Rutger Mooy brought up an interesting specific to a more general problem in
his message "QUERY Modelling the Music Industry (SD4034)".
When there is a question
equirement from one group that effects another, it
would be appropriate to allow interested parties to view models, modeling
results, and commentaries.
This should be such a common occurrence that a platform should be available
for all to interact with.
As such, we the people of the earth, would have a more rational basis to
make decisions.
Is there any effort to put such a system on-line?
Ray
From: "Ray on EV1" <rtjoseph@ev1.net>
Modeling for general consumption
-
"Ray on EV1"
- Member
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Modeling for general consumption
I like this! Lets approach them in order.
Q1: Can a model be built for the music industry? As any other business
sector, it can fall prey to modelers. The difficulty lies in determining
the impacts outside of the immediate industry, which is where SD methods
come to play. Of course this is the core of the problem. But the modeling
process will aid the definition of what is being assumed. Sure, there is
money lost from the music industry. But the current solution impacts a lot
more than the current profits of the music industry for their limited scope
of their own business model. So we have at least two problems: The music
industry only takes a limited view of their business opportunities and
welfare of the people in general is impacted. An example of the negative
impact is the loss of intellectual freedom, we can no longer copy
information to study. So we allow the dumbing of America in favor of short
term profits.
Q2: Model secrecy: There are two issues here, private business and
government. Private business can keep secret almost anything they choose.
Governments should hold nothing secret. My first idea is that models should
be held in secret were such provides a monetary advantage. But in this case
(music industry), the public good is being addressed and decision have
been and will be made which impact the legal system and everyone subject to
it. (I put this caveat in because big business seems immune to the legal
system). As such, we must all participate in the modeling process to assure
that our rights and actions are covered. The music industry has lobbied the
government to alter the laws of the nation in their favor. Is this good for
everyone? They used a model. The model may have been mostly mental, but
there was sufficient information on a spreadsheet to suggest that there was
money left of the table - the music industry made a coupe. A forum for
model review would help expose all the issues and make sure that the basis
of any choice is fully exposed.
My second idea (editorial) is that no information should be held secret. If
there is an advantage to a piece of information, then the swift can obtain
short term profits and still allow all to gain. This extends to all
government and military knowledge and actions. It the idea is good enough,
tell everyone and act swiftly. Who was it that stood at home plate and
pointed over the stadium wall?
Q3: Should any decision process which effect others be made public? Every
decision effects others. We may ask to what degree does a decision effect
others. This is such a general concept, it can only be dealt with
philosophically. The best choice is to move to Q1.
Ray
From: "Ray on EV1" <rtjoseph@ev1.net>
Q1: Can a model be built for the music industry? As any other business
sector, it can fall prey to modelers. The difficulty lies in determining
the impacts outside of the immediate industry, which is where SD methods
come to play. Of course this is the core of the problem. But the modeling
process will aid the definition of what is being assumed. Sure, there is
money lost from the music industry. But the current solution impacts a lot
more than the current profits of the music industry for their limited scope
of their own business model. So we have at least two problems: The music
industry only takes a limited view of their business opportunities and
welfare of the people in general is impacted. An example of the negative
impact is the loss of intellectual freedom, we can no longer copy
information to study. So we allow the dumbing of America in favor of short
term profits.
Q2: Model secrecy: There are two issues here, private business and
government. Private business can keep secret almost anything they choose.
Governments should hold nothing secret. My first idea is that models should
be held in secret were such provides a monetary advantage. But in this case
(music industry), the public good is being addressed and decision have
been and will be made which impact the legal system and everyone subject to
it. (I put this caveat in because big business seems immune to the legal
system). As such, we must all participate in the modeling process to assure
that our rights and actions are covered. The music industry has lobbied the
government to alter the laws of the nation in their favor. Is this good for
everyone? They used a model. The model may have been mostly mental, but
there was sufficient information on a spreadsheet to suggest that there was
money left of the table - the music industry made a coupe. A forum for
model review would help expose all the issues and make sure that the basis
of any choice is fully exposed.
My second idea (editorial) is that no information should be held secret. If
there is an advantage to a piece of information, then the swift can obtain
short term profits and still allow all to gain. This extends to all
government and military knowledge and actions. It the idea is good enough,
tell everyone and act swiftly. Who was it that stood at home plate and
pointed over the stadium wall?
Q3: Should any decision process which effect others be made public? Every
decision effects others. We may ask to what degree does a decision effect
others. This is such a general concept, it can only be dealt with
philosophically. The best choice is to move to Q1.
Ray
From: "Ray on EV1" <rtjoseph@ev1.net>
Modeling for general consumption
Rays reply on Rutgers Q on Music Industry modelling is interesting.
It refers to - at least - three questions.
Q1: can we model the Illegal Music Industry (Rutgers initial Q.)?
Q2: if so, should any interested party have access to this modelling
process?
Q3: and more in general: should any decision process, that affects
others, be public?
These Qs presuppose the need for a more rational basis to make decisions.
It also includes the idea that anyone should agree on the pesumption
that decision making
in the field of public interest has to be done by those who are affected
by its outcome: i.e. everyone.
And discussing with everyone is time consuming.
Also, decision making involves the usage of non-rational arguments.
One may object to this, but in practice decisions are (also) based on
emotions.
The Q whether this is good or bad depends on the objectives of the
participants of the discussion.
Another point is that a lot of decision making is done while knowledge
is not (all over) available.
And to a certain extend, a lot of decisions are only profitable if the
knowledge needed to
make such decisions is not publicly available.
In these cases, making public of relevant knowledge is not in the best
interest of those who most of the time
initiate the decision making process in order to profit from it.
And in those cases, in which public knowledge is in the best interest,
it is likely that these discussions take some time
That creates a dilemma:
* select an easy-and-fast-taken decision,
- knowing that you dont know all and
- knowing that not all will know about the discussion and
- that it might be a wrong one
or
* start a selection process
- heading for one of the best possible decisions
- that will take a lot of time
- meanwhile: lets implement the easy-and-fast-taken possibly wrong
decision
So, "the availability of anything to all" is not necessarily the same as
rational decision making or any other type of
decision making.
This dilemma - in general - refers to the Q whether a society is or has
to be based on rational decision making.
Or to put it more philosophically, is the notion of a just society
necessarily based on ratio?
--
Carolus Grütters
Law & IT
http://www.jur.kun.nl
it/
Centre for Migration Law
http://www.jur.kun.nl/cmr/
University of Nijmegen
Nijmegen, The Netherlands
email: c.grutters@jur.kun.nl
tel: +31 (0)24 361.57.01
fax: +31 (0)24 361.61.45
It refers to - at least - three questions.
Q1: can we model the Illegal Music Industry (Rutgers initial Q.)?
Q2: if so, should any interested party have access to this modelling
process?
Q3: and more in general: should any decision process, that affects
others, be public?
These Qs presuppose the need for a more rational basis to make decisions.
It also includes the idea that anyone should agree on the pesumption
that decision making
in the field of public interest has to be done by those who are affected
by its outcome: i.e. everyone.
And discussing with everyone is time consuming.
Also, decision making involves the usage of non-rational arguments.
One may object to this, but in practice decisions are (also) based on
emotions.
The Q whether this is good or bad depends on the objectives of the
participants of the discussion.
Another point is that a lot of decision making is done while knowledge
is not (all over) available.
And to a certain extend, a lot of decisions are only profitable if the
knowledge needed to
make such decisions is not publicly available.
In these cases, making public of relevant knowledge is not in the best
interest of those who most of the time
initiate the decision making process in order to profit from it.
And in those cases, in which public knowledge is in the best interest,
it is likely that these discussions take some time
That creates a dilemma:
* select an easy-and-fast-taken decision,
- knowing that you dont know all and
- knowing that not all will know about the discussion and
- that it might be a wrong one
or
* start a selection process
- heading for one of the best possible decisions
- that will take a lot of time
- meanwhile: lets implement the easy-and-fast-taken possibly wrong
decision
So, "the availability of anything to all" is not necessarily the same as
rational decision making or any other type of
decision making.
This dilemma - in general - refers to the Q whether a society is or has
to be based on rational decision making.
Or to put it more philosophically, is the notion of a just society
necessarily based on ratio?
--
Carolus Grütters
Law & IT
http://www.jur.kun.nl
it/
Centre for Migration Law
http://www.jur.kun.nl/cmr/
University of Nijmegen
Nijmegen, The Netherlands
email: c.grutters@jur.kun.nl
tel: +31 (0)24 361.57.01
fax: +31 (0)24 361.61.45