30 Message 30: From extropians-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Sat Jul 31 08:10:56 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA04530; Sat, 31 Jul 93 08:10:54 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 AA11604; Sat, 31 Jul 93 08:10:42 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by panix.com id AA25453 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for more@usc.edu); Sat, 31 Jul 1993 11:07:41 -0400 Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1993 11:07:41 -0400 Message-Id: <199307311507.AA25453@panix.com> To: Exi@panix.com From: Exi@panix.com Subject: Extropians Digest X-Extropian-Date: July 31, 373 P.N.O. [15:07:36 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Status: RO Extropians Digest Sat, 31 Jul 93 Volume 93 : Issue 211 Today's Topics: AI: Searle's Chinese Torture Chamber [1 msgs] Apologies [1 msgs] Extropaganza Lodgings [1 msgs] HEX: more concerns [4 msgs] Nightly Market Report [1 msgs] POLI: help with a school choice proposal [1 msgs] TECH: encrypted computer? [1 msgs] The Age of Robots [1 msgs] digest commands [1 msgs] Administrivia: No admin msg. Approximate Size: 51944 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 30 Jul 93 11:25:12 PDT From: thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com (Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~) Subject: HEX: more concerns I know that HEx is still relatively young, but even so, it just isn't mirroring real-world market principles. I've voiced many concerns about this (usually as an afterthought to some other related post). Here are some other thoughts: No reputation's value is worth anything unless there is _activity_. Taking a look at some of the higher-priced, null-volume reputations, you find something like sell orders around 10p, and buy orders around .50p! THis is a bit ridiculous. First, in a normal market, if I am buying, and I bid the highest, I should be making some transactions, assuming someone is selling. There should be enough people buying and selling to assure that sellers are going to meet the top bidders at some middle ground. Why isn't this happening? I think it isn't happening because initial values were set either arbitrarily, or via private deals. Since the initial value of a reputation only depends on one seller and one buyer to agree on any given arbitrary price, you can get anything. But what this does is effectively alienate everyone else from the process. If you offer your reputation initially at $100 a share, and one person buys just 1 share, that is now the value of that reputation. (sorry if I switch currencies, but its hard for me to get used to Thornes). However, other people won't likely buy in at $100 a share, because the price is too high, and therefore the market for that reputation dies. The person who bought the $100 share isn't going to sell for $2, and if the owner of the reputation feels any kind of shareholder loyalty, he/she wont offer other shares at $2 either. There are numerous causes and effects to this whole business of no activity, but that's the basic problem - HEx needs more activity in order to mean anything. I propose a few things to raise the level of activity: 1. If you own a reputation that is trading at high Thorne values, PLEASE SPLIT, MANY TIMES IF NECESSARY. The overall value of your reputation won't change, and more people would be interested in buying at the lower price. 2. BUY, BUY, BUY. Stop hoarding those Thornes! They don't _mean_ anything unless you _use_ them. You can't go by a Big-Mac with a Thorne, and they don't pay your bills. They're only good on HEx, so why are you folks holding on to them? Pick some reputations which are priced fairly, and make some offers. 3. SELLERS: If you really want to sell, then meet those buyers half-way. If you can't afford to, then get the owner to SPLIT. If neither of these works, and you still want to sell, then too bad. That's what you get for buying into an over-priced reputation. I know the new rules will help get things started better, but it's not enough. I'm only mentioning all this, by the way, because I think this experiment actually has a chance. But it requires more participation. Even the new rules won't get things moving unless people follow up and take the appropriate actions as reputation owners, buyers and sellers. By the way. A question for Brian or anyone else who knows: when a reputation splits, are all the sell and buy orders adjusted accordingly? If not, has anyone been stung this way? Tony Hamilton thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com HAM on HEx (still cheap! ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 93 14:34:28 WET DST From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) Subject: Apologies I've made a lot grammar/spelling/word switch errors in my last few messages (governed=government, Buddhist=Buddist, practice=principle) These were caused by lack of caffeine and the fact that I have been up more than 24hrs as Harry can confirm. -Ray, Real Extropians Don't Sleep! Sleeping is Entropic! Proof: Let E=extropy, then dE/dt equals the rate of extropianism over time let H=human action and k=Extropy constant (extropy quantum per human action) let H=C-S_leep, so E=(C-S)*k, and dE/dt=-k dS/dt, so ... (opps, I accidently started channeling Robin Hanson ;-D ) -- 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: Fri, 30 Jul 1993 15:46:36 -0500 From: extr@jido.b30.ingr.com (Craig Presson) Subject: HEX: more concerns In <9307301825.AA43963@frc060>, Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~ writes: |> I know that HEx is still relatively young, but even so, it just isn't |> mirroring real-world market principles. I've voiced many concerns about this |> (usually as an afterthought to some other related post). Here are some other |> thoughts: While your concerns are valid, this paragraph sounds like you're discounting the value of HEx as an experiment. Experiments are allowed to fail. What we are accomplishing by trying new features and rules as we go is a test for an in-some-sense minimal set of facilities and rules, arrived at privately and to a significant degree consensually (what Rowan ends up putting in the software and the Trading Practices is his call, but he does collect opinions first), which will make a market in an abstract quality like reputations (or ideas) using an arbitrary currency. Frankly, I expect HEx to fail in certain significant ways (so I sold all my HEx stock on day 1, but that did not drive down the price, because HEX prices were not being set at auction or by a marketmaker who tries to emulate one). If the currency were commodity-backed, or debt-backed (send the Exchange your Visa # :-) folks would have more motivation to play the game hard, and you'd have a reason to expect that price levels would reflect perception somehow. Certainly the election markets did. [...] |> |> There are numerous causes and effects to this whole business of no activity, |> but that's the basic problem - HEx needs more activity in order to mean |> anything. I propose a few things to raise the level of activity: |> |> 1. If you own a reputation that is trading at high Thorne values, PLEASE |> SPLIT, MANY TIMES IF NECESSARY. The overall value of your reputation |> won't change, and more people would be interested in buying at the lower |> price. |> |> 2. BUY, BUY, BUY. Stop hoarding those Thornes! They don't _mean_ anything |> unless you _use_ them. You can't go by a Big-Mac with a Thorne, and |> they don't pay your bills. They're only good on HEx, so why are you |> folks holding on to them? Pick some reputations which are priced fairly, |> and make some offers. They mean something if you make a market in your own shares and therefore have ASKs outstanding which will be invalid if you have no Thornes. However, you are right to note that holding cash beyond current needs may not help -- EXCEPT if you're betting on a market crash and recovery, in which case you want to be long on Thornes until the upturn starts. If you believe that the market is fairly stable, you'd be fully invested except for backing for current ASKs. In theory, someone could start a bank on HEX, investing in shares and lending Thornes. In fact, I'm going to grab the obvious name for one with a quick REGISTER command as soon as I finish this, but I will certainly wait for the New Deal before starting operations ;-) |> 3. SELLERS: If you really want to sell, then meet those buyers half-way. |> If you can't afford to, then get the owner to SPLIT. If neither of these |> works, and you still want to sell, then too bad. That's what you get for |> buying into an over-priced reputation. That's why you diversify. Some win, some lose, even for very well-informed and experienced investors. But again, you're right, markets _are_ two-way systems. |> |> I know the new rules will help get things started better, but it's not It's also quite possible that people are holding off until the auctions happen. I know my own attempt to find a market price for FCP has flopped. There's not much motivation to buy shares at current levels when you have reason to believe the entire market is about to be revalued (either that or I just became the HEx Goat for some reason ;-). |> enough. I'm only mentioning all this, by the way, because I think this |> experiment actually has a chance. But it requires more participation. Even |> the new rules won't get things moving unless people follow up and take |> the appropriate actions as reputation owners, buyers and sellers. |> |> By the way. A question for Brian or anyone else who knows: when a reputation |> splits, are all the sell and buy orders adjusted accordingly? If not, has |> anyone been stung this way? No, I'm pretty sure they are cancelled (but I don't see it in the rules or commands listing, so I'm not sure why I know that). The quantity of shares outstanding increases by the split amount, of course. The stock market can work the way it does because splits are always announced in advance, so marketmakers expect share prices to _approximately_ reflect the split ratio -- because the immediately pre-split price already reflects the knowledge of the upcoming split. On Hex, OTOH, reputation owners are free to split anytime. Chorus: _We've NOTICED_! ^ / ------/---- extropy@jido.b30.ingr.com (Freeman Craig Presson) /AS 5/20/373 PNO /ExI 4/373 PNO ** E' and E-choice spoken here ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 93 14:23:28 PDT From: thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com (Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~) Subject: HEX: more concerns Craig, I know HEx is an experiment. Ultimately, I would then conclude it is currently a failed one. > They mean something if you make a market in your own shares and therefore > have ASKs outstanding which will be invalid if you have no Thornes. > However, you are right to note that holding cash beyond current needs may > not help -- EXCEPT if you're betting on a market crash and recovery, in > which case you want to be long on Thornes until the upturn starts. If > you believe that the market is fairly stable, you'd be fully invested > except for backing for current ASKs. And the problem is that, while there is virtually no risk of such a crash (how can there be a crash with no activity?), no-one is investing. Heck, even if there _is_ a crash with some of the higher-priced reputations, the rock-bottom reputations, assuming they represent active persons or ideas, can't get any lower! They're virtually crash-proof already. > |> 3. SELLERS: If you really want to sell, then meet those buyers half-way. > |> If you can't afford to, then get the owner to SPLIT. If neither of these > |> works, and you still want to sell, then too bad. That's what you get for > |> buying into an over-priced reputation. > > That's why you diversify. Some win, some lose, even for very well-informed > and experienced investors. But again, you're right, markets _are_ two-way > systems. And again, while I know that myself and some others _are_ diversified, for the most part no-one is "playing the game". > |> > |> I know the new rules will help get things started better, but it's not > > It's also quite possible that people are holding off until the > auctions happen. I know my own attempt to find a market price for FCP > has flopped. There's not much motivation to buy shares at current > levels when you have reason to believe the entire market is about to > be revalued (either that or I just became the HEx Goat for some > reason ;-). On this point, I can only say - does anyone know what is going to happen to the current reputations and values when the "New Deal" goes into effect? I admit, I haven't studied the changes well enough to understand what all will happen. > No, I'm pretty sure they are cancelled (but I don't see it in the > rules or commands listing, so I'm not sure why I know that). The > quantity of shares outstanding increases by the split amount, of > course. The stock market can work the way it does because splits are > always announced in advance, so marketmakers expect share prices to > _approximately_ reflect the split ratio -- because the immediately > pre-split price already reflects the knowledge of the upcoming split. > > On Hex, OTOH, reputation owners are free to split anytime. Chorus: > _We've NOTICED_! Okay, that's what I thought. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't the only one (I wasn't "lurking" about when all this started, so I apologize if any of this has been discussed already). So, again, what all will happen to the current state of things when the new rules go into effect? Tony Hamilton thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com HAM on HEx ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1993 16:24:20 -0500 From: extr@jido.b30.ingr.com (Craig Presson) Subject: HEX: more concerns In <199307302046.AA20299@jido.b30.ingr.com>, Craig Presson writes: [...] |> They mean something if you make a market in your own shares and therefore |> have ASKs outstanding which will be invalid if you have no Thornes. SHIT. I meant BIDs, of course. M-x replace-string. -- cP Pardonnez ma Anglais ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 93 21:16:12 GMT From: sjw@liberty.demon.co.uk (Stephen J. Whitrow) Subject: AI: Searle's Chinese Torture Chamber There is naturally a wide range of opinions as to just what we mean by "consciousness". Some assume that a machine is conscious merely by virtue of "intelligence", and mix this up with other characteristics such as "sentience" and "self-awareness". Others feel that some vitalistic "spirit" is required. But let's say we wanted to build the ultimate AI. A machine of magnificent complexity, that almost everyone would agree to be truly conscious (apart from extremist vitalists.) I'd like to propose a list of properties that would be incorporated into the design. Of course, this collection is open to suggestions on any essential features that I've omitted, or any of the below that are really unnecessary. (a) Self-awareness. The machine requires a map of the world which incorporates itself. It has to understand the concept of 'I', from first-hand experience. (b) Senses. Sensors allow it to receive visual, auditory, olfactory and tactile inputs from its environment. (Some of these are optional.) (c) Sentience. It must have 'feelings', and be aware of its own internal states. (d) Intelligence. Provide a massive parallel processing capacity with some 2 million transputer modules, each module consisting of over 10,000 'gates'. (e) Plasticity. Provide a learning capability. The 'gates' are not fixed logic gates but neural nets, each with up to tens of thousands of inputs and outputs. And the whole thing is a gigantic neural network. (f) Virtual serial processing. Whenever a module fires, it inhibits adjacent modules. Modules further apart are inhibited but to a lesser degree - results in one or a small number of dominant module(s) at any given instant. (g) Memory associations. Similar to a hypertext system. Each element has associations (which have been learned) with many other concepts, and these have associations with others in their turn. (h) Life-history. Included in its memory is a sequence of events which it believes to have experienced in its past. This provides still more associations and meaning to concepts. (i) Identity. The being will have its own set of beliefs and opinions, probably related to life-history above. (j) Communications. Strictly speaking, optional. It will be capable of informing other intelligent beings of its thoughts, feelings etc, in a common language, and will understand similar communications from them. Although this feature is necessary for it to pass a Turing Test, sudden removal would not render the machine unconscious. (k) Output. The machine will have 'voluntary muscles', or motors, gears, drivebelts etc, to enable interaction with its environment. However, this is really optional, being used to test for (l) below. (l) The bottom line is that intelligence should be self-directed. The machine / being / person should exhibit behaviour which is conducive to its survival, sanity, pleasure, etc. A consequence of having intelligence, self-awareness, sentience, sensors, etc. A thermostat might be said to pass (b) and (c) in a very limited way, but it's only aware of a single bit of information concerning the environment. And its internal state only has two possibilities. It is as oblivious to the meaning of 'hot' and 'cold' as Searle is to the meaning of the Chinese characters in the Room. A CPU might be aware of, say, the contents of several 32-bit registers, a few segment registers and a flags register. Adding software and peripherals, the system becomes more aware of its environment than a thermostat, but it needs to be very sophisticated to enable comprehension of objects, with many of the above features incorporated. The most important sense is the optical one. The machine should be able to look at a roomful of objects, and instantly recognise one of the many objects it has learned. It can choose to focus attention on a particular object, e.g. a TV set, and dwell on various associations such as E.M. waves, red led indicators, plastic case, designed by Japanese, the BBC etc. It might recall that the previous set that it owned was a Grundig, which survived for 8 years. But simultaneously, it will be aware of a large number of objects in the periphery of its visual field, and will know what each of these objects actually is. As the machine concentrates on the fact that the TV set has a red led on when in the standby mode, it will know that a pair of loudspeakers are positioned a few feet either side of it, and that these couldn't possibly be cupboards. Each conception, from a cat to a mousetrap, is represented by its unique physical 'mental' structure, or meme. Such a structure may encompass a whole module, or a simple meme might only require a fraction of a module. It may be that one individual's structure for "triangle" is totally different to another's -- it would be the relationships with other memes that defines meaning. This is almost like the splendidly non-operational suggestion that one person's experience of "red" is the same as another's experience of "blue"; only associations like blood, sky etc, give meaning to the colour. The complete system, a ghostless machine, is a device which enables the perception of objective external reality, following the creation of physical structures termed 'memes' to represent concepts which have been learnt, and then converting these memes back into concepts whenever they are fired. It seems reasonable to imagine a machine having this sort of consciousness, given that the processors can cope with the quantity of video input quickly enough to provide a continuously updated map of the surroundings, and there are sufficient connections or learned experiences. It has (b), (d), (e) and (f) above. (f) allows it to simulate a serial processor existing atop parallel hardware giving rise to, as Dennett says, the serial 'one-thing-after-another' consciousness stream. ((f) is probably also involved in 'collapsing wavefunctions' or more accurately divergence of consciousness streams - if animals such as cats haven't fully developed this they might not be quite as good at distinguishing some alternatives, but I think they could still tell whether they were dead or alive!) (a) and hence (l) can readily be tested, assuming it has intelligence, senses etc. Let it know that it's in its own interest for it to try to survive and prosper (an intelligent machine, as opposed to typical humans with genetically controlled brain wiring, ought to be able to work this out itself). Then try to exploit it, and watch the reaction. If we wanted it to work for us however it would be a question of controlling its feelings, denying it self-awareness, restraining its view of the external world, or giving it a set of irrational beliefs, eg. "Death is natural and desirable! Liberty is evil!" etc. And for good measure, try not to give it control of any weapon systems more powerful than a bow and arrow. Sentience seems the hardest feature to build into the AI -- can a mere "machine" really feel pain? We'll assume behavioural tests for pain prove positive. But short of telepathy we could not be sure what the machine really feels. What if pain is somehow more than just a type of relatively non-maskable interrupt that slows or prevents normal processing? Another sentience test: The machine/robot would be seen to chuckle to itself (spontaneously) whenever it thought about blundering politicians, such as the case of John Major and the "Bastardgate Tapes"? The closer the AI is to being a duplicate human, the more we can be sure of how it really does feel. A nanotech copying of the limbic system, including hippocampus, hypothalamus, medio-dorsal thalamus, temporal pole, gyrus hippocampi, septum, fornix, olfactory bulb, piriform cortex, entorhinal cortex, amygdala, cingulate gyrus etc, all correctly wired, ought to replicate its function! As for moving it onto some other physical medium, operationally we're only concerned with the relation between input and output, but philosophically the question arises of what process occurs in between. Provided the necessary features I listed above were all met, it's possible that the complete system of the Chinese Room could be arranged to have an intelligent awareness of its interactions with the questioners. Of course, Searle would need to have attained a vastly extended lifespan, to put it mildly, and the questioners would have to be orbiting a massive black hole. It would be no good simply having look-up tables, calculated from the algorithms, instructing Searle which Chinese characters to transmit. Physical structures representing each meme would have to be 'fired' at the appropriate time, and Searle would continually be wiring up and altering connections between them, as the Lady experienced events. His role would be that of a neurotransmitter, totally unaware of any of the Room's intelligent thoughts, the life and beliefs of the Lady etc. However, one option would be to wire Searle's limbic system to ensure that the Room was sentient. With Searle's perception operating at normal time, prolonged periods of agony would be hell, truly a Torture Chamber! It's not possible to prove that any human is conscious apart from oneself. But since the probability of solipsism being true is small we may induce that other humans are likely to be conscious too. Passing the Turing Test is no proof that a machine possesses consciousness. The more we are able to disassemble it, check that it's not a remote controlled fraud, and observe that its structure is consistent with some theory of consciousness the higher the probability that the machine is genuinely conscious. Steve Whitrow sjw@liberty.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 93 18:10:09 PDT From: desilets@sj.ate.slb.com (Mark Desilets) Subject: Extropaganza Lodgings Greetings Fellow Extropian Revelers: If anyone is coming to the Extropaganza from outta town, you may want to make reservations early. The area in which I live receives a lot of recreational use, so it is crowded throughout the summer. Here is a list of Motels in or near Boulder Creek. I haven't stayed at any, but form my casual inspection, I would recommend the Brookdale Lodge as being the best. They all seem clean. Ben Lomond Hylton Motel: (408)336-2292, About 6 Miles, $55-66/night Brookdale Lodge: (408)338-6433, About 3 Miles, $55-66/night Jaye's Timberlane Resort (cabins): (408)336-5479, About 6 Miles, $65/night Merrybrook Lodge (cabins): (408)338-6813, About 1.5 Miles, $70/night Boulder Creek Country Club (condo rental): (408)338-2111, About 1 mile $88/night plus $60 deposit And for you campers, a beautiful place to stay is: Big Basin Redwoods State Park: (408)338-6132, About 6 miles, $14/night ***** Reserve space now if you wish to camp. These spaces sell out in advance** I'll be gone till 8/9, so if you have questions, I'll answer them then, or you may call me at home: (408)338-0636 Come to the Extropaganza! It'll be pantloads of fun!!! Mark ============================================================================== | DoD #1.03144248E28 | Vote Libertarian | Mark DeSilets (408)437-5122 | | Redskins, Orioles | | desilets@sj.ate.slb.com | ============================================================================== | Defeat the wiretap chip proposal. Call your congresscritter. | ============================================================================== | Laete paschimur quos nos domare volunt | ============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 93 21:11:57 -0400 From: andreag@csmil.umich.edu Subject: POLI: help with a school choice proposal I need some critical review of ideas, and this list seems like an excellent place to get it. Summary: I'm thinking of getting involved in a push for school choice here in Michigan, but it will have to start out at public- school-only choice. What does such a system need to look like so it works even though private schools aren't allowed? Background: Michigan has been struggling with two interlocked problems. Our property taxes are too high and there are huge disparities between funding levels (paid for by property taxes) of wealthy and poor districts. After a couple of failed proposals, the State Legislature had some sort of fit and eliminated all school property tax levies. This is about $5.6 bill state- wide, about two-thirds of the property taxes and two-thirds of the school funds (varies by district). This started as a bluff by the likely Dem. challenger to the Gov, but the Repub's called it, things snowballed, and it passed both houses in half a day. Gov. Engler is thrilled. Now, most of this money is going to be replaced, but the state is now in a position to start essentially from scratch with school funding. HOWEVER, in 1970 the voters passed an amendment to the state constitution forbidding state funding of non-gov't schools. It is quite explicit, and no form of full choice could get around it. My Problem: Given that we have an opportunity to drastically improve the public schools, as well as even out the funding disparities (politically a "good thing"), but we have to start with only public-school choice, how do you do it? I've come up with four essential characteristics the system would need: 1) The money should follow the student. Preferably the total amount of per student funding in the state, but perhaps only part of it. How much is enough? 2) The individual schools need autonomy. Hiring and firing decisions, expulsion decisions, grades, building sites and standards, rules for the students, and curricula should all be under the control of the principle and perhaps a teachers' council. Now, Michigan has a VERY powerful set of education unions, so there may be a limit to the union rules that can be ignored. There may be hope for allowing schools to opt out of some contract points if all the teachers, staff, whatever, agree. 3a) Schools need to be closed if they fail. Schools should be closed if their income falls below operating costs, and their facilities sold to other schools 3b) It must be possible for new schools to form. This is a vital point, but tricky. With high barriers to entry, there probably won't be much improvement. On the other hand, how do you define a new school as "public"? Perhaps one criteria could be that only people who have been a teacher or principal in a public school. Any help in comming up with liberal-sounding criteria that would still allow entry is appreciated. What have I missed? One of my ulterior motives is that public schools should be able to fit in easily if the 1970 amendment is repealed. And any advice about how to sell such a plan is also appreciated. Thanks in advance, Andrea p.s. We could start a thread about the neccesary and suficient conditions for anarchocapitalism to survive, both in the "final frontier" and on earth, but I should be running my experiment, analysing data, and writing. So let's not. .............................................................. Andrea L. Gallagher Grad Student, Cognition & Perception andreag@csmil.umich.edu University of Michigan CSMIL: 313-764-6715 home: 313-994-9551 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1993 20:22:23 -0500 From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: digest commands ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Jul 93 22:36:13 EDT From: fnerd@smds.com (FutureNerd Steve Witham) Subject: The Age of Robots Robin Hanson sez, responding to Hans Moravec- > I see a more mixed future where good and bad things happen side by > side, and in no particular order. Biology should die slowly, more > from lack of interest, and in diverse locations. Slow, dumb, but > RICH, biofolk would live all over the place, in space and on earth, > and gradually be nudged aside as the wealth of uploads and freed > robots (someone's bound to make a few) grows faster. I suppose people who are slowing down relative to the majority can have their money accumulate interest for them at savings account rates as opposed to smart-investor rates. Are there statistics about long-term investment histories (trusts, for example) and their growth vs. crash-proofness? In the shorter term, do actual smart investors do better than mutual funds? Do mutual funds do better than dartboards? > Biofolk's wealth, and the power that comes from that, should be > respected for the same reason most wealth is, out of fear of losing > one's own if rules of property are abandoned, and fear of the > consequences from those who the wealthy have hired to enforce their > claim. Sure there will be wars and socialism in times and places, but > as often in space as on earth, and among bio and non-bio folks. But, as often in subjective time of the majority? In that case slow folks are in danger of an accellerating financial rollercoaster ride. The thing I wonder about property is, will it remain a necessary part of reputation maintenance to keep (subjectively) age-old contracts with slow folk, or will it start to seem like keeping a promise to a gigantically rich frozen dog with no owner? Or not hunting for whales? (Would respecting contracts with humans be a "fluffy" cause?) (Leaving out mention of neighbors vs. strangers, people one is likely to be in a continuing relationship vs. not.) (Only mentioning the possibility that slow people are valuable to the fast people as upload material. "Let's kill him and eat his brain," one of the characters in Rudy Rucker's _Software_ says. But he only really means forcibly upload the guy because the more the merrier. Is Rudy Rucker on this list?) Part of this "problem" of rich slow people might solve itself, if there's a reasonably brief period, subjectively to the fast people, before uploading is available. It seems plausible to me--I guess progress will continue to seem fast to uploaded people and AIs who are slowly pulling ahead of the humans. So there wouldn't be too much time for humans to become uninterestingly slow holders of way too much property. ("Ugly bags of mostly water.") Hmm. How fast will history seem to move as people speed up? Hans Moravec points that if everything speeds up at the same time, everything seems to still be going the same speed (except things that haven't sped up, like light and biofolks). But getting smaller without speeding up makes the speed of light seem faster--you can fit a bigger population within the same subjective communications delay. If you assume people shrinking and speeding up in the right proportion, then the combined effects of the subjective size of the neighborhood plus the synergy caused by the diversity of people who are farther away...*could* mean that things change subjectively at the same rate (or maybe at least in the same merely exponential way). Maybe (AI and uploaded) people's ability to adapt becomes a brake at some point, or maybe somehow maybe life gets easier and people get lazier. Maybe lazy people are more likely to want to bring in outside entertainment, by uploading oldsters. > ...And I see much more room for law and > peace in space that your vision described; the reasons we have laws > and respect property and arrange for group defense against aggression > would seem to apply also to the entities you imagine. -fnerd play me back and quote me ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Jul 93 00:10:05 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: Sat Jul 31 00:10:04 EDT 1993 Newly Registered Reputations: ARKU Eric Watt Forste AKA Arkuat FAB First Anarchist Bank and Trust New Share Issues: (None) Share Splits: (None) --------------------------------------------------------------- Market Summary as of: Sat Jul 31 00:00:01 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 .20 .10 10000 2000 200.00 80 - .10 - 10000 - - 90 - .20 .10 10000 2000 200.00 ACS - .15 .50 10000 1124 562.00 AI - .50 .20 10000 1000 200.00 ALCOR 2.00 3.80 2.00 10000 3031 6062.00 ALTINST - .15 .10 10000 1500 150.00 ANTO - - - - - - ARKU - - - - - - BIOPR - .20 .10 10000 1500 150.00 BLAIR - 30.00 50.00 10000 25 1250.00 CHAITN - .05 - 10000 - - CYPHP .15 .20 - 10000 - - DEREK - .42 1.00 100000 8220 8220.00 DRXLR 1.00 2.00 2.00 10000 2246 4492.00 DVDT .50 1.55 .50 10000 10000 5000.00 E .58 .70 .60 10000 5487 3292.20 ESR - - - - - - EXI 1.00 3.00 2.50 10000 3000 7500.00 FAB - - - - - - FCP - .50 - 80000 4320 - GHG .01 .30 .01 10000 6755 67.55 GOBEL .01 .30 1.00 10000 767 767.00 GOD .10 .20 .10 10000 1000 100.00 H .76 .76 - 30000 18750 - HAM - .50 .20 10000 5000 1000.00 HEINLN .30 .50 - 10000 - - HEX 100.00 125.00 100.00 10000 3368 336800.00 HFINN 2.00 10.00 .75 10000 1005 753.75 IMMFR .25 .80 .49 10000 1401 686.49 JFREE - .15 .10 10000 3000 300.00 JPP .25 .40 .25 10000 2510 627.50 LEARY - .20 .20 10000 100 20.00 LEF - .15 .30 10000 1526 457.80 LEFTY - .45 .30 10000 3051 915.30 LIST .40 .75 .50 10000 5000 2500.00 LP - .09 - 10000 - - LSOFT .58 .60 .58 10000 7050 4089.00 LURKR - .09 - 100000 - - MARCR - - - - - - MED21 - .08 - 10000 - - MLINK - .09 .02 1000000 2602 52.04 MMORE - .10 - 10000 - - MORE .75 1.60 .75 10000 3000 2250.00 MWM .15 .15 1.50 10000 1260 1890.00 N 20.00 25.00 25.00 10000 98 2450.00 NEWTON - .20 - 10000 - - NSS - .05 - 10000 - - OCEAN .10 .12 .10 10000 1500 150.00 P 20.00 25.00 25.00 1000000 66 1650.00 PETER - .01 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 - .06 - 10000 - - RJC 1.00 999.00 .60 10000 5100 3060.00 ROMA - - - - - - RWHIT - - - - - - SGP - - - - - - SHAWN - 1.00 - 10000 - - SSI - .05 - 10000 - - TCMAY .40 .75 .75 10000 4000 3000.00 TIM 1.00 2.00 1.00 10000 100 100.00 TRANS - .05 .40 10000 1511 604.40 VINGE .20 .50 .20 10000 1000 200.00 WILKEN 1.00 10.00 10.00 10000 101 1010.00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 411563.03 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Jul 93 00:18:11 -0700 From: tribble@netcom.com (E. Dean Tribble) Subject: TECH: encrypted computer? > software, the dealer enters your credit card number by dial-up > to the software house, who assembles a custom version of the > code and return that via modem, and also uses the credit card to > pay for the software. > > This increases the cost of sales incredibly. Software that doesn't Not true. The whole thing could be automated easily enough, with little or no extra expense. Huh? this sounds like you're thinking only of the technology. The problem is that this scheme complicates the heart of a retail business: the sales process. The new sales process requires phone connection that it didn't before; it requires credit card only transactions; it requires a server at the other end that can cobble together software quickly (who pays for that?); it requires reliable comm (an oxymoron); it requires the customer waiting for the program to download (which reduces sales throughput, instant death for a retail company); it requires more training of the sales staff; in fact, it requires retraining of the sales staff because all their previous cashier experience doesn't apply; it requires new packaging (the roduct is no longer just a box sitting on the shelf); it requires new liability insurance for the risk of contributing to releasing someone's credit-card numbers (someone *will* sue you); it requires... how would corporations participate in this, too? (BTW that's rhetorical). All these add up to tremendous cost, both in money and in inconvenience. A sales organization can ill afford to distract itself with the logistics of this scheme, especially when the return is uncertain and eventual (it's hard to point at the moneythey would get from implementing this get). Note that most of my objections are logistical rather than technical. Just one such logistical hurdle is usually enough to discourage most companies fromsuch schemes. A much simpler system given that you're going to pay the overhead of separate disk for each user is to just brand the disk in the store. It doesn't have to have the credit card in it, just your name with some proof of ID. This might include your company name if the payment is coming from a company. You might market this as a service for companies so that they can tell who's copy is getting ripped off.... Perhaps easier is to simply record the serial number of every sold package and send it to the manufacturer so that they canknow who originally bought any piece of software that they encounter. This feels a little too Big BRotherish to me though. People in US markets have fits when products ship with dongles (hardware copy-protection). Autodesk now ships with hardware locks in just about every country but the US.... > there probably is), you've now added extra risk to software product. > I certainly wouldn't buy software with this scheme in it, and there > will definitely be other software that fills my needs that doesn't > have this. But that is you. First, I don't think all software is that competitive. The extra risk raises the cost of the software. In terms of perceived hassle, it raises it a lot: what does a company do when an employee steals the software? how do I sell my software? etc. I would instead say that most software is unique. Purchases are generally made on the basis of utility, not politics or philosophy. Second, most people just don't care. As a business man, I wouldn't exactly concern myself with the small market sector which actually concerns themselves with these moral issues - I just want to sell more software. ... The bigger problem, however, deals with piracy itself. Would people who pirate software and use pirated software actually pay if they couldn't get it for free, or would they instead abstain from the product altogether? It I suspect that there are several kinds of piracy, and they would react differently. Two examples are corporate pirates that copy software because it's *easier* than buying, and private pirates that copy (from work, from others) because they want touse but can't se itas valuable enough to pay for. people who will boycott such software (which I still think is a small number)? Are there any examples in the industry of truly devious copy protection schemes which have survived? If so, we could look at how well they have done in their market. So far people in this country have really reacted negatively toanything that seems like copy-protection. I don't know why it is, but people enjoy guessing about it. dean ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V93 #211 ********************************* &