From extropians-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Thu May 6 17:57:34 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA13624; Thu, 6 May 93 17:57:31 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: from churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu) by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA05015; Thu, 6 May 93 17:57:25 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) id ; Thu, 6 May 93 20:46:10 -0400 Message-Id: <9305070046.AA06676@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu> To: ExI-Daily@gnu.ai.mit.edu Date: Thu, 6 May 93 20:45:51 -0400 X-Original-Message-Id: <9305070045.AA06668@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu> X-Original-To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu From: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Subject: Extropians Digest V93 #0247 X-Extropian-Date: Remailed on May 7, 373 P.N.O. [00:46:09 UTC] Reply-To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Status: OR Extropians Digest Fri, 7 May 93 Volume 93 : Issue 0247 Today's Topics: CRYO: What's so bad about human body farms? [1 msgs] CRYPTO: Steganography Part II [1 msgs] EXI: New phone number. [1 msgs] Extropy ownership [7 msgs] Hiding Messages in Files, was CRYPTO: Steganography Part II [2 msgs] LIFE-X: cryonics [2 msgs] Meta: Judement(s) [3 msgs] Meta: Judgment Metzger vs. Moore [1 msgs] Schelling point for cash balances [1 msgs] Subscribing to Extropy [1 msgs] TECH/WACO: Computer Simulation [1 msgs] free banking [3 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: 50439 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 6 May 93 4:12:15 PDT From: more@chaph.usc.edu (Max More) Subject: EXI: New phone number. EXTROPY INSTITUTE MOVES Extropy Institute is moving from war-torn central Los Angeles to relatively peaceful Riverside, 60 miles to the East. No new mailing address is available yet - I will announce it as soon as possible. I will periodically go to L.A. to check the current PO Box, though most mail should be forwarded. So don't worry about sending mail to the old address at PO Box 57306, LA, CA 90057. The new phone number *is* known. The current number will be cut off on Monday May 10, at the same time as the new one is activated. Calls to the old # will be forwarded (good thing too, with the inquiries due to the WIRED piece keeping on coming). Here it is: Extropy Institute: 909-688-2323 I picked the last four digits to give Illuminati fans more fuel for fun. Extropy Institute is really the hidden power behind all the conspiracies to overthrow human limits. :-) Teaching now being behind me, I should be able to post to the list more often. Major projects are brewing at ExI, and I will be letting you all know about them - but not until ExI members, who give us the support we so urgently require, receive their reports first in our newsletter EXPONENT. One thing I will announce now, and to which I am definitely committing is this: EXTROPY will be published QUARTERLY instead of twice per year, beginning with #12 in January 1994. Upward and Outward! Max More more@usc.edu President Extropy Institute Editor EXTROPY: The Journal of Transhumanist Thought ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 May 1993 08:57:45 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: LIFE-X: cryonics X-Reposting-Policy: redistribute only with permission Nick Szabo says: > > [Concering "going neuro", based on the assumption that cloning et. al. > will be possible before freezing damage repair] > > Nick Szabo: > > > Furthermore, we just can't say how hard curing cancer, aging, > > > or cloning a body will be. > > Perry Metzger: > > Yes we can. > > *You* apparently can, but based on very scant biological evidence. Thank you for deleting my entire argument, and ignoring it to boot. We can say, pretty much for sure, that to fix the damage to cryonics patients frozen with current techniques requires advanced nanotechnology. The damage caused just by the freezing is extensive and is on the subcellular level. Given that we will need advanced nanotechnology capable of doing things like fixing the endoplasmic reticulum of an individual cell just to fix the freezing damage, little things like removing tumors seem to be trivial by comparison. I see no reason to expect that with a sledghammer capable of driving iron spikes that one couldn't smash a pane of glass. Similarly, if you have a technology that can take individual cells that have been torn apart, recognise all the parts and put them back together again, fixing molecular bonds all the while and resynthesizing missing parts of the cell, and do it for virtually all the cells in the entire brain, it is rather unlikely that the task of finding cancer cells and destroying them would be a challenge. > More of the evidence that exists (not much, we're both whistling > in the dark) is on the flip side. We already know how to freeze and thaw > neurons of several manifestations (drosophila embryos, nematodes, > etc.) in a very low-tech way, fully recovering function and memory. Who cares? This is not germane in the slightest. The point is that I am signed up for cryonics RIGHT NOW, to be frozen with CURRENT cryonics technology. Current cryonics technology for humans sucks the big one -- it causes extensive cellular destruction throughout the brain. It is, of course, better than rotting, but thats not the point -- the point is that anything that can fix CURRENT destruction done to the brain will almost certainly be able to fix what will then seem like trivia such as cancer or cloning a new body. Were true suspended animation technology available for humans, certainly neurosuspension would then seem stupid. On the other hand, it is not currently available, so your argument no longer makes sense. > > > On the other hand, freezing damage might > > > be repaired with, for example, neural growth factor hormones, > > > neural transplants, and designer enzymes combined with the > > > brain's own repair machinery, long before the era of cell > > > repair machines. > > > > No, it cannot. Period. I'll bet $15,000 on the proposition that > > nothing short of generalized cell repair machines will bring back > > people frozen with today's technology. > > At what odds? You are arguing as if you think you are surely > right ("it cannot. Period."), so surely you are willing to bet at, say, > 10:1 odds. Quite likely, yes, but at those levels the amount I would win would not make it worthwhile to place the bet because of the costs of verification. I don't have $150,000 around -- if I did I'd bet them, and at 10 to 1 odds, so sure am I on this point. (I do not offer to wager money I do not possess.) On the other hand, see below... > If the odds are closer to even then you have conceded that > your order-of-technology may well be wrong, which means that your argument > for going neuro may be wrong. I'm willing to bet you at 1:1 if > you concede that your argument has a 50% chance of being wrong. I'll willingly bet you at 10:1 if you will place a time limit on the development of the technology -- that is, if you agree that you have lost if no one develops such a technology within the next ten years, and if you are willing to make your bet in gold bullion rather than dollars, and if you can assure a way to keep the verification costs low enough that the $1500 equivalent isn't substantially eroded. I would also require that we make the bet pro forma in a jurisdiction that considers gambling to be legal and which will enforce gambling contracts. > Just because some brains have had most of their cell membranes ripped > open does not mean (a) this is true for all freezing protocols -- > clearly it It is true for the only freezing protocols that count, which are the ones we have available for humans today. This is NOT an academic exercise. There are hundreds of people signed up for this proceedure TODAY, myself included. We have to make our decisions not on the basis of what might happen but on the basis of what will happen, and were a terrible accident to occur and were I placed in suspension tomorrow, the current protocols, not some possible future protocols, would be used. > Furthermore, it is entirely possible > that we will develop a non-general, biotech based system that can repair > ruptured cell membranes; this may be easier than a "generalized cell > repair machine". I cannot imagine how a biotech system could possibly operate. If you warm the patient to the temperatures required for such a mechanism to work, brownian motion and the action of nasties like ruptured cell lysosomes will destroy all the information that was preserved by the freezing process, likely more information than you can afford to lose. Furthermore, I cannot think of how you could engineer a biotech system to do what would be needed without the system resembling strong nanotechnology so closely as to be indistinguishable by any reasonable definition -- that is, the biotech would have to be capable of doing things like fully arbitrary molecular synthesis and would have to do wide ranging coordination far beyond what individual enzymes or cells can do. > > I feel confident in making some such statements. > > A fundamentalist feels confident when preaching The Word. I base > my decisions in these matters as much as possible on scientific > knowledge, not on faith or opinion, however confident. I'm sorry, but thats not the case. You are not the one with the science on your side, I am. I don't think you've even thought about the problem -- mentioning using primitive tools like enzymes or hormones to fix nerve cells that have been shattered in brains without functioning circulatory systems in patients you can't afford to warm up without some sort of stabilization bespeaks far more scientific ignorance than I have displayed. > > No one is PREDICTING here. > > Nonsense. You just offered a bet with me over a prediction that > a certain technology will be required for a certain taks. You took my statement out of context -- again. No one is predicting that cureing cancer requires nanotechnology -- I merely noted that a nanontechnology capable of repairing shattered mitochondria could handle cancer without flinching. Your complaint was that I was "predicting" an order in which technologies would be developed. I made no such prediction -- I merely noted that if you have a sledghammer panes of glass are not a problem -- not that you need sledgehammers to break panes of glass. > You also > are saying that technology A will occur before B, a prediction, No. I am sayin that given A you can do B, not that B might not be possible by independant means. You didn't read a word I said, did you? > I look on life-extension as an investment portfolio. On the > low-risk, low-payoff side there's anti-oxidants, calorie & protein > restriction, etc. On the high-risk, high-payoff side there's cryonics. Again, you are displaying what you accuse me of: ignorance. The chemistry set I swallow every morning and my gym membership cost me $500 a year or more -- If I didn't use a company subsidized gym the number would be closer to $1000 -- I haven't yet done the full calculation. Cryonics costs me around the same amount -- the risk levels in terms of costs are nearly identical if not better.. > Going full-body gives all the advantages of going neuro, if it's done > right, except for the costs. Costs are significant. I'd rather have $100,000 in overfunding than no overfunding -- keeping me preserved is more significant to me than having a full body around. My overfunding goes into a cryonics research trust thats earmarked for me if the rest of funding runs out. I doubt the full body will get repaired anyway. This, for once, is just a vague guess, but I suspect it isn't worth while fixing all the cells in your old body when the only ones that count are really neurons. > It may also preserve > crucial information lost by going neuro, as I argued in my previous > post, I seriously doubt it. Why? Well, thanks to the brain/blood barrier, precious little in the way of chemicals gets to your brain -- likely a very well understood set of compounds by the time we are able to fix freezing damage. Your adrenal glands don't store information -- either they release their chemicals or they don't. Peripheral nerves seem completely insignificant to personality -- quadraplegics are unhappy people, but still seem like the exact same people minus their bodies. Your guess seems to be that the amount of information stored in the body is significant -- but I can't think of what that information could be. Certainly twins have shown that your glandular and similar structures are all coded for in your genes. Possibly some small amount of motor reflex information is of minor significance, but quadraplegics show it has nothing to do with personality or personal memory so I can do without them. Just as a side question, for all your pronouncements, Nick, are YOU signed up? Perry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 May 93 10:57 EDT From: "Andrew I Cohen" Subject: CRYO: What's so bad about human body farms? Edward J OConnell recently wrote about the possibility of growing human bodies and keeping them from developing cognitively. In the science fiction story he refers to, those physically mature human bodies could then be used for harvest by others com> in need. > > The boy grew up in a garden, with no human contact; no language, the idea > was for him to be kept as subhuman as possible, because when he reached > maturity, they planned on lopping off his top half, and throwing it away. > > This low tech solution--artificial insemination with clone ebryo, which is > gestated and grown to maturity in real time--is of course, morally > repugnant. Which doesnt mean it wont happen, of course! But I dont' think > that the tech will evolve this way, really. > > We could tinker with this, keeping the child in total sensory > deprivation--tube feeding and robot assissted isometric excersize, thought > paralyzing drugs, etc, but it's still ugly. > I'm not so sure I see what's ugly about all this. What is it about such entities that gives them the moral standing to make all that objectionable? They are little more than blobs of well-organized protoplasm. They have no capacity for self-originated action, nor are they conscious of the world in any more than a very rudimentary way. They have the _potential_ to develop into something more, sure. But big deal. So do sperm, so do ova, and so do zygotes. Do we want to assign moral standing based not on actual characteristics but the potential to develop them? Maybe. . . . but we'd need to be very careful about doing so. These human bodies are the moral equivalent of animals or zygotes. They are, I would suggest, not _persons_ at all but are living human bodies (without rights, without moral standing, etc.). Yes, yes, I realize the implications of my position regarding infanticide. I'm prepared to bite the bullet. > One could imagine a legal system in which it was sanctioned. I own my DNA > patent, and my own wetware, and anything that springs from it is mine to > do with as a please. If I'm a sadist/masochist, I could conjure up a whole > plantation of selves to rape and torture, and no one could say me nay... > Sort of ties into the abortion debate, in a way, at one point is something This is interesting. This way, we can allow for human bodies to have some moral standing. We can admit that being a potential person is of some moral value (hooray!). But, using this line, we can say that considerations of ownership outweigh the moral considerations regarding potential personhood. Then we'd just need a full-blown argument about how we do own our own wetware. Also interestingly, Ray Cromwell, commenting on this piece, said that we have the knowledge to produce infants with micro-cephalus (under-developed brains). This would presumably avoid all the objections over keeping otherwise healthy bodies from developing normally. Notice, however, that this is vulnerable to the same (IMO, unfounded) objections: in Ray's scenario, you go into the womb and tinker with a fetus and keep it from developing those physical structures that might give it the ordinary make-up of a (baby) human/person. If that makes people feel better, than that might be the best public policy. Morally, however, I think there is little difference between inducing micro-cephalus and deliberately retarding development. And, look, if it keeps me alive, and no _person_ is getting hurt, then good for me. Besides, my near-sightedness has been worsening recently. . . . Andrew Cohen uandcoh@uncmvs.oit.unc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 93 12:15 EDT From: kqb@whscad1.att.com Subject: CRYPTO: Steganography Part II Summary: My proposal for hiding a message in parity bits has some flaws, but they (probably) can be overcome by using error-correcting codes. In my previous message I proposed disguising the existence of a hidden (compressed and encrypted) message by modifying a public text so that the parity bits of N bit blocks match the bits of the hidden message. I see two problems so far: (1) the mechanisms for modifying the text (transformational grammars) may not be flexible enough to enable insertion of the hidden message for reasonably small N, and (2) the statistics for bits of the hidden message may not match the statistics for the parity bits of N bit blocks of normal English text. Problem (1) can be overcome by using an error-correcting code and (probably) problem (2) can, too. Problem (1) Suppose that an N-bit block can be expressed four different ways (by using transformational grammars). Assuming that for each of those four possibilities, the probability of a parity of 1 is 1/2 and the probability of a parity of 0 is 1/2, then the probability that you cannot express the parity bit that you want will be 1/16. (As Phil Goetz pointed out to me, the probabilities likely are not 1/2 and 1/2, since not all characters are equally probable in English text, but I'll use 1/2 here to make the argument simpler.) What does one do in this case? One possibility is to give up and choose a much larger N to greatly increase the number of possible expressions and thereby reduce the probability of failure from 1/16 to something vanishingly small. That would greatly increase the size of the public text needed, though. A better approach would be to use an error-correcting code to insert the hidden message into the public text. When a desired parity bit cannot be expressed, then you go ahead and use the wrong parity bit and let the error-correcting code fix it later. The overhead for using error-correcting codes is small. For the case where we expect a failure with probability 1/16, we have effectively a binary symmetric channel with probabilities: 15/16 1/16 1/16 15/16 The channel capacity is: log 2 + 2 * (15/16) * log (15/16) which is approximately 13/16. Since the efficiency of error correcting codes can asymptotically approach the channel capacity, we lose only about 20%, which is not bad for such a noisy channel. This gives me confidence that transformational grammars can be sufficiently powerful to enable insertion of the hidden message into the public text without making N excessively large. Using error-correcting codes does have a disadvantage, though. An eavesdropper who knows the algorithm for inserting the hidden message can find easily that error correcting bits are being used, because they will result in a recognizable pattern in the parity bits of N bit blocks. (This is because most N bit blocks will not need to have the parity bit corrected.) To avoid revealing existence of a hidden message that way, I recommend intentionally adding some errors when inserting the hidden text to ruin the obvious pattern that an error correcting code would create. Problem (2) By adding even more error correction than needed to overcome the 1/16 probability of failure above, we will be able to play with the probability distribution of hidden message bits to make them more closely match the distribution of parity bits for N bit blocks of normal English text. I don't care if we have to double the size of the hidden message to accomplish this, because an awful lot can be accomplished with that much error correction. Obviously, I haven't completely worked out the mathematics of this. There may be a fatal flaw somewhere. My expectation, though, is that with some refinement, truly undetectable hidden messages are possible. Kevin Q. Brown INTERNET kqb@whscad1.att.com or kevin_q_brown@att.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 10:48:35 -0800 From: carl@parcplace.com (C. Gable Watts) Subject: Subscribing to Extropy I read the article about you in WIRED and I'm interested in getting on the email distribution list for your stuff. Please let me know what I should do if this message isn't enough. My email address is "Carl@ParcPlace.com". Thanks ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 May 1993 14:06:07 -0500 (EST) From: KMOSTA01@ULKYVX.LOUISVILLE.EDU Subject: Extropy ownership I just found out that a Polish poet, Boleslaw Lesmian, wrote a poem some time around 1910 entitled "Mathematics and Extropy" (in Polish, but translates directly). This might have interesting legal implications for the Extropy trademark. Would it? Should I investigate further? Krzys' ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 14:04:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Elizabeth Schwartz Subject: Meta: Judgment Metzger vs. Moore OK, thanks for the clarification. Taking conversations private is another reason why so many lists have their reply-to field set to the original poster of the message. By the way, what's the standard introductory reference on PPL? thanks, Betsy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 93 11:29:02 -0700 From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) Subject: Hiding Messages in Files, was CRYPTO: Steganography Part II Kevin Brown writes more on hiding bits in text: >Summary: My proposal for hiding a message in parity bits has some flaws, > but they (probably) can be overcome by using error-correcting > codes. ...rest elided, since I'm not responding per se to his idea.... Hiding bits in otherwise-innocuous-looking data is of course a time-tested idea. Peter Wayner mentions his "baseball game commentary" system, for which he has had running code for several years, in his article on encryption in the latest "Byte." (The idea is that the specifics of a running commentary on a baseball game are carrying message bits.) He also mentions the least significant bit (LSB) method in images and DAT tapes, which I wrote about in 1988 in sci.crypt and later as well. (I doubt I was the first to think of this, either, as the idea keeps being reintroduced every few months on sci.crypt. But I've written about it at length, and Kevin Kelley will likely use the "holding up a DAT tape..." image as the lead-off theme of his article on crypto and Cypherpunks in an forthcoming issue of "Whole Earth Review.") Several Cypherpunks (and Peter Wayner is one) have implemented some flavor of this. For example, I used Adobe Photoshop to pack message bits into color images, though this takes a lot of software overhead. Others have been working on direct file manipulation methods. As I recall, our own Eli Brandt has worked on directly inserting message bits into losslessly-compressed images (can't very well do it for lossy compressions, for obvious reasons!). Steganography still has some problems, as always. Don't expect the "secret" that an innocuous file carries message bits to remain secret for very long. (In cryptology, it is usually assumed that everything--the channel, the algorithms, etc.--is known except for the secret key.) Still, in an era in which encryption may be outlawed, steganography may provide the "plausible deniability" that keeps one out of jail. -Tim P.S. A related issue is that of "subliminal channels" for sending messages "right in plain sight," as it were. -- 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: by arrangement ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 93 12:22:28 -0700 From: gdale@apple.com (Geoff Dale) Subject: Extropy ownership >I just found out that a Polish poet, Boleslaw Lesmian, wrote a poem some >time around 1910 entitled "Mathematics and Extropy" (in Polish, but translates >directly). This might have interesting legal implications for the Extropy >trademark. Would it? Should I investigate further? > >Krzys' Did he actually use the word "Extropy", or are you just translating it that way? Geoff Dale -- insert standard disclaimers here -- gdale@apple.com "Pining for the fnords" -- me ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 14:39:23 -0500 From: extr@jido.b30.ingr.com (Craig Presson) Subject: Extropy ownership In <9305061806.AA01968@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu>, KMOSTA01@ULKYVX.LOUISVILLE.EDU writes: |> |> I just found out that a Polish poet, Boleslaw Lesmian, wrote a poem some |> time around 1910 entitled "Mathematics and Extropy" (in Polish, but translates |> directly). This might have interesting legal implications for the Extropy |> trademark. Would it? Should I investigate further? |> |> Krzys' Dunno -- is the poem any good ? Short enough to post all or extracts or a synopsis? Strictly speaking, I'd expect no _legal_ issue, but this does put a kink in the statement that Max invented the term in 1989 or whenever. So, it would be interesting to know what shades of meaning Lesmian was trying to convey with the word. -- Freeman Craig Presson cpresson@ingr.com 72430.1422@compuserve.com Today is the anniversary of: 5/6/1862, Henry David Thoreau, US author and philosopher, died. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 93 14:52:30 CDT From: eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder) Subject: free banking one can imagine a synthetic currency which I will call the 'pico', which represents one-trillionth (1E-12) of the value of the United States (about $20), which is backed by ownership in real assets (stocks, real estate) in the proportion they have market valuation. (pico- is the metric prefix for 1E-12, hence the name). Thus the pico would not only imply ownership of one-trillionth of th e US, it would actually be ownership thereof. It would be a dividend-paying currency under normal circumstances, and be redeemable for it's component parts (the underlying assets). A crude approximation could be made today by taking a bread-basex index mutual fund and adding a real estate investment fund. Dani Eder ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 13:09:33 -0800 From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty) Subject: Meta: Judement(s) Krzys' writes: >I am very grateful to Perry for bringing the charges, as I don't have time >to prepare cases, file charges, etc. Just as I do not have time to collect >evidence on Earth Day and Lenin for people who call me "loon", "moron", etc. If you feel that you have a case, I heartily encourage you to bring charges. I personally wonder whether posting large numbers of messages containing idle and completely unsupported speculation (which is apparently permissable under list rules) is better than flaming (which is not). Flaming can, at least, have some entertainment value when done well. -- Lefty (lefty@apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 May 1993 16:35:00 -0500 (EST) From: KMOSTA01@ULKYVX.LOUISVILLE.EDU Subject: Extropy ownership Lesmian apparently used the Polish word "extropia", and "entropy" in Polish is "entropia". Geoff Dale asked that I clarify this. Krzys' ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 93 13:56:48 PDT From: Eli Brandt Subject: Hiding Messages in Files, was CRYPTO: Steganography Part II > Brandt has worked on directly inserting message bits into > losslessly-compressed images (can't very well do it for lossy compressions, > for obvious reasons!). I've been talking to someone who knows more about the JPEG standard than I, and it appears that it's possible to sneak data in there. The problem is that the handling of two-byte quantization is "optional", and putting data in the LSB of an 8-bit value will not be pretty. The data rate would be low, too. I don't plan to pursue this avenue unless transmission of GIFs and the like becomes suspiciously archaic. > -Tim Eli ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 May 1993 17:03:01 -0500 (EST) From: KMOSTA01@ULKYVX.LOUISVILLE.EDU Subject: Extropy ownership "Mathematics and Extropy" by Boleslaw Lesmian is available in English translation for $10 from PTvN Bookstore, 135 A India St., Brooklyn, NY 11222, tel. (718)349-2738, fax (718)389-7050. NYC extropians -- if you are near that place, would you be kind enough to check this books out (or I guess I'll have to buy it), and see if that dead Polish poet or his (probably alive) translator is encroaching on the ExI's rights. Krzys' ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 93 14:01:32 -0700 From: gdale@apple.com (Geoff Dale) Subject: Extropy ownership Krzys' rplies to my question: >Lesmian apparently used the Polish word "extropia", and "entropy" in Polish >is "entropia". >Geoff Dale asked that I clarify this. Thanks, Krzys'. It seems highly unlikely that this would effect Trademark ownership, but it would be interesting to see what Lesmian has to say anyway. ________________________________________________________________________ Geoff Dale -- insert standard disclaimers here -- gdale@apple.com "VR the World, VR the Children" -David Kushner, Mondo 2000 #9 ________________________________________________________________________ Geoff Dale -- insert standard disclaimers here -- gdale@apple.com "Pining for the fnords" -- me ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 93 14:16:23 PDT From: Robin Hanson Subject: free banking Krzys writes about using mutual funds as banks, and Dani Eder writes about using fractional value of U.S. as currency. To me the "obvious" right free market currency is a global "market" asset, tracking the total value of all priced assets in the world. Not only does it offer a high rate of return, but it seems an obvious Schelling point for the world to flock to for a global currency, and its definition is simple enough to make it not too hard to monitor whether a particular currency, offer by some private party, is actually such an asset. If you're with me so far, why don't we *do* something about it? Let's find a low/no load mutual fund which best approximates a global market asset and buy lots of it, and denominate our contracts with each other in terms of it. For example, I hereby offer 10^-13th of world assets as a prize to whomever first (persuasively) suggests the no load mutual fund which best approximates a world market asset, and can be bought into for less than $10,000. Only three suggestions per person, I will judge which is best, and I'll set a deadline of June 1, 1993. My suggestion, which I do hope others will improve on, is to use a weighted combination of the Vanguard Index funds: US, Extended, Pacific, Europe. Vanguard publishes the weights which they think approximates some global index. Oh, and to collect, you'll have to refer me to a source validating some estimate of how many $ 10^-13 of the world is :-). Robin Hanson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 May 1993 17:59:03 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: free banking X-Reposting-Policy: redistribute only with permission Dani Eder says: > one can imagine a synthetic currency which I will call the 'pico', > which represents one-trillionth (1E-12) of the value of the United > States (about $20), which is backed by ownership in real assets I still tend to think that gold would likely be the currency of choice in a free banking system, because its simple, people are used to it, and gold has pretty good currency properties: it is a dense store of value ($10,000 of gold can fit on the palm of your hand -- weighs about a kilo), can be stored extra cheaply (immune to moisture, normal planetary temperatures), is hard to make (prohibitively expensive to synthesize in particle accelerators), is easy to check (its trivial to check if your gold bar is real and how high quality it is), etc. It also has an insignificant quantity of its value tied up in how valuable it is to industry (see the dive platinum and silver have taken because of substitutes). I think the fact that people are used to the idea is especially important -- you don't have to explain it to people. That said, I don't particularly care what is used as a store of value, so long as the banks are completely free to issue currency and conduct business as they wish. Perry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 May 1993 18:07:25 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: Extropy ownership X-Reposting-Policy: redistribute only with permission KMOSTA01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu says: > > Lesmian apparently used the Polish word "extropia", and "entropy" in Polish > is "entropia". > Geoff Dale asked that I clarify this. I got a very strong feeling of deja vu when Krzys mentioned this. I think I'm going to have to dig in my library... .pm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 May 1993 18:00:48 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: Meta: Judement(s) X-Reposting-Policy: redistribute only with permission Lefty says: > I personally wonder whether posting large numbers of messages containing > idle and completely unsupported speculation (which is apparently > permissable under list rules) is better than flaming (which is not). > > Flaming can, at least, have some entertainment value when done well. It does have entertainment value, but it clogs the channel. There are many other good sources of flaming -- look all over Usenet... Perry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 15:31:00 -0800 From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty) Subject: Meta: Judement(s) Perry writes: >Lefty says: >> I personally wonder whether posting large numbers of messages containing >> idle and completely unsupported speculation (which is apparently >> permissable under list rules) is better than flaming (which is not). >> >> Flaming can, at least, have some entertainment value when done well. > >It does have entertainment value, but it clogs the channel. There are >many other good sources of flaming -- look all over Usenet... Of course, but the "flying yogi" and "Earth Day celebrants are crypto-Leninists" postings clog the channel just as much, but accrue no penalty. There are plenty of good sources for unsubstantiated nonsense as well, aren't there? -- Lefty (lefty@apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 18:48:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Carol Moore Subject: TECH/WACO: Computer Simulation Some of the survivors of the Waco Massacre may be charged with setting the fires or conspiracy to set fires. Working for criminal lawyers, I know many of them are not yet into "high tech" defenses. But I've seen enough TV computer simulations to know there are computer programs that would allow defense attorneys to illustrate not only the timing of the fires--how soon they started after which tanks battered which area of the compound, and after the Big Tank slammed right into the middle of it--but even simulate the amount of vibration the building experienced and the effect on gas lanterns hanging on the walls in far flung areas of the compound. (Not to mention the effect of a tank running over a propane tank.) Hmmmmm-imagine if this was programmed through a virtual reality setup! That might help establish sufficient "reasonable doubt" to get defendants off on the arson charges. (And help the heirs sue the hell out of the government--or at least collect their fire insurance?) Anyway, are their existing computer programs to simulate such trains of events, or are they all custom made. Anyone know of any law firms-- or government agencies--using such programs for defense or prosecution? (-: cmoore@cap.gwu.edu ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 19:29:07 -0500 (EDT) From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu Subject: LIFE-X: cryonics Nick Szabo writes: > Just because some brains have had most of their cell membranes ripped > open does not mean (a) this is true for all freezing protocols -- clearly it > is not for the drosophila embryo and nematode experiments, or (b) > that memory cannot be recovered without preserving synaptic structure, > eg if it is stored in protein, RNA, microtubules, etc. We may > discover that molecules are important, not synaptic structure. On > the other hand, we may find synapses are the crucial structure. > We need to plan for both futures. Furthermore, it is entirely possible > that we will develop a non-general, biotech based system that can repair > ruptured cell membranes; this may be easier than a "generalized cell > repair machine". Any biotech sytstem that can repair ruptured cells would certainly be advanced as nanotechnology. The problem with your scenario is that there is more than just freezing damage. Correct me if I am wrong Perry, but aren't the cryoprotectants that Alcor uses pumped in at over 10,000 times the toxicity level needed to kill? Isn't the cell machinery all "gummed" up by these molecules? That is, part of the repair process is removing the protectants. Also, you have to repair the cells first before warming up otherwise you will cause more damage than the initial freezing, and I doubt any biotech machinery can work and survive in a super cooled environment. What kind of biotechnology can work at very low temperatures, remove cryoprotectants, synthesize new cell machinery if possible, and repair the circulatory system (which would take coordination)? -- Ray Cromwell | Engineering is the implementation of science; -- -- EE/Math Student | politics is the implementation of faith. -- -- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu | - Zetetic Commentaries -- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 May 1993 19:58:25 -0500 (EST) From: KMOSTA01@ULKYVX.LOUISVILLE.EDU Subject: Schelling point for cash balances Robin says that the natural Schelling point for the backing for money (i.e., for what cash balances are) is the world market portfolio (equity portfolio, all investable assets, only publicly traded assets, how about Cuba's foreign debt -- a bargain now!). Perry says gold is a Schelling point. Of course if it was not for the government monopoly of currency, market would decide again (as it once decided in favor of bimetalism -- not gold, bimetalism, I suggest Milton Friedman's "Money Mischief" as a great reading on this). But ... similarly as DDF's office would probably be a Chicago Schelling point for extropians in Chicago, I think there is a serious chance that the Fidelity Magellan Fund would have a good chance to be the market's choice. It is the largest mutual fund in the world, to my best knowledge, possibly with influence on the financial markets similar to that of Alan Greenspan (from the ad of the APR's financial news show: "52% of those polled said he should be reappointed, 27% said -- Who is Alan Greenspan?"). In an unrelated comment, I am interested in the extropian comments on Alan Greenspan, the "second most powerful man in America". Krzys' ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V93 Issue #0247 ****************************************