35 Message 35: From extropians-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Mon Aug 2 00:03:35 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA11154; Mon, 2 Aug 93 00:03:27 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 AA11791; Mon, 2 Aug 93 00:03:16 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by panix.com id AA08635 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for more@usc.edu); Mon, 2 Aug 1993 02:59:21 -0400 Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1993 02:59:21 -0400 Message-Id: <199308020659.AA08635@panix.com> To: Exi@panix.com From: Exi@panix.com Subject: Extropians Digest X-Extropian-Date: August 2, 373 P.N.O. [06:59:09 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Status: RO Extropians Digest Mon, 2 Aug 93 Volume 93 : Issue 213 Today's Topics: ::help [1 msgs] ADMIN: List commands [1 msgs] FSF: Some Useful Software, No Useful Politics [4 msgs] Meta: I'm back Sunday [1 msgs] Meta: Ray's In charge [1 msgs] Natural law and natural rights [1 msgs] Nightly Market Report [2 msgs] Objectivists and physics [2 msgs] Searle's Chinese Room [1 msgs] TRIV: Mark Twain's children? [1 msgs] extension [1 msgs] falsifiability; mechanism [1 msgs] Administrivia: No admin msg. Approximate Size: 52523 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 01 Aug 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: Sun Aug 1 00:10:04 EDT 1993 Newly Registered Reputations: (None) New Share Issues: (None) Share Splits: (None) --------------------------------------------------------------- Market Summary as of: Sun Aug 1 00:00:01 EDT 1993 Total Shares Symbol Bid Ask Last Issued Outstanding Market Value 1000 .10 .20 .10 10000 2000 200.00 110 .01 .10 - 10000 - - 150 .01 .10 - 10000 - - 1E6 .02 .10 - 10000 - - 1E9 .01 .10 - 10000 - - 200 .10 .20 .10 10000 2000 200.00 80 .01 .10 - 10000 - - 90 .01 .20 .10 10000 2000 200.00 ACS - .15 .50 10000 1124 562.00 AI .01 .50 .20 10000 1000 200.00 ALCOR 2.00 3.80 2.00 10000 3031 6062.00 ALTINST - .15 .15 10000 2500 375.00 ANTO - - - - - - ARKU - - - - - - BIOPR .01 .20 .10 10000 1500 150.00 BLAIR .01 30.00 50.00 10000 25 1250.00 CHAITN .01 .05 - 10000 - - CYPHP .15 .17 .17 10000 100 17.00 DEREK - .42 1.00 100000 8220 8220.00 DRXLR 1.00 2.00 2.00 10000 2246 4492.00 DVDT .75 1.55 .50 10000 10000 5000.00 E .58 .70 .60 10000 5487 3292.20 ESR - - - - - - EXI 1.00 3.00 1.30 10000 3025 3932.50 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 .01 .50 .20 10000 5000 1000.00 HEINLN .01 .25 - 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 .01 .15 .10 10000 3000 300.00 JPP .25 .26 .25 10000 2510 627.50 LEARY .01 .20 .20 10000 100 20.00 LEF .01 .15 .30 10000 1526 457.80 LEFTY .01 .45 .30 10000 3051 915.30 LIST .40 .75 .50 10000 5000 2500.00 LP .01 .09 - 10000 - - LSOFT .58 .60 .58 10000 7050 4089.00 LURKR - .09 - 100000 - - MARCR - - - - - - MED21 .01 .08 - 10000 - - MLINK - .09 .02 1000000 2602 52.04 MMORE - .10 - 10000 - - MORE .75 1.25 .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 .01 .05 - 10000 - - OCEAN .11 .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 .01 .10 .05 10000 1500 75.00 PPL .11 .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 .01 1.00 - 10000 - - SSI - .05 - 10000 - - TCMAY .40 .63 .75 10000 4000 3000.00 TIM 1.00 2.00 1.00 10000 100 100.00 TRANS .01 .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 408237.53 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Aug 93 01:51:36 -0700 From: dasher@netcom.com (D. Anton Sherwood) Subject: Objectivists and physics > In the case of the remark about E = mc^2, Peikoff did > say something to the effect that the equation may be "numerically > true" but was "philosophically false." He might mean that while the two quantities are proportional, it is meaningless to say they are the same thing. What does it mean to say (e.g.) that force is *equal* to mass x acceleration (or, more generally, dp/dt)? Is it necessary? No; it is only convenient to measure force in units such that the equality holds. If there's no other way to measure force, this distinction can be ignored. Story goes that someone at a physics lecture asked, "Professor, what is mass?" The professor said, "Well, I don't know what it is, but I can tell you what it does." The questioner: "That's not science, that's engineering." But it's all we've got, unless we can get out and access the design specs for this cosmos. Anton Sherwood dasher@netcom.com +1 415 267 0685 1800 Market St #207, San Francisco 94102 USA ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Aug 93 01:52:20 -0700 From: dasher@netcom.com (D. Anton Sherwood) Subject: Searle's Chinese Room > >The man in the Chinese Room is not analogous to a > >mind, > > But he undeniably does have a mind. A man who is thrown out of a balloon as ballast has a mind, too, but is not functioning _as_ a mind. > >so of course he does not experience whatever mind may be produced > >by the operation of the Chinese Room. > > This doesn't even follow. He could experience this alleged mind in some > way, surely. Why not? Can't you imagine otherwise, either? A bright occupant would likely perceive what is going on, and perhaps even learn some Chinese in the process, but the experiment doesn't assume that he is bright. (Why a man and not a computer?) If the Chinese Room can be built, then whether the operator is human, computer or a gang of trained hamsters, the system as a whole effectively embodies a mind; but if inanimate objects cannot embody a functional equivalent of mind, it seems to me the Chinese Room *cannot* be built -- and if it can't exist, why argue about what it is? Heckler: "What if a Ross Perot bought up all the land in America and kicked you out, then where would you be?" June Genis: "In fantasyland!" Anton Sherwood dasher@netcom.com +1 415 267 0685 1800 Market St #207, San Francisco 94102 USA ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1993 08:16:06 -0500 From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: TRIV: Mark Twain's children? >And on top of it all, you invoke my ancestor against me. Sigh. >Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! While I know some remote relatives to Twain, I thought there weren't any people left of direct lineal descent. Care to clue us in? (Are you related to Jim Maier?) Phil ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 28 July 1993 23:26:29 PST8 From: "James A. Donald" Subject: Natural law and natural rights In <199307281803.AA14775@jido.b30.ingr.com>, extr@jido.b30.ingr.com (Craig Presson) wrote: > A critical point here is the interaction between culture and nature. > In fact different interpretations of law are observed in different > cultures, and each treats its customary law as axiomatic. You > mentioned this in the original essay, but didn't treat it in detail. > _We_ share many assumptions and preferences that color our behavior > but are not universals. Obviously customary law is important, but it is only possible for customary law to function and develop, within the framework and support of natural law. To the extent that a society deviates from natural law it will show symptoms of pathology. Extreme deviations, for example Stalin's Russia and the Peru of the Incas, show extreme symptoms of pathology. > |> We intuitively know the difference between coercion and > |> consent because we know that other humans resemble > |> ourselves. > > This point is even more culture-dependent (in fact often false in > situations of cultural clash), and depends critically on the "as seen > by our hypothetical reasonable man in possession of all the relevant > facts" proviso. Your argument could be phrased differently. Question. Why are most states in Africa today once again slave states, as they were before colonialism? By your argument the answer would be: because black Africans do not know the difference between freedom and slavery, and are happier with someone else making their decisions for them. This does not appear to be the case. > I'd love to see natural law rescued somehow, both philosophically and > in everyday law and commerce, and then I'd like to rub Joe Biden's > nose in it; but I think this requires more discernment by the Man In > the Street and the Critter in the Congress, not to mention the > Muckymuck on the Bench, than we can expect any more. As I argued in the essay, an absolute centralized monopoly of force makes it possible and profitable to suppress natural law. Social disintegration is quite visibly under way, and will eventually undermine this monopoly of force. The important thing then is to deal with social decay not by attempting to sustain the monopoly of force, but by returning to natural law. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves and our James A. Donald | property, because of the kind of animals that we | are. True law derives from this right, not from jamesdon@infoserv.com | the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1993 12:58:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Harry Shapiro Subject: Meta: Ray's In charge As of mid-night tonight until friday, I will be mostly off the net. I will have limited log-in ability, so I have left Ray Cromwell in charge. Thanks Ray! -- Harry S. Hawk habs@extropy.org Electronic Communications Officer, Extropy Institute Inc. The Extropians Mailing List, Since 1991 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1993 12:58:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Harry Shapiro Subject: Meta: I'm back Sunday I will be back on the net by sunday. /hawk -- Harry S. Hawk habs@extropy.org Electronic Communications Officer, Extropy Institute Inc. The Extropians Mailing List, Since 1991 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Aug 93 20:12:51 WET DST From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) Subject: Objectivists and physics D. Anton Sherwood () writes: > > > In the case of the remark about E = mc^2, Peikoff did > > say something to the effect that the equation may be "numerically > > true" but was "philosophically false." > > He might mean that while the two quantities are proportional, it is meaningless > to say they are the same thing. What does it mean to say (e.g.) that force is > *equal* to mass x acceleration (or, more generally, dp/dt)? Is it necessary? > No; it is only convenient to measure force in units such that the equality > holds. If there's no other way to measure force, this distinction can > be ignored. I don't think the two situations are analogous. In F=ma's case, Newton simply says "if a mass is accelerated, it has undergone a force", not Force is proportional to mass. The situation is different in relativity. Not only is rest mass proportional to energy (by a factor of c^2), but energy also exibits qualitites usually attributed to mass, like momentum. Energy can also gravitate. We can also convert mass to energy and vice-versa (fission, particle accelerators) Some people like to view mass as an extremely compact form of energy. Peikoff may think that relativity is ``philosophically false'' but it is a neccessary theory if you want to maintain an objective view of the universe (e.g. the laws of the universe are independant of inertial frame). Otherwise, two observers could not agree on an event if they were in different inertial frames. (and that spells subjectivism to me) (Could someone enlighten me as to why they dislike no-Euclidean geometry?) -Ray -- 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: Sun, 1 Aug 93 17:40:18 -0700 From: dasher@netcom.com (D. Anton Sherwood) Subject: falsifiability; mechanism fnerd: > . . . Tim* admits that he doesn't need > falsifiability as a criterion of truth . . . . Starr: > Yes, I don't see why axioms ought to be excluded from truthfulness. An axiom is true, as such, only in the context of the system it generates. What must be falsifiable is the claim that the axiomatic system describes the real world. > Mind seems to lack an essential characteristic of machine: extension. It > seems to have location - my mind is "in" me, yours "in" you - but it doesn't > seem to have extension. My understanding of post-Cartesian physics is that > its objects of study are things with extension. Have I got this right? If > so, then how can physics study non-extended mind? What is extension? Do these have extension: electron, proton, information, potential energy? Anton Sherwood dasher@netcom.com +1 415 267 0685 1800 Market St #207, San Francisco 94102 USA ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Aug 93 17:40:48 -0700 From: dasher@netcom.com (D. Anton Sherwood) Subject: extension Oops. I meant to ask whether pHotons, not pRotons, have extension. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Aug 93 20:33:23 WET DST From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) Subject: ADMIN: List commands I've seen a number of people making mistakes such as ::exclude thread 93-7-1210 or ::resend 93-7-1352 The docs clearly say to use a '#' in front of a message number. As an absolute RULE oF THUMB, _never_ use a message number as an argument to the list software unless it begins with '#'. Such as ::exclude thread #93-7-1210 ::resend #93-7-1352 Without the #, the list software thinks the 93-7-1210 is a normal text string/pattern. In the case of ::exclude thread 93-7-1210, instead of excluding all messages in the same thread as #93-7-1210, it actually tries to filter messages with the string '93-7-1210' in the subject line. -Ray remember, message numbers are numbers, so put # in front of them. -- 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: Sun, 1 Aug 1993 18:46:59 -0600 (MDT) From: Stanton McCandlish Subject: FSF: Some Useful Software, No Useful Politics Quoth Elias Israel - SunSelect Engineering, verily I say unto thee: -=>Aside from being a cutesy rhetorical device, Perry's "claim" only serves -=>to drag this discussion away from the real point. I have never disputed -=>that current patent law is flawed. What I have disputed is the claim -=>that ideas cannot be owned. For lack of arguments on this more important -=>question (or lack of interest), Perry continues to drag the conversation -=>back to the first point, and argue with claims that I never made. I'll be glad to argue with what you call your "real point". As I was reading your note, I had little choice but to think about the idea of ideas being owned. That is, I had the idea of ideas being owned, and you had that idea before me. By your logic, I have just stolen your idea, and you can sue me. Go ahead, make my day. >;) Personally the whole idea that someone can "own" a pattern of neural discharges in a brain, when similar discharges, revealing more or less the same pattern ("idea"), can be found in any other brain at random, just by the brain happening to have encountered the first idea, is just ludicrous. Ideas automatically generate copies of themselves. What you propose is that I should be able to write a program, copyright it, and reserve the right to sue the shit out of anyone that "steals", while not only ensuring that the software is easily copied, but copies ITSELF at every opportunity - a fancy virus in other words. You don't propose this in those words, but that's what your idea about ideas amounts to. If ideas were something you could put in a jar, or hide in your garage, hey fine. -- 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: Sun, 1 Aug 93 21:25:20 WET DST From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) Subject: FSF: Some Useful Software, No Useful Politics Stanton McCandlish () writes: > Personally the whole idea that someone can "own" a pattern of neural > discharges in a brain, when similar discharges, revealing more or less the > same pattern ("idea"), can be found in any other brain at random, just by > the brain happening to have encountered the first idea, is just ludicrous. Socialists make the same claim about normal property. Non-libertarians make the same claim about non-traditional property (ocean, atmosphere, animals, etc) > Ideas automatically generate copies of themselves. What you propose is > that I should be able to write a program, copyright it, and reserve the But ideas do not automatically *USE* themselves. One of the central tenets of "superdistribution" (software made from pieces of networked objects) is that you pay for USE not for COPY. Ideas also don't IMPLEMENT themselves either, hence copyright. Ideas do not automatically create themselves either. If someone spent 50 years of labor on a "logically deep" idea, I think they deserve some compensation for their work in proportion. Using their idea without compensation is "freeloading", and as far as I'm concerned, theft -- which is no less harmful than the state "taxing" the fruits of your labor and distributing them to all in society. > right to sue the shit out of anyone that "steals", while not only ensuring > that the software is easily copied, but copies ITSELF at every opportunity > - a fancy virus in other words. You don't propose this in those words, but > that's what your idea about ideas amounts to. If ideas were something you > could put in a jar, or hide in your garage, hey fine. The above is pure bullshit. You can put ideas into a jar -- trade secret. Breaking into a company computer and copying a trade secret is THEFT, analogous to breaking into a garage. Reverse engineering an implementation is theft since it is in a "jar" (an implementation). An implementation is a perfectly clear boundary line around the property analogous to a fence. Engineering is so diverse that the probability of you coming up with a circuit layout identical to a Pentium is astronomically small. Besides all of what I've said, NO ONE on the affirmative side of this debate has called for government protection of ideas or implementation. Such things could be taken care of very easily by contract and private arbitration. I'm about to quit this debate because the other side seems opposed even to private contract/arbitration, and sales discrimination (not selling to reputations who have a history of pirating) One person, (Tony Hamilton), referred to the keeping of records and tit-for-tat refusal of sale as big brotherish. If this is so, than all humans are big brothers because people automatically register reputations in their head all the time. -- 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: Sun, 01 Aug 1993 19:09:03 From: tim.hruby@his.com (Tim Hruby) Subject: ::help ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Aug 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: Mon Aug 2 00:10:03 EDT 1993 Newly Registered Reputations: ANTON Anton Sherwood New Share Issues: Symbol Shares Issued ANTON 10000 Share Splits: (None) --------------------------------------------------------------- Market Summary as of: Mon Aug 2 00:00:01 EDT 1993 Total Shares Symbol Bid Ask Last Issued Outstanding Market Value 1000 .10 .20 .10 10000 2000 200.00 110 .01 .10 - 10000 - - 150 .01 .10 - 10000 - - 1E6 .02 .10 - 10000 - - 1E9 .01 .10 - 10000 - - 200 .10 .20 .10 10000 2000 200.00 80 .01 .10 - 10000 - - 90 .01 .20 .10 10000 2000 200.00 ACS - .15 .50 10000 1124 562.00 AI .01 .50 .20 10000 1000 200.00 ALCOR 2.00 3.80 2.00 10000 3031 6062.00 ALTINST - .15 .15 10000 2500 375.00 ANTO - - - - - - ANTON - 1.00 - 10000 - - ARKU - - - - - - BIOPR .01 .20 .10 10000 1500 150.00 BLAIR .01 30.00 50.00 10000 25 1250.00 CHAITN .01 .05 - 10000 - - CYPHP .15 .17 .17 10000 100 17.00 DEREK - .42 1.00 100000 8220 8220.00 DRXLR 1.00 2.00 2.00 10000 2246 4492.00 DVDT .75 1.55 .50 10000 10000 5000.00 E .58 .70 .60 10000 5487 3292.20 ESR - - - - - - EXI 1.00 3.00 1.30 10000 3025 3932.50 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 .01 .50 .20 10000 5000 1000.00 HEINLN .01 .25 - 10000 - - HEX 100.00 125.00 100.00 10000 3468 346800.00 HFINN 2.00 10.00 .75 10000 1005 753.75 IMMFR .25 .80 .49 10000 1401 686.49 JFREE .01 .15 .10 10000 3000 300.00 JPP .25 .26 .25 10000 2510 627.50 LEARY .01 .20 .20 10000 100 20.00 LEF .01 .15 .30 10000 1526 457.80 LEFTY .01 .45 .30 10000 3051 915.30 LIST .40 .75 .50 10000 5000 2500.00 LP .01 .09 - 10000 - - LSOFT .58 .60 .58 10000 7050 4089.00 LURKR - .08 - 100000 - - MARCR - - - - - - MED21 .01 .08 - 10000 - - MLINK - .09 .02 1000000 2602 52.04 MMORE - .10 - 10000 - - MORE .75 1.25 .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 .01 .05 - 10000 - - OCEAN .11 .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 .01 .10 .05 10000 1500 75.00 PPL .11 .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 .01 1.00 - 10000 - - SSI - .05 - 10000 - - TCMAY .40 .63 .75 10000 4000 3000.00 TIM 1.00 2.00 1.00 10000 100 100.00 TRANS .01 .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 418237.53 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1993 23:03:13 -0600 (MDT) From: Stanton McCandlish Subject: FSF: Some Useful Software, No Useful Politics -=> Of course there will be people like this, there always will be. But this -=>group of people will not have the average access and freedom of those -=>who pay for software. Even within the pirate world, there are classes -=>of haves and have nots. There are "elite" pirate bbses which only deal -=>with software that has been cracked the same day it was released. -=>"Luzers" (the pirate culture word for them) often wait _months_ for -=>cracked software to trickle down to their local pirate bbses because -=>snooty egotistic "elites" won't upload the software there. This is erroneous. "Elite BBS" is a blanket term for any pirate board. The leeches are called lusers, or just leeches, not Luzers. And most software does not require cracking, but can be zipped up, complete with volume labels and directory structure if any, with an included text file giving the serial number. This how almost all BBS-based software piracy (which likely amounts to about 1% of piracy, most of which is "BuddyWare" - "Hey, Jo, look what I got! Coreldraw! Copied it from my neighbor; want a copy?") is performed. The largest flaw in this rather mythic view of BBS pirates is that "lesser" boards must wait for hand outs from the big boys. This is absurd. No special elite of the elite has a monopoly on software access. USERS (lusers) upload this stuff, not sysops for the most part. Little Sam's mom just got WP 5.1? Guess where it ends up, on a dozen BBSs in the region (or did, back when such boards were common.) Users have a vested interest in uploading, since they get credit for doing so, which can be spent playing games, leeching more warez or whatever. Otherwise they generally have to pay real money, or go find a new board that will let them leech for free for a while. It's all a matter of economics. BBS piracy works more like the PC marketplace, with a thousand competing vendors, each offering certain unique or interesting features or services, rather then the Apple-like monopoly you seem to picture. I think you've been a victim of some "investigative journalism" or something. What I've told you up there is based on personal experience and observation of these people. Disclaimer, in case any lurking narcs are present: don't even bother. All of the boards I used to call are gone, and I never knew who they were in real life anyway; I don't even have the phone numbers. My HD's been formatted a dozen times since then, not even a vestige remains on the disk. -=> Whether it's the newest gossip, cracked software, or prerelease book, -=>many people are always willing to withhold information just for the sake -=>of saying "I've got it, and you don't. I'm priveleged." This is very true, and pirate boards use this tactic a lot (most often just to weed out goons; very few pirate boards charge money. Most have the attitude of the FSF - "Information wants to be free" again. -=> What's my point? Having access to the newest information is power, -=>stealing it will tend to choke off your access. This might be sound in principle, but I think some things have been missed. Anonymity is easy, and will probably continue to be so, if not more so, unless the statists descend in a swarm. Who you gonna choke off? If info is power, and it certainly is looking to shape up that way, then those that can steal the most info will get more power. Ever heard of industrial espionage? Have any idea how much this country loses to others via this spying? Quite a bit. This is not likely to just quit. Your argument here seems tatamount to saying that there never were any really sea-going pirates, because no one would have let them come to port, or sail the seas. -=>> Also, there is an assumptions that criminals (using the term for lack of a -=>> better one) would be caught. Today's criminals seem quite adept at avoiding -=>> detection (ones of any talent, anyway). Why would that trend change? -=> Because selling software leaves behind traces. A bit of applied -=>stegnography and you can identify who was the source of the leak. -=>(consider hiding 32-bits of information on a 500mb CD-ROM which has -=>lots of random information on each disk. Very low probability that someone -=>could find it.) Offer rewards for turning in pirate bbses, etc. Cute and all, but what happens when the folks that work for the co. steal (as they currently do, and have always done) from the company itself? Lots of never-sold, brand-spankin'-new ware on the black market (if such a market ever develops here; I have yet to see it. As I pointed out most piracy is buddyware, and most done via BBSs, FTP sites, etc is done for free, on general principles.) You steganoscheme will fail precisely because almost no one is ever caught. Those that ARE caught, might find themselves in keep kimchi; this will have no effect whatsoever on day to day piracy. Hell capital punishment has almost no effect on crime. You expect the electronic equivalent of UV marking pens to stem the tide? I think not. -=> By identifying uniquely who the original leak was (with stegnography) -=>you could limit the amount of pirating. I'm not saying you can stop it, -=>but I doubt piracy will grow bigger than it is now. ROTFLMAO! One other thing, anyone can set up their own domain. If I wanted to, in a week or 2 you'd see my mail coming from nitv.indranet.net or something. I can create as many "users" as I like. One handle gets ostracized from the future NaziNet(R) you seem to envision? So what? "Crunch all you like, we'll make more!" Whole site get's banned? BFD, make a new one. Networks are like realms where you can build a new house, and new people (persona, whatever) just by typing a little. It's like fiction. -=>> does the automated tracking end and the privacy begin? Who decides? Where is -=>> the appeal, and how is it managed? None of this sounds very anarchist to me. -=> -=> There are two opposing forces here. The definate need of companies -=>and individuals to gather information (to protect themselves) and -=>the need of individuals and companies for privacy. For the longest time, All talk of digital reputation being the deciding factor of your relationship to society (I'll reserve judgement on that, though I lean toward not buying that), see the proposal I already posted before, that the software industry model itself on the video industry (which is in fact just another part of the software industry, like CDs, all of which will be melding before long; witness CD-ROMs, video/audio disks, and floppies accompanying or even comprising, releases by major artists like Front 242, Peter Gabiel, and Billy Idol.), and based their income on royalties, initial sales to rental businesses, and sales of things that are far more difficult to pirate: manuals, tech support, upgrades keyed to specific people's IDs (probably cryptographic in coming times), etc. This mess you envision would be completly avoided by a shift such as this, and in my optimist view almost certainly will be. -=>> In a truly anarchist, or Extropian, (or whatever other similar concept) -=>> society, wherever one concept is questioned, competition will spring up. If -=>> people don't like the black lists of one network, networks without black -=>> lists will be formed. Hell, if Extropians really _are_ posessing of this -=> -=> And these competiting nets won't have any software companies located -=>on them. If they do, those companies will soon go bankrupt or they will -=>look like FSFs. (the FSF is near financial trouble too) Or they will be smart, and restructure how they make their livings, and partake of these more open, and more popular, networks. Such nets will thrive anyway, just as they do now. What on earth makes you think that the presence of computer corporations determines whether a net is viable or not? -=>> In summary, Ray (I owe you a summary, you gave me one): I see your views as -=>> being highly idealistic. And I know it isn't just you. If I seem overly -=>> pessimistic, than I will accept that characterization. It's just my nature -=>> to question rather than accept. We both have our place, I suppose. I just -=>> happen to believe that by questioning these ideas, I'll be better prepared -=>> no matter which is more correct. -=> -=> I simply believe that it is possible to enforce effective copyright -=>without physical force. I believe there are utilitarian reasons for creating -=>intellectual property. If America wants to maintain its status as the #1 -=>software producer, it had better keep intellectual copyright. Why is only physical force to be objected to? This strikes me as a particularly capital-L Libertarian hypocrisy. In today's world, and especially in the one we envision on the way, physical threats will have far less importance than economic and social threats; Threatening my food/money source, net access, etc are just as much a threat to me as telling me you'll kick me in the balls, and to me, more so. It's still statist (or corporate, statist-emulating) coercion. Free market my rosy butt. -=> You don't need to be an idealist, just look at reality. The vast majority -=>of individual piracy goes unpunished. The software industry does fine because -=>the big players, retailers and corporations, are punished for piracy. These "big players" have never amounted to more than a drop in the ocean of piracy. People used to get busted for video piracy too; they never actually hurt the industry, but helped it, by encouraging people to get those (then) $800 VCRs, since they could get movies cheap. When change to a rental market took place, voila! Instant market, just add videoclub memberships. Busting these early [ca. 1980] pirates did NOTHING to stop piracy; it was the same tactic used in the losing drug war, stupid to anyone that actually observes the results, instead of waving the US (or corporate) flag. "The software industry does fine" because they charge 50 times what software is worth. Even if ALL of us pirated, they'd still make money. Hell you have to have a copy of something to pirate it in the first place, and most large institutions won't pirate for fear of getting caught. The ~180 copies of Word Perfect registered under a site license by UNM, at $100's per copy, pays for all the pirates in this town and then some, many times over. Too bad it also results in prices so high, that for many many people, the only option is to do buddyware transactions at every opportunity. Like I say, they software industry is screwing itself, however much they whine and cry, and I have no sympathy for them anyway. When Bill Gates is in danger of becoming homeless, I may revise this opinion, but until then, the richest man in the country can just quit his bellyaching. -- 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: Sun, 1 Aug 93 22:28:40 -0700 From: tribble@netcom.com (E. Dean Tribble) Subject: FSF: Some Useful Software, No Useful Politics IMPORTANT: there are two separate discussion areass that keep getting confused: "copyrights" and "patents". I've now seen several occasions of people taking arguments wrt to patents and mapping them into the copyrights discussion, and vice-versa. I hope the brief discussion below clarifies what I mean so that the current discussion can be more productive. By "copyright" I mean the general area of intellectual property in which person B benefits by deriving from the work of person A. Discussions in this area will often talk about who 'deserves' what, because the primary concern is often how to split up the value derived from the creation of some intellectual 'property'. By "patent" I mean the general area of intellectual property issues that involve independent creation of the same idea. In such discussions one might see points like, "how can someone possibly 'own' some idea, when I could come up with it myself?" It's clarifying here to focus on the scenario with independent reinvention scenario, because that's the case that existing and proposed solutions handle extremely badly (except for just abolishing patents :-). These areas roughly correspond to existing law areas, though not exactly. For instance, trade secrets falls under my "copyright" area: if I have a secret, I control the 'copy' of it. If some other party independently comes up with the idea, trade secrets doesn't prevent them from using. Note that the arguments made for or against one class of issues seem pretty stupid from the perspective of the other class of issues. It will help everyone to try to keep the different kinds of issues in mind. Thanks, dean ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V93 #213 ********************************* &