%, it seems highly unlikely that
life expectancy at birth will exceed the age of 85.
Science 1990 Nov 2;250(4981):634-40

Liberty for Women: Twenty-First Century Feminism

20-Apr-02

I'm planning to go to this:

WENDY McELROY TO DISCUSS LIBERTY FOR WOMEN (San Francisco, Thursday,
May 2, 2002)

http://www.independent.org/tii/forums/020502ipf.html

Individualist feminist author WENDY McELROY (research fellow, The
Independent Institute; columnist, FoxNews.com) will discuss her new
Independent Institute book, LIBERTY FOR WOMEN: Freedom and Feminism
in the Twenty-First Century
(http://www.independent.org/tii/catalog/cat_LFW.html), at an
Independent Policy Forum, co-sponsored by the Commonwealth Club and
Charter 100, at the World Trade Club in San Francisco on Thursday,
May 2.

Ms. McElroy has pioneered the chronicling and defining of
individualist feminism through her numerous books and essays, which
span the history and current issue of women's issues. LIBERTY FOR
WOMEN offers a vision of contemporary feminism that asserts the
rights of consenting adults to their own sexuality, opposes
censorship, and defends every woman's right to self-defense. This new
vision supports unhindered expressions of individual choice in
economic well-being and employment, sex and abortion, the family,
technology, and much more. “Choice” is the key, and every woman's
choices and expressions of self-ownership must be equally and legally
respected, from housewives to CEOs. In so doing, McElroy will also
argue that every woman's choices and expressions of self-ownership
must be equally and legally protected.

WHO:
WENDY McELROY* (Research Fellow at The Independent Institute;
columnist, FoxNews.com; editor, LIBERTY FOR WOMEN: Freedom and
Feminism in the Twenty-First Century)

WHEN:
Thursday, May 2, 2002
6:00-8:00 p.m.
Program 6:30 p.m.
Dinner (optional) 7:30 p.m.

WHERE:
World Trade Club
1 Ferry Plaza (off Embarcadero),
San Francisco, CA
For a map and directions, see

http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?country=US&address=1+ferry+plaza&city=san+francisco&state=ca&zipcode=&homesubmit.x=46&homesubmit.y=10

TICKETS: $32 per person (program and dinner). $9 (program without dinner).
To purchase tickets, please contact:
The Commonwealth Club
595 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-597-6700
Fax: 415-597-6729
Email: [email protected]

*WENDY McELROY is a Research Fellow at The Independent Institute. Her
other books include Freedom, Feminism and the State; Sexual
Correctness; The Reasonable Woman: A Guide to Intellectual Survival;
Dissenting Electorate: Those Who Refuse to Vote and the Legitimacy of
Their Opposition; Freedom, Feminism, and the State; Queen Silver; and
Liberty 1881-1908: A Comprehensive Index. Ms. McElroy was Series
Editor for Knowledge Products' popular audio-tape series, The World
of Philosophy, The World's Political Hot Spots, The United States at
War, andThe United States Constitution, and she authored the scripts
for Vindication of the Rights of Woman, The Liberator, Civil
Disobedience, and Discourse on Voluntary Servitude in the Audio
Classics Series. A weekly columnist for FOX News.com, she is a
contributing editor to several periodicals, the author of numerous
articles in various magazines and scholarly journals, and the editor
of the popular feminism site, ifeminists.com.

Acclaim for LIBERTY FOR WOMEN: Freedom and Feminism in the
Twenty-First Century, edited by Wendy McElroy:

“This provocative book powerfully demonstrates that feminism is
neither monolithic nor homogeneous. The interesting and thoughtful
opinions represented here deserve broad dissemination. I hope LIBERTY
FOR WOMEN becomes a must-read in every women's studies program in
America, and for anyone who is interested in issues of equality and
sexual politics.”
– CHRISTIE HEFNER, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Playboy
Enterprises, Inc.

“Mainstream feminism long ago ran into a variety of false trails and
blind alleys . . . . LIBERTY FOR WOMEN offers just the sort of
intellectual barbs so sorely needed to jolt a near corpse back into
life.”
– ALEXANDER COCKBURN, columnist, The Nation and Los Angeles Times

“LIBERTY FOR WOMEN is likely to provoke both left-wing feminists and
right-wing traditionalists. It is lively and provocative and adds
immensely to the debate on the role of women in contemporary life.”
– LINDA L. CHAVEZ, President, Center for Equal Opportunity, and
former Director, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

“There is an unwritten rule among many feminists: Only women on the
political left have the right to interpret the lives of women. This
unique and important, new book breaks that rule and provides an
excellent forum for civil libertarian thinkers. LIBERTY FOR WOMEN is
a matchless book on the most important issues facing women now and in
the future.”
– CHRISTINA HOFF SOMMERS, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise
Institute; author, Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women

“LIBERTY FOR WOMEN is a marvelous, incisive, and much-needed book
demonstrating that unorthodox feminists are alive and well outside
the rigid confines of women's studies programs. This intelligent and
challenging book has an important role to play in both classroom and
public policy discussions.”
– DAPHNE PATAI, Professor, University of Massachusetts; author,
Professing Feminism, Women's Words : The Feminist Practice of Oral
History, Brazilian Women Speak: Contemporary Life Stories, and
Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism

“The divisions between libertarian and liberal feminists are not neat
or especially consistent (the ideological divides are more readily
summarized). Some women champion free markets but not free speech.
Some (like me) favor free speech but not free markets. Some, from
both camps, want to decriminalize prostitution, while others believe
in prohibiting it. Differences like these — the complexities of
women's lib — invigorate this important book, LIBERTY FOR WOMEN. Few
feminists will agree with every contribution to it; the contributors
probably disagree fairly often with each other. But they share a love
of liberty that the feminist movement should have the courage to
embrace.”
– WENDY KAMINER, Senior Editor, The American Prospect; Contributing
Editor, The Atlantic Monthly; commentator, National Public Radio

“LIBERTY FOR WOMEN is a superb and stunning assemblage of clear-eyed
feminist thinkers. They have staked out the intellectual free-center
that clears an avenue between the radical authoritarians of the far
left who want to regiment a collectivist conformity and those of the
far right who aim to impose a rigid 1950's consciousness.”
– SALLY SATEL, W. H. Brady Fellow, American Enterprise Institute;
author, PC, M.D.: How Political Correctness Is Corrupting Medicine

“LIBERTY FOR WOMEN shows how feminism has evolved from simplistic
ideological doctrine to a more relevant and sophisticated analysis of
the choices open to women at the dawn of the 21st century. Leading
intellectuals offer cogent insights about major issues of concern to
women. The volume can also be a useful guideline for women facing
similar issues in other countries. I strongly recommend the book to
everyone who is interested in a more fundamental approach to
feminism.”
– GUITY NASHAT, Professor of History, University of Illinois at
Chicago; author, Women in the Middle East: Restoring Women to
History, Middle Eastern History, and The Economics of Life: How
Real-World Issues Affect Our Everyday Lives (with Gary Becker)

For more about this event, see

http://www.independent.org/tii/forums/020502ipf.html

For more about LIBERTY FOR WOMEN, see

http://www.independent.org/tii/catalog/cat_LFW.html

craschworks

Contents

RSS Feeds

Search

Categories

How to Measure a Mutual Fund's Performance

30-Apr-02

Happy Tax Freedom Day!

27-Apr-02

Anyone want Oakland A's tickets?

26-Apr-02

Business As Usual, During Alterations

25-Apr-02

Constructive criticism?

25-Apr-02

What if the economics of the real world were like the economics of the digital world?

25-Apr-02

Volvo of Desire

25-Apr-02

War Prayer

23-Apr-02

In search of Methuselah: estimating the upper limits to human

21-Apr-02

Liberty for Women: Twenty-First Century Feminism

20-Apr-02