8 Message 8: From exi@panix.com Tue Jul 27 12:41:51 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA25981; Tue, 27 Jul 93 12:41:49 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: from panix.com by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA15080; Tue, 27 Jul 93 12:41:32 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by panix.com id AA01347 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for more@usc.edu); Tue, 27 Jul 1993 15:30:21 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 15:30:21 -0400 Message-Id: <199307271930.AA01347@panix.com> To: Exi@panix.com From: Exi@panix.com Subject: Extropians Digest X-Extropian-Date: July 27, 373 P.N.O. [19:29:06 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Status: R Extropians Digest Tue, 27 Jul 93 Volume 93 : Issue 207 Today's Topics: [2 msgs] AI: Searle's Chinese Room [1 msgs] FSF: Some Useful Software, No Useful Politics [1 msgs] Homosexual tendencies (was: future problems) [2 msgs] Intellectual property and why (some) people work [1 msgs] MEDIA: Slamming of FSF; more on software & video rental [2 msgs] Nightly Market Report [1 msgs] POLI: William Gibson - a statist! :-( [1 msgs] POLI: William Gibson - a statist! :-( [1 msgs] Wage Competition [1 msgs] What's up with the Hawthorne Exchange? [1 msgs] Administrivia: No admin msg. Approximate Size: 57660 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 27 Jul 93 03:30:33 +0100 From: Rich Walker Subject: POLI: William Gibson - a statist! :-( >The issue of giving software away for free to schools as a wonderful, gift >from heaven benefit to all of us In The Future is confounded by the >generational speed in software upgrades as distinct from hardware >replacement. On DOS/WIN, I went through Wordstar, Word Perfect and >MicroSquish Word, but kept plugging away on Intel driven machines from a >8086 to 80386 then my 80486. The shifts of hardware and software didn't >necessarily match. I also migrated from Paradox to Filemaker (yes, it's not >relational but it's EASY and FAST for most of what's needed). I'm also a >VERY loyal Apple customer with desktop and portable models but my software >choices are much more variable (sometimes Claris, sometimes not). My >business uses both Macs and PCs. This is one example. Weeelllll, actually, what did you do with your old '86 machines, and the old software? I mean, I know a guy running an inductrial archaeology group who rather wants a word-processor. A friend of his got an original pc with a 20 mb hard disk and he was bounding around with joy. I mean, let's display a certain realism here: there is a large amount of old software that never gets used. There are vast numbers of computers discarded because the owner upgraded. What happens to them all? Why not give them to schools to provide facilities? Okay, the idea of giving teachers the latest copies of everything, and cable TV access as well, _is- somewhat far-fetched, but, well, what proportion of the audience was in education? A touch of extravagant demagoguery perhaps? I bet there was a resounding ovation at the end... After all, if you want to provide basic net.access, I suspect 3 dozen 4.77MHz 8088 pc's with floppies, hooked to one server that's got the modem and the connection to the news server, is probably pretty cheap. And, for another, ooh, $36, you could put a word processor on each machine... I suspect the long-term return on the investment would be rather good. Rich! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jul 93 03:30:33 +0100 From: Rich Walker Subject: POLI: William Gibson - a statist! :-( >The issue of giving software away for free to schools as a wonderful, gift >from heaven benefit to all of us In The Future is confounded by the >generational speed in software upgrades as distinct from hardware >replacement. On DOS/WIN, I went through Wordstar, Word Perfect and >MicroSquish Word, but kept plugging away on Intel driven machines from a >8086 to 80386 then my 80486. The shifts of hardware and software didn't >necessarily match. I also migrated from Paradox to Filemaker (yes, it's not >relational but it's EASY and FAST for most of what's needed). I'm also a >VERY loyal Apple customer with desktop and portable models but my software >choices are much more variable (sometimes Claris, sometimes not). My >business uses both Macs and PCs. This is one example. Weeelllll, actually, what did you do with your old '86 machines, and the old software? I mean, I know a guy running an inductrial archaeology group who rather wants a word-processor. A friend of his got an original pc with a 20 mb hard disk and he was bounding around with joy. I mean, let's display a certain realism here: there is a large amount of old software that never gets used. There are vast numbers of computers discarded because the owner upgraded. What happens to them all? Why not give them to schools to provide facilities? Okay, the idea of giving teachers the latest copies of everything, and cable TV access as well, _is- somewhat far-fetched, but, well, what proportion of the audience was in education? A touch of extravagant demagoguery perhaps? I bet there was a resounding ovation at the end... After all, if you want to provide basic net.access, I suspect 3 dozen 4.77MHz 8088 pc's with floppies, hooked to one server that's got the modem and the connection to the news server, is probably pretty cheap. And, for another, ooh, $36, you could put a word processor on each machine... I suspect the long-term return on the investment would be rather good. Rich! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jul 93 22:52:41 -0400 From: pcm@cs.brown.edu (Peter C. McCluskey) Subject: Wage Competition moravec@think.com (Hans Moravec) writes: >fnerd writes: >> Moravec writes: >>> If its internal structure has >>> a conditioning system like higher animals, then it merely needs >>> detectors that generate internal rewards for doing whatever its >>> builders want it to like doing, and punishments for taboos. >> >>Yes; the simplest would be a button under control of the owner. >>My argument against ideas like the pleasure button is that owner-button- >>slave becomes a single system, and if slave is the vast majority of the >>intelligence in the system, then "owner" becomes a small subsystem. > >No, no the conditioning system is a program inside the robot. The robot >feels good when its psychology module says its owner is happy. Whether a distinct psychology module is feasible depends very much on how intelligence is achievable. If the classical AI notion of designing an intelligent system will be the first method used to create human-equivalent robot minds, then it is not too hard to imagine keeping them enslaved. I claim that two other approaches show significantly more promise of producing the first AIs, connectionism with a fair amount of evolutionary programming, and uploading. Uploaded intelligences would clearly not allow themselves to be enslaved. The connectionist approach doesn't automatically rule out a conditioning system, but the effort required to accomplish it would be dramatically higher, and I can't think how you would go about verifying that it worked as intended. The basic problem is the primary cause of intelligence under this approach consists of system-wide rewards to independent thought, which are very different from and not entirely compatable with rewarding servility. To get back to the original question of "What are big upcoming problems?", I am most concerned that AI will be achieved in a manner that produces beings which are harmful to the human race (whether through hostility or merely the the indifference we show to ants) before I (and my friends) are able to upload. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter McCluskey >> pcm@cs.brown.edu >> Essentia non sunt multiplicanda praeter pcm@macgreg.com (new work address) >> necessitatum. -- William of Ockham ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 20:56:23 -0600 (MDT) From: Stanton McCandlish Subject: POLI: William Gibson - a statist! :-( Quoth Nick Szabo, verily I say unto thee: -=>Software vendors will fight back in a number of ways. -=>First, low-end machines will lose their ability to copy, I'd agree with most of your spiel, but that is highly unrealistic. What fascist organization is going to force people to buy such machines? When was the last time you saw a cassette player with copying disabled? In fact, I dare say this would be impossible without redesigning PCs from the ground up. The whole architecture is based on copying (in case you didn't know, the prgram you run is not being run off the disk, but is copied into memory, and run from there.) Even if you just propose that copanies will bundle read-only floppy drives with systems, it would be foolish to assume that no read-write drives would be available. My prediction would be that they'd be EVERYWHERE. They'd be the hottest item in the PC market. Just the basics of economics say that there's no way in hell that "low-end machines will lose their ability to copy," since there will always be demand for machines that are not crippled in such a manner. -=>Taxpayer-funded schools, universities, and libraries are the biggest -=>marketing channel for Gibson's books; _Neuromancer_ was a favorite in -=>literature classes a few years ago (about the only SF they would -=>touch). Any evidence to support that statement? Seems highly outlandish to me. I have yet to EVER see Gibson's stuff used in a class here (and sci-fi is being used quite a bit, even for such things as anthropology classes.) What I DO see used is obscure short-stories, and lot of the classics, like Heinlein. I find it totally unbelievable that schools form the "biggest marketing channel for Gibson's books;" tell that to WaldenBooks, B. Dalton, and Barnes & Noble/BookStar. At any rate, an idea I'd like to throw out: If the software industry got some smarts, what it would do is allow software rental and copying. Make it an industry. Software rental stores would pop up all over the place. Microsoft could charge $1000 for a copy of QuickBasic, knowing that companies would buy it, because it would still be profitable. MS not only loses no money, but they have the option of selling upgrades only to consumers not to stores, and of selling manuals and tutorials, and most of all selling tech support. Scenario: I go down to Warez-R-Us, and check out Borland C++ Basic Model, for $15. I have to return it tomorrow, so I head down to Price Club and pick up a 20-pack of disks. The software only comes with a copying and installation manual. I install the software, and play with it for a while. Pretty soon I realize that I need a manual, and also, for some reason, the 'ware keeps hanging my system. I look at the lable on the disk, and call Borland's tech support. 1-900-123-4567 "Hello you've reached Borland Tech Support. This service is provided at the cost of $2.50 per minute." I am immediately transfered to a tech rep, no waiting. He tells me I need to , and in about 3 minutes I have the info necessary to get rid of the system hangs. I head down to BookStar, and pick up a copy of the Borland User's Guide set, at $59.95 plus tax. A bargain, considering that there are 8 manuals. Returning home, I hit the books, and have it all working in no time. I return the software to Warez-R-Us the next day, and it is checked out by another customer before I even walk out the door, as are all 5 other copies. Hell, I had to wait a week to get it. And gladly. For less that $100 all told, I've gotten a major application that used to cost $700. After a month, I get a card from Borland offering the C++ Pro edition upgrade for another $65. I wait a while but finally order it, since it has everything I need for programming Windows NT 6.1 applications. Still a bargain. I'm satisfied. Borland is laughing all the way to the bank, since not only do they charge the rental store $1500 for C++ Basic, they also collect a royalty for each rental, have sold me a manual and $7.50 of tech support, and even a $65 upgrade. They do this 1000 times EVERY DAY. Sound far fetched? Pay a visit to any book store with a computer books section. 90% of what you see are manuals for commercial software packages. These companies are making a killing, and most of the stuff is being sold to people who've pirated software. Why would you need a second Corel manual, with almost the exact same content as the original, if you already had the original? The software industry is gutting itSELF, because it is too pigheaded to see where the money is. A major app like AutoCad just really doesn't sell well. I know a LOT of people slobbering for a copy of it. I know a lot of people who've pirated an old version, and are slobbering at the thought of getting a newer one. How much intelligence does it take to see that: 1) piracy will not stop 2) high prices DIScourage purchases 3) there are VERY large numbers of people that want your software 4) even those that have pirated it would gladly pay reasonable fees to get upgrade and utilities 5) companies are making money selling not only manuals but also tech support (usually via "subscription" based services that offer tech support for a wide range of packages) -- mostly catering to pirates whether they admit it or not 6) there's a buttload of money to be made, not to mention jobs created in an all-new industry, by legalizing software rentals. Personally I have NO sympathy for the software companies whining and crying about software piracy, and the SPA can goto hell. They are crippling, via stupidity, arrogance, and short-sightedness, what could be a booming industry with only a little effort. -- Stanton McCandlish * Space Migration * Networking * ChaOrder * NO GOV'T. * anton@hydra.unm.edu * Intelligence Increase * Nano * Crypto * NO RELIGION * FidoNet: 1:301/2 * Life Extension * Ethics * VR * Now! * NO MORE LIES! * Noise in the Void BBS * +1-505-246-8515 (24hr, 1200-14400, v32bis, N-8-1) * ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 21:33:22 -0600 (MDT) From: Stanton McCandlish Subject: Homosexual tendencies (was: future problems) Quoth Perry E. Metzger, verily I say unto thee: -=> -=>Stanton McCandlish says: -=>> -=>Yeah, there are places in our society where homosexuals feel fairly -=>> -=>comfortable -- but lets remember doesn't mean that other people get -=>> -=>the urge to turn gay because of it. It also doesn't mean that there -=>> -=>isn't still tremendous trouble for gay people in our society. -=>> -=>> Again, I'd beg to differ. Your later example doesn't really say much, -=>> since you were not trying to be IN this subculture, but were just -=>> visiting, at these fashion parties and gay clubs and the like. -=> -=>I'll repeat, Stanton -- gay people get beaten up every weekend in -=>Greenwich Village in the heart of New York City. I don't think its -=>something anyone does for keeps just because it will make them "in". Woops, misunderstanding. My "beg to differ" refers to the "but lets remember..." sententce, not the "It also doesn't mean..." sentence. My point is that your experience of not feeling any pressure to "turn gay" at such events cannot be applied as evidence that no one feels such pressure, primarily because you are not in the position of having a strong desire (from what you've told us) to join any subculture where being gay is a plus (such as being a theatre major in Santa Fe); it's my contention, based on witnessing the phenomenon several times, that people who DO, WILL be pressured to "turn gay" and in many cases may do so, either permanently or temporarily. Though I will not argue that there are no genetic factors, I think it a gross oversimplification to say that ONLY heredity determines sexual orientation. As for "fag bashing", yes I'm quite well aware that this is an ongoing problem. My own uncle had to have massive reconstructive surgery on his face about 4 years ago, after it collided forcefully with a redneck baseball bat in the parking lot of a gay bar. -- Stanton McCandlish * Space Migration * Networking * ChaOrder * NO GOV'T. * anton@hydra.unm.edu * Intelligence Increase * Nano * Crypto * NO RELIGION * FidoNet: 1:301/2 * Life Extension * Ethics * VR * Now! * NO MORE LIES! * Noise in the Void BBS * +1-505-246-8515 (24hr, 1200-14400, v32bis, N-8-1) * ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jul 93 20:45:45 PDT From: hfinney@shell.portal.com Subject: What's up with the Hawthorne Exchange? Many people have observed that the Hex shares have little if any intrinsic value. This calls into question the whole premise of the Exchange, which is that share values are supposed to somehow represent people's reputations. But there is no reason that share values should in any way correspond to people's reputations, other than that we are told that this should be so. It is an attempt to produce a self-fulfilling prophecy, where if everyone believes X, then they act as though X is true, and this causes X to be true. In this case, if we believe that shares represent reputations, then we buy shares of those with good reputations and sell those with bad, and sure enough, share prices represent reputations. The problem with this is that if there are no objective, independent forces causing X to be true, you have a very unstable situation. If prices start to drift away from people's reputations, market participants will start to question whether their investments, which were based on the assumption that market prices would represent reputations, were correct. They may switch their investments more in the directions indicated by share prices. This will further cause prices to drift, further breaking the correspondence. Eventually prices will have no correlation to reputation. The thing that really bothers me is this. Some people believe that real money works the same way. They think that money only has value because people believe it has value. People accept money in return for their labor only because they believe that other people will accept that money in turn. This mutually reinforcing system of delusions apparently manages to hang together, hence one might expect HeX to work as well. But I have a friend who argues persuasively that this view of money is wrong. Money is not just a psychological phenomenon. There are objective, long-term forces which give money its value. I can accept money for my labor knowing with confidence that no whims of shopkeepers and service-givers will leave me with valueless pieces of paper. One of those objective forces is the existance of long-term mortgage contracts, contracts which obligate banks to turn over property titles in exchange for a sufficient number of dollars. The banks have no flexibility to choose not to accept these pieces of paper. They have to do so. In principle, even if everyone on earth suddenly became allergic to dollars and fervently wished not to receive them, the banks, among some other similarly bound organizations, would still have to, and return title to real property. Not coincidentally, the total value of all bank mortgages in this country is approximately equal to the money supply. This real property backs the dollars we earn and spend. It is important to understand that Thornes are not like dollars. Unless HeX shares can be given a grounding other than the whim of their owners, the market will surely collapse, because there is nothing to support it. Hal Finney hfinney@shell.portal.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 21:43:31 -0600 (MDT) From: Stanton McCandlish Subject: AI: Searle's Chinese Room -=>The real problem with Searle is this -- he makes this big deal of the -=>distinction between "simulation" and reality -- a simulated hurricane -=>is obviously not a real hurricane. However, is a simulation of adding -=>2 to 2 any different from really adding 2 to 2? So, you are saying if I take another .AVI animation file, this time of a calculator, and in one series of frames I show it "adding" 2 + 2, and in the final frame I make it show the result of "4" that this is somehow the same as actually computing 2 + 2? This I'd have to disagree with. Sure you get 4 at the end, but only because I supplied the values myself. The simulated calculator didn't actually do anything, *I* did. Within the .AVI itself (the simulation of calculation) no calculating occured. Seems to me your argument is like saying that if I have a sperm cell, and egg cell, and a pre-fertilzed egg, and show you the sperm, and the unfertilized egg, then do a slight of molecular hand and swap in the fertilized egg when you aren't looking, I can claim that this simulated conception is indeed the same as REAL conception, because the end result to the viewer is the same - a fertilized egg. No? -- Stanton McCandlish * Space Migration * Networking * ChaOrder * NO GOV'T. * anton@hydra.unm.edu * Intelligence Increase * Nano * Crypto * NO RELIGION * FidoNet: 1:301/2 * Life Extension * Ethics * VR * Now! * NO MORE LIES! * Noise in the Void BBS * +1-505-246-8515 (24hr, 1200-14400, v32bis, N-8-1) * ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jul 93 00:00:38 EDT From: The Hawthorne Exchange Subject: Nightly Market Report The Hawthorne Exchange - HEx Nightly Market Report For more information on HEx, send email to HEx@sea.east.sun.com with the Subject info. --------------------------------------------------------------- News Summary as of: Mon Jul 26 23:59:01 EDT 1993 Newly Registered Reputations: (None) New Share Issues: (None) Share Splits: Symbol n-for-1 Total Issued H 3 30000 --------------------------------------------------------------- Market Summary as of: Tue Jul 27 00:00:04 EDT 1993 Total Shares Symbol Bid Ask Last Issued Outstanding Market Value 1000 .10 .20 .10 10000 2000 200.00 110 - .10 - 10000 - - 150 - .10 - 10000 - - 1E6 - .10 - 10000 - - 1E9 - .10 - 10000 - - 200 - .10 - 10000 - - 80 - .10 - 10000 - - 90 - .20 .10 10000 2000 200.00 ACS - .50 .50 10000 1124 562.00 AI - .50 .20 10000 1000 200.00 ALCOR - 3.80 2.00 10000 3031 6062.00 ALTINST - .10 .10 10000 100 10.00 ANTO - - - - - - BIOPR - .20 .10 10000 1500 150.00 BLAIR - 30.00 50.00 10000 25 1250.00 CHAITN - .05 - 10000 - - CYPHP .15 .20 - 10000 - - DEREK - .50 1.00 100000 8220 8220.00 DRXLR - 2.00 2.00 10000 2246 4492.00 P 20.00 25.00 25.00 1000000 66 1650.00 PETER 1.00 - 1.00 10000000 600 600.00 PLANET - .10 .05 10000 1500 75.00 PPL .10 .25 .10 10000 400 40.00 PRICE - 4.00 2.00 10000000 1410 2820.00 R .49 2.80 .99 10000 5100 5049.00 RAND - .15 - 10000 - - RJC 1.00 999.00 .60 10000 5100 3060.00 ROMA - - - - - - SGP - - - - - - SHAWN - 1.00 - 10000 - - SSI - .10 - 10000 - - TCMAY .75 3.00 2.00 10000 6000 12000.00 TIM 1.00 - - 10000 - - TRADE - - - 1000000 - - TRANS - .10 .40 10000 1511 604.40 VINGE - .50 .20 10000 1000 200.00 WILKEN 1.00 10.00 10.00 10000 101 1010.00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 407033.43 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1993 23:29:46 -0600 (MDT) From: Stanton McCandlish Subject: MEDIA: Slamming of FSF; more on software & video rental I note your main gripe with them is their oposition to having to pay for software, and their stance against [IMNSHO illogical] intellectual property laws. I don't think their idea is that one should not own what one produces, but rather that the current situation is just ridiculous. Is there any logical reason for MS Word for Windows to cost $450? Particularly when they could make far more money via rental (and selling to rental companies, while collecting small, but quickly-building-up) royalties on each rental), selling upgrades, and most importantly selling manuals, tutorials, and tech support. Sure, software under the scheme I propose would not be "free", but it would be far cheaper, while at the same time making more money for the companies involved. Maybe FSF is taking it a little to far, but I for one think they've got the right basic idea. PS: I also think it would be better all-over for the world at large. When more people can afford more and better software, more people will be computer literate and even skilled. The advantages of this are patently obvious, so I won't elaborate. PPS: Lest one think that this proposed change to the software industry's attitude would be just too difficult, I point you to the currently booming video rental market place; one day, it was illegal, the next it was a blossoming subeconomy, that is employing quite a large number of people. The companies that produce the material are raking it in, precisely because one can go rent 5 movies for $10 (and, yes, copy them, FBI notices or not; those are just there as a customary formality), instead of having to buy each movie at $79.95. I remember when VCRs first came out. They were elitist toys. Now, how many people do you know that DON'T have one. How the software industry blinds itself to the most simple, obvious, and readily observable of economic facts is beyond me. -- Stanton McCandlish * Space Migration * Networking * ChaOrder * NO GOV'T. * anton@hydra.unm.edu * Intelligence Increase * Nano * Crypto * NO RELIGION * FidoNet: 1:301/2 * Life Extension * Ethics * VR * Now! * NO MORE LIES! * Noise in the Void BBS * +1-505-246-8515 (24hr, 1200-14400, v32bis, N-8-1) * ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jul 93 22:52:22 PDT From: jpp@markv.com Subject: Why Rick Folks Work -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- From: Robin Hanson > Here is a simple model that says the above more precisely: > > U = person's utility > L = the time they labor > F = the time they have "free" > [...] > S = the "slave" or additive capital to help production > > Assume total time T is limited, so L+F = T, and that this person is > [...] > If S >> T, then this says you shouldn't work much. > > Robin Hanson How can you compare T which is in units of time (seconds for instance) to S which is presumably measured in utility units (whatever they are)? (And what does it mean to add utility to time?) j' - -- O I am Jay Prime Positive jpp@markv.com 1250 bit key fingerprint = B8 95 E0 AF 9A A2 CD A5 89 C9 F0 FE B4 3A 2C 3F 524 bit key fingerprint = 8A 7C B9 F2 D5 46 4D ED 66 23 F1 71 DE FF 51 48 Public keys by `finger jpp@markv.com' or mail to pgp-public-keys@pgp.mit.edu Your feedback is welcome, directly or via symbol JPP on hex@sea.east.sun.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQBXAgUBLFTCi9C3U5sdKpFdAQF6UQIKA4CQd419Jt7XwC1RxT4F1keLpbJ4L7is Wn5PKKJ/B6/QH4i6gQdcBxDrwV3Ncs5+ydwqSLfsAPCQgR+l/RetcbPs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 00:09:31 -0600 (MDT) From: Stanton McCandlish Subject: FSF: Some Useful Software, No Useful Politics -=> If you want to get software without paying for it, you can rent it. -=>Perhaps in the future, public libraries will carry software that can be -=>borrowed. No you can't. Federal law prohibits it. If you want to get free software you have to write it, steal it outright from the stores, convince the company in question to send you beta versions (always risky, just by the very nature of what betas are) or pirate it. This was the whole point of my previous posts. Software rentals needs desperately to be made legal again. -=>Shareware sucks, and CS people know it. Programmers depending on shareware -=>/freeware contributions for a living would be welfare cases making less than -=>janitors. Shareware sucks? Hmph. I presume you've had little experience with shareware. Yes SOME shareware sucks so hard I wonder that it doesn't implode the drive, but much of it is very high quality. I point you to everything produced by the GNU project -- freeware and shareware are birds of the same feather --, to 4DOS (licensed by Symantec as NDOS in their now misnamed Norton Utilities), to VPIC and CSHOW, and the GIF and other image formats, to pretty much everything ever written for the XWindows platform, to WhoopItUp (a Windows sound program), the WOW .MOD file player, QModem, Telix, FrontDoor, almost any BBS software you can name besides TBBS, Major, and WildCat!, ProComm, etc etc. There's a lot of really great software, with literally no commercial parallel, much less commercial dominator, that is free or cheap shareware. This is not to say shareware is ideal for all situations. I have yet to see a share CAD that can even THINK about touching AutoCAD; but on the other hand, point me to a commercial fractal graphics program that can hold a candle to Fractint 1.0, much less the new Fractint 18.1 As for how much shareware authors make, you pose your guess as if the matter were hypothetical. It isn't. Yes, most people don't make any money at it, just like most musicians don't make any money at that. Your view would seem to hold that all musicians must sign up with a major label and starve. It just isn't true. For specific success stories, have a look at Mustang Software, Joaquim Homrighausen, Phil Katz, Vern Buerg, etc. These are people and companies that are NOT in any way shape or form starving. Just doing some basic math, I conclude that the author my my BBS software (Mark Goodwin, TriBBS) has made approximately $15,000 in the last 6 months (judging from number of new BBS registrations in the time period, times the price of registration -- this does not count his other software, only the BBS -- minus taxes. Considering that TriBBS is sort of "snowballing", I figure he should net about $40k this year.) And TriBBS is one of the least known and used stable BBS packages (I am not counting the beta crap that pops up and vanishes, and never seems to make it out of beta). If your idea is that shareware authorship is a bit "iffy" as a career you are correct, but if you mean to say that it is impossible to make a living in that market, I'd have to strongly disagree. -- Stanton McCandlish * Space Migration * Networking * ChaOrder * NO GOV'T. * anton@hydra.unm.edu * Intelligence Increase * Nano * Crypto * NO RELIGION * FidoNet: 1:301/2 * Life Extension * Ethics * VR * Now! * NO MORE LIES! * Noise in the Void BBS * +1-505-246-8515 (24hr, 1200-14400, v32bis, N-8-1) * ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jul 93 2:12:50 WET DST From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) Subject: MEDIA: Slamming of FSF; more on software & video rental Stanton McCandlish () writes: > > I note your main gripe with them is their oposition to having to pay for > software, and their stance against [IMNSHO illogical] intellectual > property laws. I don't think their idea is that one should not own what > one produces, but rather that the current situation is just ridiculous. > Is there any logical reason for MS Word for Windows to cost $450? Sure there is a logical reason for it. MS would like to make money. If Microsoft decided to sell MS word for $10,000 per copy that is their decision. If MS decided to only distribute MS Word to the top ten CEOs, that's their decision. If Bill decided that MS Word was too good for the world and locked it in a vault so that no one but he could use it, that would also be his decision/right. Ridiculous as it may seem, you don't have a right to cheap software. You don't have a right to computers or software period. MS will charge whatever the market will bear and whatever keeps them competitive. Anything else is bad business. Many people on this list are going into the software business, like Derek. I'm sure he would be pissed if he spent ten years developing an innovative product only to find out that he had to distribute it for free. I see no real difference between intellectual property rights and normal property rights. Information is easy to copy, so what? The nanotech/robot revolution will make material goods just as easy to copy, but that doesn't mean you should be able exploit the mental work of a designer for free. MS probably spent millions on Word development, probably even more on Windows->NT development. The future of copyright/intellectual property rights protection will probably consist of tit-for-tat information trading. If you find out that someone has been secretly sharing your information, you will simply refuse to trade with them in the future. If the information being traded is a new robot or chemical design that gives the holder an advantage, the incentive will be to withhold it from others. Let it be known that I do not support software/mathematical patents because they cover whole fields and concepts and are analogous to government enforced state monopoly. Copyrights protect actual implementations and the products of individual mental labor, such as Extropian posts. -- 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: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 00:35:14 -0600 (MDT) From: Stanton McCandlish Subject: Homosexual tendencies (was: future problems) Quoth Richard Kennaway, verily I say unto thee: -=>4. Stanton McCandlish writes: -=>>And natural selection would select out the genetic -=>>homosexuals just a readily as the environmental homos -=>... -=>>I'd suggest that -=>>the envirohomos may even have an edge, since it isn't hard wired in them -=> -=>What do you mean by selecting out the *environmental* homosexuals? It's a -=>contradiction in terms. "The envirohomos" (as distinct from each one -=>individually) is by definition not an entity that participates in the -=>process of natural selection. "The envirohomos" (as individuals) will have -=>a reproductive success determined, as it is for "genetic homosexuals", by -=>what the individuals do, not by whether their actions arise from -=>environment or genes. As I was not the one to initially draw the distiction I will hardly fell compelled to defend it. The point was that the various scenarios for whether homosexuality would survive, depending upon whether or not the "trait" is genetic, seemed highly flawed to me, particularly the proposition that if homosexuality is genetic it would survive, but if it is not, it would die out. I think the result would be the oposite, since in an "Extropian society" (whatever that is), I'd expect the DNA to be fixed, if people had a problem with homosexuality (which I'd find unlikely in the first place, if society consisted solely of Extropians). I further proposed that if there were both sort of homosexuals, I'd bet that those homosexual due to socialization would have better odds of surviving an anti-gay witchhunt, because their sexual behaviour would not be genetically hardwired. Is that clearer? Anyway, I almost ignored this anyway, since I made it clear from the start that I think homosexuality is likely a combination of genetic and environmental effects, with the environmental (social) being the stronger of the 2 (provided the "homo gene" research isn't bogus in the first place. Much was made of some sort of nebulous "brain differences" between homosexuals and heterosexuals, about a year ago. Haven't heard jack about it since then... -=> -=>6. Stanton McCandlish writes: -=>>I personally know several people who were -=>>straight, became gay or bi, got tired of it, and went back to being -=>>straight again, both male and female; most of them are or were theater -=>>students, and given that theater is one of the concentration areas for -=>>gays and bis, I cannot help but think peer pressure had something to do -=>>with it. -=> -=>You cannot help thinking this? If you really mean that, you have a very -=>limited mind. Another hypothesis that leaps to my mind is that -=>experiencing a situation in which both straight and non-straight sexuality -=>are taken for granted is a liberating experience which allows them to try -=>out alternatives they might not have discovered and experienced otherwise. Ignoring your very thinly veiled insults: You've missed my point which was that, in my never even slightly humble opinion, the genetic factors involved in homosexuality (if any) are minor, and the social factors are the main thing. Your idea is just yet another way of saying this, though a bit more flowery. And note that I said "had something to do with it" not "was the one and only cause of it." With the exception of morons, I don't believe that people can be totally coerced into doing something simply by peer pressure. There has to be some active particpation (which would include what you call "try[ing] out alternatives...") there also, or it won't happen. You are right in pointing out that the example I gave was not the whole picture, but I hardly think it invalidates my larger idea. -=>How does this sound: -=>"I personally know several people who were drivers, became bikers or -=>unicyclists, got tired of it, and went back to being drivers again, both -=>male and female." It sounds like a poor analogy. Driving and/or riding unicycles, etc. is probably not something that people consider to be part of their "fundamental nature" [yes I know that's probably bunk, but people in general, which I think is who we are discussing, mostly have a firm belief in "fundamental natures"], whereas sexual orientation is, for better or worse. I don't see hordes of rednecks going out in unicyclist-bashing lynch mobs, nor people holding demonstrations and rallies for driver's rights. -- Stanton McCandlish * Space Migration * Networking * ChaOrder * NO GOV'T. * anton@hydra.unm.edu * Intelligence Increase * Nano * Crypto * NO RELIGION * FidoNet: 1:301/2 * Life Extension * Ethics * VR * Now! * NO MORE LIES! * Noise in the Void BBS * +1-505-246-8515 (24hr, 1200-14400, v32bis, N-8-1) * ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jul 93 23:36:21 -0700 From: Inigo Montoya Subject: Intellectual property and why (some) people work Why I Do Stuff Recent discussion on extropians has included a thread about Why (Rich) People Work and another about Intellectual Property. In the currently not at all anarchocapitalist USA, I work for a software company, in a group which develops compilers. I get paid for this (well, this isn't actually as clear as it could be. I am definitely getting paid by this company, and I definitely do this sort of work. The correlation between those two facts is, however, what I can only call a mutually acceptable myth. More about this later). These compilers are then sold to people, who actually pay what I would consider quite a bit of money for the right to use these compilers. Included in the product are a variety of mechanisms to attempt to insure that they don't get copied, used after a certain date/by more than a certain number of people, etc. These mechanisms can be defeated in a variety of ways, which require various levels of competence, etc. Various proposals on how to make it *really* *really* hard to copy/use software one has not paid for are periodically circulated through the software community, some small subset of which are actually implemented. Some of the more interesting ones would require hardware to be purchased (on the premise that hardware is fundamentally a harder thing to copy that software) that would verify usage (rental schemes frequently involve this). While I would not go so far as to say such will never be widely implemented, I would go so far as to suggest that if they are ever widely implemented, they will also be widely defeated, as others reverse-engineer dongles, etc., and sell them as gray market items (witness those bizarre things that enable one to hook a nintento machine up to a drive, and play pirated video games; witness the gray market vcrs which allow one to copy non-copyable tapes). Any such clever technique can and *will* be subverted, and only coercive force of law can render such subversion completely ineffectual (cost, of course, can become another problem, but expensive stuff to spoof is often (too) expensive to produce). As far as I, personally, am concerned, we are not *really* selling these compilers. We are actually selling people the right to complain to us about the problems they have using these compilers, and expect something to be done about it. Which is why people pay lots of money for our products, but pirate stuff from Microlimp. Failure to understand *this* economic reality will mean people continue to vilify FSF, and continue to suggest increasingly complex schemes for guaranteeing that money enters the pockets of distributors and copiers for every copy of software out there. I believe this for a variety of reasons, only some of which have to do with describing the world-as-it-is. Some of these reasons amount to that's-why-I-(don't)-pay-for-software, and extending my motivations to people everywhere. Also, it's the way I think the software industry *ought* to work, especially in an anarchocapitalist society. Would you subscribe to a law enforcement/protection agency which said you couldn't copy and give to your friends something you owned? A table (copying involving acquiring wood, tools, etc., and a certain level of manual dexterity and competence in carpentry)? A paperback book (using a photocopier -- what if it was out of print)? A computer program (using a computer)? I wouldn't, if I could possibly help it. And that would extend, in such a society, to starting my own protection agency. I also have a hard time imagining how I would convince someone to pay me to copy a computer program. I can imagine convincing someone to pay me for my time, materials, and expertise -- but copying a computer program takes so little of any of those, I'd probably do it for free (and if I wouldn't, they'd probably go to someone who would). (This is not to say that it would be *impossible* to convince others to pay one to copy a computer problem. Witness Microsoft.) One might legitimately ask why, then, would anyone develop new computer programs. Copying a table is time consuming, requires a fair amount of expertise, and comparatively expensive materials. For a while, anyway, I can expect to charge an interesting amount of money for copying a table. But I wouldn't expect that situation to last forever. Not in the face of all these discussions about robots and nanotech. What, then, about a world in which it is as easy to copy a table (or anything, maybe even including humans) as a software program? What motivates anyone to create anything (after all, no one's going to be making money by copying things)? This takes me back to Why I Do Stuff. If someone wants a new, different table, or book, or computer program, and cannot produce it oneself, one had better give up, or figure out a way to convince someone who Can to Do. Money is one of the easier ways. As someone earlier posted, people now contract out to write software, build prototypical hardware, without any particular concern about "rights" to further copies of that software and/or hardware. One can charge enough for the prototype to satisfy one's needs/desires. And in a world in which the only way to get something new, is to pay someone to produce it, and the only way to get someone to pay you, is to produce something new, well, I'd expect two things. (1) Exorbitant charges for prototypes (you pay development costs, plus whatever the person can get away with charging you for their "creativity". I could see this being *a lot*.) and (2) a lot of "leisure time", which is only leisure from repetition. I see all of the above as Good. The net result is that I am less than objective about this sort of scenario, and I laugh at most discussions of "property rights". If you can "steal" something from me, and I still have it (my table, book, or computer program), and I can still do whatever I want with it (copy it, destroy it, abuse it, use it) then you haven't stolen anything of mine. If you take it away from me, or stop me from using it (copying it, destroying it, etc.), *then* you have stolen something from me. I think my stance on property rights, copyrights, patents, and a whole lot of other related issues surrounding intellectual "property" rights can probably be derived from the above. In the meantime, however, living in the not at all anarchocapitalist USA, copylefting (so as to prevent others from stealing the rights to use, abuse, destroy, copy) seems like a fine idea. Now, about that mutually acceptable myth. What, really, is that software company expecting of me? This is not actually as trivial of a question as it sounds. Certainly, they are not expecting me to work n hours a week (where n is an arbitrary number between 0 and 168 hours). I don't fill out a time card, I show up when I want, and I leave when I do, and no one comments about my lunch break(s). They might be expecting me to be available to work n hours a week -- in fact, I'm pretty sure that was what my previous supervisor expected. But not any more. I suspect that the current supervisor is under the impression that I am expected to accomplish a certain amount of work. But it is so ill-defined, and, well, let's say that if a certain amount of work is expected, it isn't expected by a certain time, precisely. Oddly enough, my boss and supervisor are happy with me, in spite of these uncertain expectations. As near as I can tell, the company is paying me. And I happen to be doing work. Any further attempt to correlate the two is bound to be bogged down in details, and subject to counterexamples. I am increasingly certain that a lot of jobs are like this and that jobs are increasingly like this (not all jobs, not all the time). As idiosyncratic abilities become more and more important (relative the ability to do repetitive stuff, which I think a lot of us believe will be increasingly automated as the years roll along), I think we will see this trend continue. Perhaps corporations will become (return to?) a collection of individuals who share a goal, and the work involved in attaining that goal -- rather than a collection of individuals who are engaged in sharply defined tasks in exchange for valuta. This view of corporations, this view of "work", might largely eliminate the need or desire for retirement. Who, after all, entirely retires from life and its attendant desires and hoped for future other than the dead (ok, or maybe the transcendant. I wouldn't know. I'm young yet.)? On the other hand, this is probably hopelessly utopian. And a very muddled utopianism at that. Rebecca Crowley standard disclaimers apply rcrowley@zso.dec.com ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V93 #207 ********************************* &