From extropians-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Sun Mar 21 11:32:15 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA08106; Sun, 21 Mar 93 11:32:12 PST Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: from geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA27036; Sun, 21 Mar 93 11:32:08 PST Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) id ; Sun, 21 Mar 93 14:17:32 -0500 Message-Id: <9303211917.AA12104@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> To: ExI-Daily@gnu.ai.mit.edu Date: Sun, 21 Mar 93 14:16:58 -0500 X-Original-Message-Id: <9303211916.AA12098@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> X-Original-To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu From: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Subject: Extropians Digest V93 #0149 X-Extropian-Date: Remailed on March 21, 373 P.N.O. [19:17:30 UTC] Reply-To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Status: OR Extropians Digest Sun, 21 Mar 93 Volume 93 : Issue 0149 Today's Topics: BRAIN: cell death [1 msgs] BRAIN: expansion [1 msgs] ECON: Conservation's externality [1 msgs] Financial derivatives [1 msgs] LAW: bad idea: offshore credit rating agencies [2 msgs] Law/Soci: The ACLU and privacy [1 msgs] MEDIA: Manufacturing Consent [1 msgs] META: Alternate Society [2 msgs] META: Libertarianism [3 msgs] META: do I make the grade? [1 msgs] META:Re: THEOLOGY Wrong Prefix [1 msgs] Open Invitation [1 msgs] Ownership of Personal Data--and Crypto Data Havens [1 msgs] POLL: Results (fwd) [1 msgs] PPL: Slaves and Hostages [3 msgs] VOTE/ECON: Steinhouse partition [1 msgs] brain expansion [1 msgs] open invite to fellow extropians [1 msgs] room at the bottom [1 msgs] Administrivia: This is the digested version of the Extropian mailing list. Please remember that this list is private; messages must not be forwarded without their author's permission. To send mail to the list/digest, address your posts to: extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu To send add/drop requests for this digest, address your post to: exi-daily-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu To make a formal complaint or an administrative request, address your posts to: extropians-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu If your mail reader is operating correctly, replies to this message will be automatically addressed to the entire list [extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu] - please avoid long quotes! The Extropian mailing list is brought to you by the Extropy Institute, through hardware, generously provided, by the Free Software Foundation - neither is responsible for its content. Forward, Onward, Outward - Harry Shapiro (habs) List Administrator. Approximate Size: 50466 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1993 12:15:27 -0500 (EST) From: Carol Moore Subject: META:Re: THEOLOGY Wrong Prefix Both a recent "meme" thread and the one formerly called "Witch hunts" -- are using the prefeix THEOLOGY. However, theology is the study of theos- or god(s). And that is not what we are discussing here. I think the more appropriate prefix would be RELIGION or some equally broad term. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 93 10:36:23 -0800 From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) Subject: Ownership of Personal Data--and Crypto Data Havens Harry Shapiro writes, regarding an interview he had with Janlori Goldman of the ACLU: >The bad news was they are very much against allowing people to contract >away their "rights to privacy." In otherwords I can agree to, via contract >to like "you" use all my personal "data" [spending, sex life, etc.] >in your marketing database in return for $$$$. Imagine the problems I have with my even more extreme position: if a piece of information about another person comes my way and ends up in my computer data bases, it's mine! No "U.K. Data Laws," no so-called "right to privacy," no need for contracts to "use" personal data. What data bases I compile is my business alone. What I do with the data is also my business alone. (Others may shun me, however, if it becomes obvious I am compiling data bases and selling data about them. Likewise, a store which sells lists of customer purchases may be boycotted. This is the free market at work.) If I hear that someone has defaulted on their past debts, I *use* that information in deciding whether to loan them money, regardless of the so-called "Fair Credit Laws." If I learn that Joe Extropian is a gun-toting Nazi (so to speak :-}), then I'll factor this in to my dealings with him. And so on. As information services develop, I expect I may be able to actually *sell* this kind of information, as reputation pointers, tidbits of info, etc. With crypto anonymity and related ideas, enforcement of laws against selling personal data will be nearly impossible. Offshore or cypherspace-resident data havens will thrive. A classic example: U.S. laws "require" credit records to go back only 7 years. What an insulting idea! If I have information that Joe defaulted on all his debts 10 years ago, am I supposed to erase this record? Ignore it? Not allow this knowledge to influence my decision? How can this be enforced? The answer: the government has effectively "allowed" only a *few* credit reputation agencies--TRW, Equifax, etc. This is through a web of complex laws. And these few agencies are heavily regulated. If Dean Tribble were to try to set up "Dean's Reputation Service--We Deal in Personal Integrity Credit Ratings," he'd likely find so many laws and restrictions, so many grandfathered-in exceptions (for TRW, Equifax, etc.), that he'd never be able to compete openly. (I see a new market for offshore credit rating agencies. Without bogus restrictions, the credit data bank can supply real information to potential lenders, employers, spouses, etc. Then the customer of the data bank can make the decisions with all the facts at hand. If *they* decide that Joe's bankruptcy filing in 1983 was far enough back in the past to ignore, fine. But they won't have some official telling them how far back they can "remember." Such offshore data havens could exist already. As they spread, I suspect "accessing an illegal data bank" may become a new crime. More use for crypto anarchy.) The recent talk about "ownership" of personal data is highly unlibertarian and may lead to a new round of statism. Imagine my computer being raided because it is suspected that I have been keeping "illegal data bases." Will archiving postings be a crime? Will expressing an opinion about another person be an invasion of their privacy? If someone wants to "retain ownership" of personal data, it is up to them to not let it out. Sounds reasonable to me. -Tim May -- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: MailSafe and PGP available. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1993 10:34:49 -0800 From: D Anton Sherwood Subject: META: Libertarianism DRW: > Partly I'm just baiting you to see what you believe. JRK: > Enough said. BTW, wouldn't libernet be a more appropriate place to > discuss the fundamentals of libertarianism? DRW: > Perhaps, but I'd rather discuss them here. > -- > Diplomacy: The art of saying "nice doggy", until you can find a big rock. DASher: Oooooooooooo, META is right: the "bait" thread is becoming self-referential! How soon will Dale start baiting about baiting about baiting? Would the tendency of arguments to become free of their substance and self-perpetuating be a proper subject for discussion (under the Memes rubric)? Anton Sherwood dasher@well.sf.ca.us +1 415 267 0685 1800 Market St #207, San Francisco 94102 USA "Don't forget, your mind only *simulates* logic." -- Glen C. Perkins ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1993 10:34:12 -0800 From: D Anton Sherwood Subject: ECON: Conservation's externality Dale: > Sorry, I omitted the context: In order to avoid the tragedy of the > commons in protecting an endangered species, there must be some way > for the people who expend the effort to save the species to obtain > ownership in the species. Unfortunately, ownership of individuals > doesn't really suffice, because the value of the species is (according > to environmentalist theory) in the *existance* of the species, not in > any particular individual of the species. Perry: > Perhaps I'm just hopelessly thick, or prehaps as you seem to do all > the time you are just baiting us to get a reaction, but it would seem > to me to be crystal clear that the survival of the members of a > species also implies the existance of the species, or, perhaps, would > you have us believe that a species is some sort of platonic ideal that > exists out in the world of thought and cannot be preserved merely by > members of the species? No, silly, he's talking about a positive externality. But I don't see how this externality is different from that of the market-in-general itself -- I benefit from the existence of the idea of Vietnamese food, arguably more than from the existence of particular Vietnamese restaurants in my city, but I don't imagine anyone suggesting that the V-food meme ought to be protected by monopoly. The patent system is meant to encourage the production of ideas, not to assure their preservation. Anton Sherwood dasher@well.sf.ca.us +1 415 267 0685 1800 Market St #207, San Francisco 94102 USA "Don't forget, your mind only *simulates* logic." -- Glen C. Perkins ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1993 10:35:33 -0800 From: D Anton Sherwood Subject: brain expansion Peter: >I suggest that uploaded >brains will grow by having new "neurons" added to them, with initial >plasticity comparable to an infant, and that the plasticity would decrease >to that of an adult human brain as the new "modules" prove useful. Paul: > This is a good suggestion. Along with the 'neurons' though, new function > must also be added (i.e. new target 'tissue') or else the new ones will > lose in competition with the already established and coherently firing old > neurons. Perhaps an entire sensory-cognitive-motor loop is necessary... Must the new "tissue" be tissue (or virtual tissue)? Why not use the new capacity for Loglan or tensors? Each of us lived for a decade or so with (in) a growing brain, not adding target tissue (i.e. growing new s/m nerves) but refining the abilities of those we already had, and acquiring non-physical abilities. Another fnord computer analogy: The biggest functional difference between the 1992 PowerBook on which I write this and my 1986 Mac Minus is the amount of storage (of four kinds). The keyboard is nearly the same; the display is bigger but otherwise similar; I've gained a SCSI port and a built-in modem, and lost the old modem port. Anton Sherwood dasher@well.sf.ca.us +1 415 267 0685 1800 Market St #207, San Francisco 94102 USA "Don't forget, your mind only *simulates* logic." -- Glen C. Perkins ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1993 10:52:35 -0800 From: D Anton Sherwood Subject: META: do I make the grade? > This list was created for the many people actively engaged in building > a future based on Extropian ideas. . . . > This is a list of busy and productive people cooperating to build a > future that is very important to them. . . . > . . . This is a professional place . . . > * Remember that many people on this list are extremely intelligent, > extremely busy, and extremely committed people . . . Not meeting the definition, I feel a bit like a friendly dog in a roomful of humans. I'm not about to challenge Dean/Harry/Perry/Andrea as ESR challenged TCMay, but I invite requests that I sit down and be quiet. Anton Sherwood dasher@well.sf.ca.us +1 415 267 0685 1800 Market St #207, San Francisco 94102 USA "Don't forget, your mind only *simulates* logic." -- Glen C. Perkins ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 93 19:18 GMT From: The Computer Doctor <0005192995@mcimail.com> Subject: open invite to fellow extropians To: extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu From: Pfallon@mcimail.com Subject: Open Invitation If any Extropians attend the "Celebration of Liberty", AKA the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania's 1993 state convention, please stop by the table manned by the Pocono Libertarians and ask for Pat Fallon. I'm always glad to meet other anarcho/capitalist/nootropic-guzzleing/vitamin -crunching/fiscally responsbile socially tolerant/high tech/blues-loving/happenin' hackers from virtual reality who don't believe in copyright laws. The Celebration of Liberty features: Friday, March 26: 7 pm- opening reception w/cash bar-Andrew Gause (owner, SDL Numismatic Investments) "What gov't doing to your money" (meet many of the speakers and several of the nation's top Libertarians for rap sessions that could last long after the bar closes!) Saturday, March 27th: 8:30 am- Marshall Fritz "Reassessing student assessment" 9:45 am- Jonathan Adler (policy analyst, Competitve Enterprise Institute)"Little Green Lies" 10:45am- John Stehle (professor of economics, Villanova) "Customer's choice for public services" You expect to retire someday, do you know where your money is? 12 noon- Peter Ferrera "Social Security:The Fraud in your paycheck" (he wrote the book on SS fraud, and until recently was associate deputy attorney general of the US) 1:30 pm-Murray Sabrin (professor of finance, Ramapo College) "Tax Free 2000" 2:30 pm-Rev. Joseph Kane (chaplin, Rikers Island) "Hazardous substances:America's Drug Laws" 3:30 pm-John Paff of F.E.A.R.(Forfeiture Endangers American's Rights) "Civil Forfeiture: Kiss your assets good-bye." 4:30 pm-Marshall Fritz & Carole Ann Rand (president, Advocates for Self Gov't) "Conversations in liberty" 7:00 pm- John Fund (Wall Street Journal editorial writer) "Prospects for Individual Choice in a Clinton presidency" Sunday,March 28th: 9:00 am-Stuart Westbury (senior VP, Tribrook Group, a health care industry managing consulting firm, former pres & CEO, American College of Healthcare Executives, Chicago) "The cost of health care: who's responsible?" 10:30 am- Carole Ann Rand- "Liberty for a moral, practical society" Speakers and topics subject to last minute changes. There are many payment options. For example, if you have a valid student ID, it's only $2 admission any day (meals not included). Or you can just show up and pay $10 for the Friday reception, $25 for all speakers Sat & Sun. Call 215-264-1921 for more details (or you can try calling me at 717-992-3800 for general info, not reservations). Mike Perrone, author of the "New Jersey Compromise" dealing with "The Pledge" controversy is expected to attend. Also Dean Ahmed, former national LP secretary (I think); Dave Walter, past national chair; Don Ernsberger, long-time LP activist are all expected. So there should be lots of talk about the current LP controversies. And any Extropian who shows up at the Pocono Libertarian table, finds Pat Fallon, and gives the secret Pocono Libertarian signal (extend your index finger, slowly poke your nose) while chanting the Extropian motto "Onward, Upward,Etc." will get, absolutely free, the paper by Peter Duesberg that exposes the HIV/AIDS hypothesis BIG LIE. It's my candidate for the biggest bogosity the gov't is handing us. There will be tables featuring groups like FEE, ISIL, NORML, etc. The perfect opportunity to load up on all thier phamplets. Directions to the site of the LP of PA's 1993 state convention: The new Comfort Suites, 120 West 3rd street, Bethlehem, PA. From the east, north and west: the hotel is less than 4 miles south of Rt. 22, 1 block east of Rt. 378, at the south end of the Hill to Hill Bridge. From the south: take Rt. 309 north through Quakertown, bear right where Rt. 378 splits off, follow 378 north over South Mountain & down the mountain, at the light, take the last right before crossing the Hill to Hill Bridge, the next light is at 3rd street, take a right, then a left into hotel parking lot. Hope some other Extropians make it. ***************************************************************** ******* Pat ("I can beat you in chess") Fallon PFallon@MCImail.com We're all just pawns in the big game of chess, some of us are just in deeper time trouble or We're all just pawns in the cosmic game of chess, but some of us are out of all known lines ***************************************************************** ******* ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 93 14:43:38 -0500 From: pavel@PARK.BU.EDU (Paul Cisek) Subject: BRAIN: cell death Anton Sherwood writes: >Do brain cells ever kill each other off in the normal >course of business? If so, then one program which I call "very slow >uploading" -- replacing neurons only as they die -- may give unwanted >results. During development brain cells are killing each other off left and right (literally (i.e. laterally - sorry, couldn't help myself :) ). Once a system is stabilized cell death slows dramatically. I don't know of any theories that post-developmental neuronal death contributes to functionality in some way, but it does not seem impossible. Thus the point you make is valid. If such cell death is valuable then "very slow uploading" could have some problems. -Paul ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 93 15:23:39 -0500 From: pavel@PARK.BU.EDU (Paul Cisek) Subject: BRAIN: expansion Anton Sherwood writes: >Each of us lived for a decade or so with >(in) a growing brain, not adding target tissue (i.e. growing new s/m nerves) >but refining the abilities of those we already had, and acquiring >non-physical abilities. It's true that we've lived with the same brain for decades without adding target tissue, but we progress toward stability which is undesirable for longevity. The non-physical abilities we gain during this time are probably ultimately limited by the amount of remaining unstabilized brain tissue. >Must the new [target] "tissue" be tissue (or virtual tissue)? Virtual tissue is what I meant. The new implanted synthetic neurons need to receive coherent input in order to survive the competition against the established old neurons. This can either be a copy of the information received by the old neurons or information from a completely seperate system (although I'd suspect the latter choice to be better). So to renew your hand-guidance system you may want to implant a new hand so that the new neurons have something to guide. Then once they have established functionality you can remove both the old motor system and the old hand. But we probably will be more interested in renewing the cognitive systems - this may require a new frontal cortex, new limbic system, new thalamus, new cerebellum (a whole new brain perhaps?). Even so, it may be possible. Of course this is total speculation - to use Perry's analogy: we're primitive men discussing blast furnace design... -Paul ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 93 15:17:22 MST From: hammar@cs.unm.edu Subject: LAW: bad idea: offshore credit rating agencies tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) wrote: A classic example: U.S. laws "require" credit records to go back only 7 years. What an insulting idea! If I have information that Joe defaulted on all his debts 10 years ago, am I supposed to erase this record? Ignore it? Not allow this knowledge to influence my decision? How can this be ... (I see a new market for offshore credit rating agencies. Without bogus restrictions, the credit data bank can supply real information to potential lenders, employers, spouses, etc. Then the customer of the data bank can make the decisions with all the facts at hand. If *they* decide that Joe's bankruptcy filing in 1983 was far enough back in the past to ignore, fine. But they won't have some official telling them how far back they can "remember." Such offshore data havens could exist already. As they spread, I suspect "accessing an illegal data bank" may become a new crime. More use for crypto anarchy.) ...[end of included text].......................................... No rational businessman in the US would even consider using such a database. (Unless he is totally ignorant of the law.) If such a database existed, and it's existance was known (hard to get customers when you can't tell anyone you exist) any time anyone brought a lawsuit concerning credit or anything else that a legal US service wouldn't use, the lawyers involved would routinely include access to it in the questions the ask in the pretrial process. If even one record exists (including a phone bill) showing you used that database _for_ _any_ _reason_ you have lost your case. (Unless you can show in court that the person you refused credit to was such a major risk noone would have lent him anything anyway. Expencive, diffficult, and if the evidence exists, why not get it from a legal database?) Use of a system like this would do little but make a soft living for people who declaired bankrupcy more than 7 years ago. Just apply for credit with a customer of the offshore credit rating agency and sue them for big bucks when they turn you down. The government doesn't need to create a new crime of "accessing an illegal data bank" nor will crypto anarchy help. (Refusal to turn over the requested records, suitably decrypted or with a copy of your key, is contempt of court. Altering the records, or lying about accessing the database is purjory. Going to jail is not good for business.) Neil Hammar hammar@unmvax.cs.unm.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 93 09:15:51 PDT From: Bruce.Baugh@p23.f40.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Bruce Baugh) Subject: META: Libertarianism U > From: drw@BOURBAKI.MIT.EDU U > Date: Fri, 19 Mar 93 15:58:12 EST U > U > Dale Worley writes: U > >Partly I'm just baiting you to see what you believe. U > U > Enough said. BTW, wouldn't libernet be a more appropriate place to U > discuss U > the fundamentals of libertarianism? U > U > Perhaps, but I'd rather discuss them here. Why? This list has some stated purposes. Arguing the fundamentals of libertarianism isn't one of them. It IS a purpose of (to cite one example) alt.politics.libertarian. Do you make a habit of disregarding the purposes of gatherings? Do you do your banking at the supermarket, and buy groceries at the book store? What's your motivation here, and why should any of the rest of us respect it? -- uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!40.23!Bruce.Baugh Internet: Bruce.Baugh@p23.f40.n105.z1.fidonet.org ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 93 09:18:55 PDT From: Bruce.Baugh@p23.f40.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Bruce Baugh) Subject: MEDIA: Manufacturing Consent U > From: sneal@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca (Sneal) U > Date: Fri, 19 Mar 93 16:14:37 MST U > U > Does anyone have any comments on the film "Manufacturing U > Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media"? One of the local rep houses is U > political commentator" that's in vogue these days. Anyhow - can any U > of you suggest whether or not the film is worth seeing? >From my libertarian but only partially extropian point of view, Chomsky is worth disregarding. It's not so much that his facts are wrong (though occasionally they are) as that they are grossly out of context. He is filled with the delusion that competing factions cannot all be wrong at the same time-- that the US's past and present behavior (bad as it has often been) is not entirely sufficient excuse for bad behavior by Khmer Rouge, Sandinistas, and other Soviet stooges. To hear Chomsky tell it, nobody would ever torture or oppress their subjects were they not driven to it by the US. In fact, now that I think about it, Chomsky makes a very good example of entropic thinking: everything happens at the cost of something else, there's no room for expansion. -- uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!40.23!Bruce.Baugh Internet: Bruce.Baugh@p23.f40.n105.z1.fidonet.org ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1993 15:15:38 -0800 From: D Anton Sherwood Subject: room at the bottom I don't often say publicly (for bandwidth reasons) that I like or dislike a particular post, but Dale's of Fri, 19 Mar 93 17:53:00 EST, on the failure of formal rules to replace informal friendships, deserves a dollop of positive reinforcement. There is plenty of room in libertarian thought for concerns like this. Indeed, I have seen libertarians bash the state on such grounds. Formalism is a flaw more of libertarian rhetoric than of libertarian practice, I suspect -- and I don't see how to avoid it, because an argument based on "if only people would be nice to each other" is indistinguishable from those of the Left. So. What kinds of rules favor or harm the formation of informal webs of trust? (Only the connection to the "reputation" and "outlaw" thread-clusters prevents me from saying this belongs in libernet-d.) *\\* Anton ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 93 16:37:29 PST From: visionary@peg.apc.org Subject: POLL: Results (fwd) Hi Harry Sorry i havent kept in touch - been busy on my return to OZ. Just writing to let you know that the feed to APC seems to have dropped back to just the ESSAY list - or activity has been extremely low. Can you advise on this please. Also you were asking about the guidelines inside the APC conf. They are included in the first fe topics and are noted "undeletable". Hope you are well Regards Michael Ney visionary@peg.apc.org ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 93 17:43:20 MST From: sneal@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca (Sneal) Subject: LAW: bad idea: offshore credit rating agencies Tim May: >(I see a new market for offshore credit rating agencies. Without bogus >restrictions, the credit data bank can supply real information to potential >lenders, employers, spouses, etc. Then the customer of the data bank can >make the decisions with all the facts at hand. If *they* decide that Joe's >bankruptcy filing in 1983 was far enough back in the past to ignore, fine. >But they won't have some official telling them how far back they can >"remember." Such offshore data havens could exist already. As they spread, >I suspect "accessing an illegal data bank" may become a new crime. More use >for crypto anarchy.) Neil Hammar: >> No rational businessman in the US would even consider using such a >>database. (Unless he is totally ignorant of the law.) If such a database >>existed, and it's existance was known (hard to get customers when you can't >>tell anyone you exist) Most of Neil's comments about offshore credit/reputation agencies apply equally well to offshore banks. The latter have managed to stay in business and thrive, despite the fact that they can't advertise in the United States. The remainder of Neil's objections, which amount to "if credit bureaus are outlawed, then only outlaws will have credit bureaus" are valid when applied *to US businesses*. Consider, though, that moneylending is a heavily information-based industry, making it very mobile and very subject to the "quicksilver capital" effect. As laws make it more difficult to run a profitable finanial service in the US, the "smart money" will move to jurisdictions where the laws are less onerous (a move which is already well underway). Neil: >>The government doesn't need to create a new crime of "accessing an >>illegal data bank" nor will crypto anarchy help. (Refusal to turn over the >>requested records, suitably decrypted or with a copy of your key, is >>contempt of court. Altering the records, or lying about accessing the >>database is purjory. Going to jail is not good for business.) This is naive. The idea that I can't acquire information without some wily ambulance chaser being able to prove that I did is silly... particularly if I expect a motion of discovery to fall on me at any moment. In any case, I'll just keep my records with the offshore database company, who'll no doubt be happy to have the business. :-) In brief, what I'm trying to say is: as gov'ts continue to pass bogus laws like the Fair Credit Banking Report Fairness Protection Reasonableness Act, sneaky ne'er-do-wells, cypherpunks, and other unsavoury types will continue to evolve ways around them. If you can't get rid of the coercers, then work out ways of not being coerce-able. You can guess who I'm betting on. -- "Steve, S.A." (formerly "U.S. Steve Inc.") -------------------------------------------------------------------- "We don't take kindly to strangers with subpoenas in this here town, mister..." -- Hopalong Cassidy, "The Controlled Foreign Corporation Rustlers" ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1993 19:49:53 -0500 (EST) From: Carol Moore Subject: PPL: Slaves and Hostages If this subject has been discussed to death, please feel free to send me a private message. It is the question of what to do about "hostages" and "slaves" in private communities. I'm all for political decentralism and polycentric law and like to see the strongest possible answers for how to handle problems like the below. * What to do about children who are being abused but don't have the faintest idea what to do to get help (especially when abusers may be telling them their parents will be killed if they do anything). * What if adults are told--sure, you can leave but your child must stay. Something Koresh, father of many kids, may well be doing to a number of women. * Subtle but credible threats of violence against you, your child, your parents, your friends, animals, etc. if you try to leave. * Actual threats of violence and actual violence used against individuals. * What if someone escapes with awful tales of things happening--though nothing has been done to them? If there is no complainant, does that mean those who know that individuals are being held captive can do nothing? ------------------------------ Date: 20 Mar 1993 20:14:37 -0500 (EST) From: KMOSTA01@ULKYVX.LOUISVILLE.EDU Subject: PPL: Slaves and Hostages Dear Carol: before you imply that force of the feds must be brought in, you will need to explain how that force will make things better than they are now. In short, these are bad things, but as in almost all such "what do you do about?" examples of need for government intervention, government only makes things worse. It is not "what do you do?", or "what do we do?" it is "what do I do?" What do you do, Carol? Krzys' ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1993 21:50:27 -0500 (EST) From: Harry Shapiro Subject: META: Libertarianism a conscious being, D Anton Sherwood wrote: > Would the tendency of arguments to become free of their substance and > self-perpetuating be a proper subject for discussion (under the Memes > rubric)? Certainly, the answer is yes. -- Harry Shapiro habs@panix.com List Administrator of the Extropy Institute Mailing List Private Communication for the Extropian Community since 1991 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1993 01:47:53 -0500 From: Alexander Chislenko Subject: VOTE/ECON: Steinhouse partition Anton Sherwood writes: >Sasha: >> Also there can be a case when some people are not allowed to get some >> of the the things (a clause in will saying that the adult video library >> can't go to kids, etc.). In this case we might want to force some bids to >> be 0. But then the kids will not get any compensation for the value of >> the library. I don't know how you can resolve this. >If I know I won't win the vids, no matter what I bid, my incentive is to bid >the moon. How about defining a disqualified bid as the winning bid minus >epsilon? Good idea, but if I am *the only* person allowed to get a certain thing, I'd alway bid 1 penny on it, and others won't get much... >> Also, to avoid overbidding, or underbidding, you can shift all bids >> to their optimal values within the same distribution plan, or allow >> interactive adjusting of bids. >> (Some mechanism would be necessary to ensure convergence of bids; >> there are several simple options here). Anton: >Please elaborate on the whys and hows of these statements. A simple suggestion would be to give a thing to the highest bidder, but count it at the price of the next bidder (+ 1 penny?). This may allow you sincerely put the max. price you are willing to pay - and you will pay a price to which the word 'market' could apply better than in the previous scheme. However, if I know that you value a thing at $1000 (and I may not value it at all), I may declare it worth $700, which will not be the market price. You either will pay $700, and I will win at your expense, or if you try to outsmart me and price it at $600, *I* will get it at $600.01, and we'll both lose. Some iterative scheme of placing the bids could improve the things somewhat; in order to prevent infinite jumping from one price to another, we might want to limit the number of iterations and/or impose some restrictions (such as monotonicity of prices, or decreasing price movements). The total amount of money you might be able to pay can be limited; this may be taken care of in the enhanced algorithm, or, again, you might be allowed to adjust your bids. Also, the division might be unequal, or values may be negative (distribution of debt, chores among kids, etc.). Bisides. participants may form coalitions to change the prices; e.g., the highest bidder A may, in a talk with the [potential] second bidder B, convince B to bid the same amount as C would (or lower), so that A may get the thing at a low 'C' price. Then C will get less compensation from A, and A may pass some of the money saved to B. I don't like the idea that the result of the algorithm can depend on the bidder's tricks, but don't have much to suggest at this point. It is likely that much of this may be incorporated in a simple program that would help people achieve better results in a wide variety of situations, while showing that market-like mechanisms may be superior to 'democratic' idea of fairness as cutting everything in equal parts and giving to everyone regardless of differences in their desires. I think that any further discussion of details makes sense only if we are going to write the software. Do you think it's worth it? r .sig ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Alexander Chislenko | sasha@cs.umb.edu | Cambridge, MA | (617) 864-3382 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Mar 93 10:17:04 GMT From: Michael Clive Price Subject: Law/Soci: The ACLU and privacy Harry Shapiro sez: > and the rich will not (SHE HAS NEVER HEARD OF A MISSER) Me neither. I haven't got a clue what you're talking about. Mike Price price@price.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Mar 93 10:09:04 GMT From: Michael Clive Price Subject: META: Alternate Society Isn't the Accountable Society less of a mouthful than the Accountability Society? So: I, Michael Clive Price, am willing to back up my statements. For this reason, I am henceforward a member of The Accountable Society. > The CHALLENGED member > must then respond to the question within one week with a reasoned > essay of at least 800 words answering the question. The CHALLENGER > must then respond, within a week, to that essay with an 800 word essay > of his or her own, on the topic. Why 800 words? Suppose I say 1 + 1 = 2 and a crackpot member of the Accountable Society challenges. Must I write 800 words? Or less? Just wondering. Don't interpret this as criticism, it's a wonderful idea, just wondering where 800 came from. I challenge Derek Expansion Libertario III to explain where the figure 800 words came from and how he would respond to a challenge to a statement like 1 + 1 = 2 in 800 words. Mike Price price@price.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Mar 93 03:05 PST From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) Subject: Financial derivatives Forwarded from misc.invest. My question: can digital crypto-cash tap into or usurp the function of these markets? NJS --------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Kline (jimk@pulse.com): The financial derivatives market has grown at an amazing pace over the last several years. The March 16th issue of Financial World contains an interesting article about derivative securities; the market for these unregulated synthetic financial instruments has reportedly surpassed $4 trillion. Derivatives can involve the swapping of one currency for another or the exchange of payments from a pool of adjustable rate mortgages for a fixed rate of return. The FW article mentions a swap that is truly popular right now, the inverse floater. This type of complex transaction allows investors to make large profits on a drop in short-term rates. Needless to say, it can also lead to large losses if short-term rates rise. The way I understand it is that an inverse floater involves the following transactions: Dealer X issues a 5 year note that pays investor Y a rate of return of twice the going fixed rate (say 5%) minus a short term floating rate (going T-bill return, ~ 3 1/4%). If short term rates decline, investor Y's return increases, if short term rates increase, investor Y's return decreases. Yields may be enhanced by increasing the amount of leverage; in the example above the investor might want to swap 20 times the going fixed rate for 19 times the going short term rate, i.e., (20*5) - (19* 3 1/4) = 38.25% Given the immense amount of leverage that can be mustered, what would happen if short term rates increased the following year, lets say, by 250 basis points? (20*5) - (19* 5 3/4) = -9.25% Does anyone know what happens if investor Y is unable to pay Dealer X? Also, are there any safeguards in place should Dealer X default? Sounds like this could mushroom quite rapidly. *************************************************************************** * Jim Kline | E-Mail: jimk@pulse.com * * Pulse Communications, Inc. | or * * Herndon, Virginia | Phone: (703)-471-2900 * *************************************************************************** -- Nick Szabo szabo@techboook.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Mar 93 8:54:30 CST From: derek@cs.wisc.edu (Derek Zahn) Subject: META: Alternate Society Mike Price writes: > I challenge Derek Expansion Libertario III to explain where the figure > 800 words came from and how he would respond to a challenge to a > statement like 1 + 1 = 2 in 800 words. Well, in the rules posted yesterday, I changed it to 400 words due to popular outcry. The idea was to make something that's not too burdensome but not trivial either. Note that, were your challenge legal, you would have to respond with 400 words of your own responding to my answer. Since a member must wait two weeks in between joining and issuing a CHALLENGE, the above challenge is not legal. However, as to the 1+1=2 challenge, I'm would either have given a brief lecture on addition or presented a justification of a formal axiom system like Peano arithmatic and then given a proof. I would also point out that challenging "1+1=2" would make the challenged party kind of angry, and makes the challenger look kind of idiotic. That's plenty for 400 words and would only take slightly longer than the few minutes this took. D.E.L. III (aka VRRRROOOOOOOOMMMMMM!) (aka The Joiner) A.S. Member since 3/15 P.S. Member since 3/17 Waiting for invitation to join I.P.S. since 3/19 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Mar 93 08:44:16 GMT From: Richard Kennaway Subject: PPL: Slaves and Hostages Krzys' writes: >It is not "what do you do?", or "what do we do?" >it is "what do I do?" An excellent motto! >What do you do, Carol? But then you break it immediately. Why not tell us instead what you -- er, oops... -- ____ Richard Kennaway \ _/__ School of Information Systems Internet: jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk \X / University of East Anglia uucp: ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk \/ Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K. ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V93 Issue #0149 ****************************************