37 Message 37: From extropians-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Mon Aug 2 15:41:11 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA10498; Mon, 2 Aug 93 15:40:58 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 AA15019; Mon, 2 Aug 93 15:40:41 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by panix.com id AA06697 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for more@usc.edu); Mon, 2 Aug 1993 18:35:08 -0400 Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1993 18:35:08 -0400 Message-Id: <199308022235.AA06697@panix.com> To: Exi@panix.com From: Exi@panix.com Subject: Extropians Digest X-Extropian-Date: August 2, 373 P.N.O. [22:34:54 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: [4 msgs] ADMIN: Message Number bug [1 msgs] FSF: Some Useful Software, No Useful Politics [3 msgs] Natural law and natural rights [1 msgs] Starr and Searle [1 msgs] TECH: encrypted computer? [1 msgs] The Age of Robots [1 msgs] Administrivia: No admin msg. Approximate Size: 51890 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 2 Aug 93 9:13:07 GMT From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu Subject: Private Security Agents Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1993 19:08:33 -0600 (MDT) From: Stanton McCandlish (About private security agents): >people like me who know damn well that such "police" >have no authority whatsoever, would have just said "fuck off, rentacop", >so their actually effectiveness can be strongly questioned. If any of >them actually shot anyone, they'd be up on murder charges. Stanton presents this as a bug, but I think it's a feature. Those soldiers of the State that call themselves "police" (and other glorifying euphemisms) and belong to the Standing Armies that occupy most US territory ought not to have any power or authority whatsoever that is above and beyond that of the ordinary person or any private security agent. It was the power of citizen's arrest that gave rise to "police." They were originally only supposed to be exercising this power as subcontractors. People like Stanton may, indeed, disrespect "rentacops," but police are generally over-rated anyways. And the threat of murder charges would be a good deterrent against excessive force on the part of police. Actually, eliminating sovereign immunity would help accomplish this, but "the police" will also have to be de-mystified in order to get juries to convict them for their crimes. Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of ISIL, The International Society for Individual Liberty, 1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; 71034.2711@compuserve.com Think Universally, Act Selfishly - starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 93 9:13:36 GMT From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu Subject: Starr and Searle >From: dasher@netcom.com (D. Anton Sherwood) >Subject: Searle and Starr > >> This "system" is part human, part inanimate objects. >> How can inanimate objects be conscious? > >Argument from Limited Imagination again. Again, it's not an argument, it's a question! >A human is made of inanimate components, and is yet animate. I think there's an implicit presumption here that life is reducible to biochemistry. I am currently without any position on this subject, because I don't see any good reason to think that it is or that it isn't. I'm in the same neutral position with regards to the question of whether mind is reducible to machine, either. While I have asked why I should think that life is reducible to biochemistry, and mind to machine, all I have gotten in response is reiteration sans support and references to books which are now on my reading list. Attacking "my" position is pointless, because I don't know what position to take. Right now, all I can say is that in addition to the pro-AI sources that I'm going to read I'm also planning to read "The Metaphysics of Mind," by Kenny. This was reccomended to me by Douglas Rasmussen. If and when I come up with an answer and decide which position to take, I'll no doubt let you all know and perhaps even write an article on the subject. I've also observed that people whose intellectual orientations tend to be towards "hard" science, i.e., mechanics: physics, computer science, math, etc., also seem to tend to act as if Searle must be wrong. People who tend to be more philosophical (although I admit that this is only based upon Searle and myself) seem to be more sympathetic to the possibility that, although we may come up with machines that seem just like they have minds to an outside observer, they may fail to have minds in ontological fact. >fnerd: >> . . . Tim* admits that he doesn't need >> falsifiability as a criterion of truth . . . . Wasn't this Craig Presson's statement, not Fnerd's? >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. Very well. Take, for example, the axiom: "existence exists." What is its context? What system does it "generate"? What's outside this system? Anything? Or nothing? What would it take to falsify it? An existence which did not exist? >> 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? Electrons and protons seem to. (After all, they do have mass and volume, don't they?) Information and energy I don't know about. The status of energy seems to be undergoing questioning in regards to the metaphysical significance of Einstein's E=MC2, which not even Petyr Beckmann doubts the truth of. And, although I've read "Grammatical Man," Jeremy Campbell's introduction to information theory, I don't really know how to define it with genus and differentia, so I couldn't answer that one, either. I would like to know, however. Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of ISIL, The International Society for Individual Liberty, 1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; 71034.2711@compuserve.com Think Universally, Act Selfishly - starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 93 9:14:28 GMT From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu Subject: TRIV: Mark Twain's children? >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?) I probably am related to Jim, although I don't know how directly. My family geneologists tell me I'm related to Twain through an illegitimate child, which would seem to prevent me from being a direct "lineal" descendant. "Clemens" was his real surname, and that's my Grandfather's family. Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of ISIL, The International Society for Individual Liberty, 1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; 71034.2711@compuserve.com Think Universally, Act Selfishly - starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 93 9:15:29 GMT From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu Subject: ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 93 6:13:26 WET DST From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) Subject: Starr and Searle starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu () writes: > While I have asked why I should think that life is reducible to biochemistry, > and mind to machine, all I have gotten in response is reiteration sans > support and references to books which are now on my reading list. _Biochemistry_ by Albert L Lehninger, New York: Worth Publishers, 1975. (note: I haven't read it, but I've read it is a good book in sci.bio and Drexler lists it as a reference) In fact, just about any reference from Drexler is good. _Science_ and _Nature_ are also good, but _Nature_ may be a little over your head (it's over mine most of the time) > I've also observed that people whose intellectual orientations tend to be > towards "hard" science, i.e., mechanics: physics, computer science, math, > etc., also seem to tend to act as if Searle must be wrong. People who tend > to be more philosophical (although I admit that this is only based upon > Searle and myself) seem to be more sympathetic to the possibility that, > although we may come up with machines that seem just like they have minds > to an outside observer, they may fail to have minds in ontological fact. People in the hard sciences tend to have a mechanistic world view because they are more in touch with reality, so to speak. This is not a dig at philosophers, but philosophers tend to discuss things which are outside the realm of science such as "Why do we exist?" "Does God exist?" "Why is X like X?" A philosopher recently posted the question "Why does existence exist?" in sci.physics hoping for an answer. Alas, physics can't provide it because there's no way to judge the answer. Philosophical questions may be interesting like "pure math" is to some people but they don't really impact reality because they have no applications. Even if we could answer "Why does existence exist?", chances are the information would be of little value. > >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. > > Very well. Take, for example, the axiom: "existence exists." What is its > context? What system does it "generate"? What's outside this system? > Anything? Or nothing? What would it take to falsify it? An existence > which did not exist? Existence exists might be viewed as a foundation axiom that generates everything else, but I view it as zero-information. It's like saying "addition adds". Existence is a definition. To say existence _exists_ is to invoke recursion. > >What is extension? Do these have extension: electron, proton, information, > >potential energy? > > Electrons and protons seem to. (After all, they do have mass and volume, > don't they?) Information and energy I don't know about. The status of Electrons do not have a volume themselves but their electric field has "infinite" reach. You can't push two electrons close because they repel (not because they "touch") Protons are not fundamental particles but are made up of smaller tightly bound particles called quarks. We do not know if quarks have extension as far as I know. (there is another phenomena known as degeneracy pressure and Pauli exclusion but they are more complex) In terms of general relativity, nothing has a constant extension. In theory, you could force two protons particles into the same position if you had enough energy. This is what black holes do. A black hole forces all the particles making up a star into an infinitesimally small point called a singularity. If you would like to define physical extension as the "range a particle has using the fundamental forces of nature" then the answer is either zero or infinite depending on the particle and the space it is in. Electrons/Protons have infinite electromagnetical/gravitational extent. In a black hole, the number is smaller because space curves the force field lines so much that they can't escape. (well, they can according to Hawking, but that's another story) I could be wrong on the black hole since I am unfamiliar with the mechanism BH's use to allow charge to be measured outside the hole. (BH's do have an electrostatic charge) > energy seems to be undergoing questioning in regards to the metaphysical > significance of Einstein's E=MC2, which not even Petyr Beckmann doubts the That's just non-physicist ignorant skeptics like Peikoff. -- 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: Mon, 2 Aug 93 9:55:40 WET DST From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) Subject: ADMIN: Message Number bug I just found a bug in the message number handling routines. The software was supposed to reset the message number back to 1 at the change of month but it didn't work. I have fixed it, so the message will be reseting back to #93-8-1, don't let the change confuse you. -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: Mon, 2 Aug 93 10:22:22 CDT From: eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder) Subject: TECH: encrypted computer? Re: Piracy redution idea I didn't state it in my previous post, but I assume that with reduced piracy, software vendors could charge a more reasonable price for their product. The cause of the piracy problem is that the price of the product (say $300) is so high per disk (let us say you get 3 disks in the package), and the cost of the copying media is so low ($1 per disk), that the effort to copy brings a large reward. In comparison, the latest release of King's Quest VI comes with 10 disks of data for $37. This is much closer to cost of media, and the hassle of copying 10 disks worth of material is a deterrant to the lazy. If more commerical software sold for $40 and came with a nice printed manual, there would be less piracy. Dani Eder ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 93 8:30:28 PDT From: thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com (Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~) Subject: FSF: Some Useful Software, No Useful Politics Ray, I didn't copy the message you wrote about pirating, because it was just too long. I think we now all understand where you are coming from with respect to your perspective of pirating. I was a member of this culture you speak of myself, during the same years, and let me tell you, it had _nothing_ to do with mainstream computing! Also, as both a pirate/hacker at times, and an end-user at others, I can also say that your impression of the overall significance of the "elite" hackers and BBSes is way off base. It was a tightly-knit (albeit international) ring of distribution. Even mainstream computer users, for the most part, were never affected by this sub-culture of "elite" pirating. From 1986-1991, I lived in no less than 3 major metropolitan areas. These were Riverside, CA (just east of LA for those who don't know), Phoenix, AZ and Sacramento, CA (where I am now). In each of these areas there might have been _one_ "truly elite" BBS of the kind you are talking about. Truth be told, most of the really good ones were in far off locales such as Michigan. I never knew why. Anyway, there were hundreds of other "normal" BBSes, and thousands of computer users. I can honestly say that the only people affected by these elite pirating rings were the elite pirates and their associates. It never went any further. Anyone else interesting in copying software did it the old fashioned way, manually. Which brings me to my second point, which is that none of this is of any significance since we're talking about 8 and 16-bit game computers which never comprised a significant market share in the software industry! I'm also aware of the European activity (most notably in E.Germany and Poland nowadays), and even this is only a result of lack of supply. These low-end computers are also still new in such places, and so they're naturally going to lag from 5-10 years behind in the phases they go through. The points we've been trying to make are that none of this matters because it just isn't relevant to the mainstream computing scene. Perhaps you're so used to Commodore computers that you never bothered to notice that there is no significant copy protection to speak of in the PC world. That having been said, on to your reply to me: > Copy protection and ostracism is equivalent to putting walls up around > your house to defend it. It's not difficult to defend property in an > anarchist society, you simply shoot (or ostracize offenders) who trepass. Excuse me, Ray, but that is just the point I've been trying to make. You've been proposing this whole time that we'll be able to use contracts and copy rights and arbitrations to defend our property. ?? > I know how sucessful Intel is, but like CDs, the only reason they > are sucessful is because their chips are hard to copy. Reverse > engineering them is hard, and even if you had the blueprints they > would be hard to manufacture. The "only reason"? Why do you trivialize this? They're so hard to copy because of how complex they are. They're so complex because they represent years of R&D. No supreme being bestowed upon Intel a complex product so that the company would propser. > There is a significant lag time between when Intel > puts out a chip and someone comes out with a clone. (this is analogous > to the 17 year monopoly patents give you.) Intel gets a free 1-2 > monopoly on their designs before anyone has the resources to copy I think you meant "1-2 year". > them. If CPU's were as easy to copy as software, Intel would be in > the poor house. They'd have to come out with new designs every week > and the payback wouldn't cover development costs. In fact, the Hmm, have you bothered to notice the way business is run around here lately? Last year alone there were 30-40 new 486 proliferations, not to mention 10's or 100's of other chips and things coming out. I'd call that "new designs every week". > Most high-tech companies "write > off" development costs and start counting profits from zero. (e.g. > Saturn. They report profits but they haven't factored in the 1 billion > in Saturn development costs.) Shows how little you know. This isn't true at all. Do you understand anything of a balance sheet? Do you know how corporations track assets from year to year? Where do you get these impressions of how things are done? If you look at all the big semiconductor companies, computer companies, and so forth, you'll find them "eating it" in many quarters of their history, during times of heavy investment in capital expense or R&D. You don't see Intel "eating it" because they have a sizable amount of cash lying around to buffer this. But it never _doesn't_ report its expenses, of any kind. NOr does any other corporation do this. > > "IN their head" is the key phrase. We don't all go around telling everyone > > every little detail, because we know that, outside of the proper context, > > Humans gossip all the time. Gossip and blacklisting are two different things. You would have us draw lines based on this "gossip". > > details can be misleading. Keeping records is one thing. Giving them to > > everyone else is another. This is nothing different than the credit > > reporting agencies in the US - which DO NOT WORK. More credit reports than > > not are in error at least in part. If one of your premises is that systems > > such as these actually work, then we cannot argue further. But ask yourself > > why the economy is so stagnated, why it is difficult to get loans, and you'll > > end up back at all the "tit-for-tat" reporting and legislation that the US > > has become bogged down in. > > Sure they work. Banks/Insurance companies aren't out of business because > of bad risk assessment. If they end up not giving a loan to someone who > has good credit it is better than giving one to someone who has bad credit. Yikes! Where do you get this stuff? That is the _conventional_ wisdom that ruined the industry! They figured that if they could just minimize risk, they could make more money. What they ended up doing was turning away valuable customers - in such numbers that the end result was the opposite of that desired. You can only make money if you loan money, and they weren't loaning money. They're realizing now that its far better to loan more money and accept the bad risks. Those risks are minimal compared to the profit gained from doing more business. Where have you been the last 5 years? Tony Hamilton thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com HAM on HEx ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1993 11:45:36 -0500 From: extr@jido.b30.ingr.com (Craig Presson) Subject: Natural law and natural rights In <2c578045.jamesdon@jamesdon.infoserv.com>, "James A. Donald" writes: |> 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. [...] |> 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 NL is knowable, this would seem to follow from the definition. |> 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. How do you judge the extent of pathology in a society? Don't forget cultural relativity while doing so. I agree that state communism results in a great deal of distortion of a society, but I'm not sure what force this argument has in the less extreme cases. Suppose I give a formulation of classical economics that does not appeal to NL, or that recognizes it in some form but does not explicitly depend on it; then can I not get the same result you get? Or would you claim that all such attempts merely reformulate NL? [I'm in over my head here, not having read enough economists to get down to cases, so maybe I could get some help from the econ-literate?] |> > |> 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. Your statement, that we can judge other humans by our own values, is open to criticism both in rhetorical and practical terms. Rhetorically, it seems to me to be an unnecessary axiom. I want to see NL-based societies be able to work optimally up to serving the needs of people who have radically different values, and who must therefore deal with each other as free agents, respecting the differences in values and mores. Practically, I was thinking more of differences in tolerance for centralized power between cultures. Early A/S kings were followed voluntarily, because each freeman received benefits and security from supporting the king in time of war; but he could opt out and take his chances, or join a neighboring kingdom if he was close enough. Later on, by dint of keeping up a continual state of warfare, and by getting more involved with civil law enforcement, the kings were able to wield permanent power; but this process took several centuries, and was accompanied by many other social changes. Or, you can look at Japan vs. the US. The Japanese live a much more "communal" life than we do, and do not expect or tolerate a high degree of individual rights, or non-conformance. You can call Japanese culture "pathological" if you want, but it would take a lot of definition-craft to do this without sounding jingoist. |> > I'd love to see natural law rescued ... 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. Right. That's what happened to the Anglo-Saxons between 450 and 1066, and the United States between 1932 and the present. |> 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. I was trying to say that this requires a great deal of public education. NL has a bad reputation among Libburuls because of abuse of the term to support abortion prohibition, laws against contraception, etc. -- in other words, the resurrection of the Ecclesiastic formulation of NL, which is abhorrent to religious freedom. Remember the Thomas hearings, where Biden beat Thomas up for supporting NL, and waved a copy of _Takings_ over his head like Joe McCarthy, accusing CT of the heinous crime of reviewing the book without roundly condemning it? Since almost everyone in the United States (for example) is now able to graduate from college without any understanding of what Jefferson wrote, and without having heard of Locke, I think there is a large semantic and political gap to be lept before you can preach outside the choir using NL terms. . Aside to DV/DT (V ;-) I once read part of RAW's _Natural Law: or Don't Put a Rubber on your Willy_ while browsing in Huntsville's only pagan/occult bookstore. However, some herbs they were burning in there caused me to forget whether the book was serious or RAW humor. I'm going to try to find it again, maybe with a wet handkerchief in case they have the smudgepot going again. I got bronchitis from that visit and haven't been back. ^ / ------/---- extropy@jido.b30.ingr.com (Freeman Craig Presson) /AS 5/20/373 PNO /ExI 4/373 PNO ** E' and E-choice spoken here ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 93 12:34:51 WET DST From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) Subject: FSF: Some Useful Software, No Useful Politics Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~ () writes: > > Ray, I didn't copy the message you wrote about pirating, because it was just > too long. I think we now all understand where you are coming from with > respect to your perspective of pirating. I was a member of this culture you > speak of myself, during the same years, and let me tell you, it had _nothing_ > to do with mainstream computing! Also, as both a pirate/hacker at times, and > an end-user at others, I can also say that your impression of the overall > significance of the "elite" hackers and BBSes is way off base. It was a I'm making the point that most games have a 3 to 5 month "shelf life" After that, sales plummet for most unremarkable games (hacked together shootemups and platform games). The reasoning among game producers is that 3 to 5 months is the "critical mass" time of piracy -- that parameter copiers and cracks have reached enough hands such that everyone knows atleast one friend who has a copy. > tightly-knit (albeit international) ring of distribution. Even mainstream > computer users, for the most part, were never affected by this sub-culture > of "elite" pirating. From 1986-1991, I lived in no less than 3 major > metropolitan areas. These were Riverside, CA (just east of LA for those > who don't know), Phoenix, AZ and Sacramento, CA (where I am now). In each > of these areas there might have been _one_ "truly elite" BBS of the kind > you are talking about. Truth be told, most of the really good ones were in > far off locales such as Michigan. I never knew why. Anyway, there were I confirm. I always had to call long distance (free of course) to get to the "super elite" bbses. However, there were about 2-3 in New York (if you are familar with the Commodore 64, EagleSoft's 2 boards) and 2 in Texas (FBR). > hundreds of other "normal" BBSes, and thousands of computer users. I can > honestly say that the only people affected by these elite pirating rings > were the elite pirates and their associates. It never went any further. > Anyone else interesting in copying software did it the old fashioned way, > manually. I also attended copy-parties too. The computer club at my high school pooled cash and bought originals and the newest parameter copier (definition: a parameter copier not only did disk nibbling, but it also removed the protection entirely such that a standard copier would work) and then gave copies out to anyone. However, the volume of pirating was far less then the daily 5-10 cracks per day among the pirate elite. > Which brings me to my second point, which is that none of this is of any > significance since we're talking about 8 and 16-bit game computers which > never comprised a significant market share in the software industry! I'm > also aware of the European activity (most notably in E.Germany and Poland > nowadays), and even this is only a result of lack of supply. These low-end > computers are also still new in such places, and so they're naturally going > to lag from 5-10 years behind in the phases they go through. Europe was especially hot because most game software was developed in Europe. Also, most users in europe at the time could only afford tape drives which made cracking easier. > The points we've been trying to make are that none of this matters because > it just isn't relevant to the mainstream computing scene. Perhaps you're > so used to Commodore computers that you never bothered to notice that there > is no significant copy protection to speak of in the PC world. I have noticed, but the PC also happens to have an incredibly large base, composed of corporate and business users, and people with expensive systems who can afford software vs. teenagers who had no alternative but to pirate (or get a Mcjob, or rich parents) The markets on the other computers were so small that significant pirating affected cash flow. > That having been said, on to your reply to me: > > > Copy protection and ostracism is equivalent to putting walls up around > > your house to defend it. It's not difficult to defend property in an > > anarchist society, you simply shoot (or ostracize offenders) who trepass. > > Excuse me, Ray, but that is just the point I've been trying to make. You've > been proposing this whole time that we'll be able to use contracts and > copy rights and arbitrations to defend our property. ?? Yes. Contract/arbitration enforcement can also spontaneously arise in a voluntaristic "anarchistic" society. See the various Privately Produced Law articles. I do not wish to give a lecture on these things, please read the literature (Machinery of Freedom, and The Enterprise of Law, plus Tom Morrow's Privately Produced Law in Extropy #7?) > > I know how sucessful Intel is, but like CDs, the only reason they > > are sucessful is because their chips are hard to copy. Reverse > > engineering them is hard, and even if you had the blueprints they > > would be hard to manufacture. > > The "only reason"? Why do you trivialize this? They're so hard to copy > because of how complex they are. They're so complex because they represent > years of R&D. No supreme being bestowed upon Intel a complex product so that > the company would propser. I didn't say that. I'm simply telling you that if I could copy Intel chips for near zero cost like software (perhaps using nanotech), then Intel would lose the majority of its business. > > them. If CPU's were as easy to copy as software, Intel would be in > > the poor house. They'd have to come out with new designs every week > > and the payback wouldn't cover development costs. In fact, the > > Hmm, have you bothered to notice the way business is run around here > lately? Last year alone there were 30-40 new 486 proliferations, not to > mention 10's or 100's of other chips and things coming out. I'd call that > "new designs every week". The 30-40 486 versions are _minor_ variations on a theme (selective crippling and power usage) Look, the principle is simple: I have Alladin's lamp (a hypothetical matter replicator which has zero cost). I can take any Intel chip and make as many copies as a like. If you can't see why this wouldn't destroy Intel, you need to learn some basic economics. > > Most high-tech companies "write > > off" development costs and start counting profits from zero. (e.g. > > Saturn. They report profits but they haven't factored in the 1 billion > > in Saturn development costs.) > > Shows how little you know. This isn't true at all. Do you understand anything > of a balance sheet? Do you know how corporations track assets from year > to year? Where do you get these impressions of how things are done? If you > look at all the big semiconductor companies, computer companies, and so > forth, you'll find them "eating it" in many quarters of their history, > during times of heavy investment in capital expense or R&D. You don't see > Intel "eating it" because they have a sizable amount of cash lying around > to buffer this. But it never _doesn't_ report its expenses, of any kind. NOr > does any other corporation do this. Simple. I read trade magazines and Clarinet market reports. For Intel to make a profit on the Pentium, it has to sell a certain volume X. X happens to be very large because the new fabrication plant costs mondo $$$. I think Intel will do it, but many other companies can't count on having such a steady market. As chips get smaller, the prices of new plants will skyrocket. There is already talk of using synchotrons for X-ray lithography. We're talking multibillions in startup costs there. The "write-off" technique is also common among aerospace companies. > > > "IN their head" is the key phrase. We don't all go around telling everyone > > > every little detail, because we know that, outside of the proper context, > > > > Humans gossip all the time. > > Gossip and blacklisting are two different things. You would have us draw > lines based on this "gossip". Frankly, you are starting to argue that private personal information is "property" If I follow your reasoning on anti-intellectual property applied to software, it should be quite ethical for anyone to keep mega-databases on every citizen of the US. Once released, your personal history, psychiatric reports, children's grades, everything, is fair game for copying and archiving. Think of the personal safety factors you would have if you knew what people, neighborhoods, businesses, and products to avoid. > > > details can be misleading. Keeping records is one thing. Giving them to > > > everyone else is another. This is nothing different than the credit > > > reporting agencies in the US - which DO NOT WORK. More credit reports than > > > not are in error at least in part. If one of your premises is that systems > > > such as these actually work, then we cannot argue further. But ask yourself > > > why the economy is so stagnated, why it is difficult to get loans, and you'll > > > end up back at all the "tit-for-tat" reporting and legislation that the US > > > has become bogged down in. > > > > Sure they work. Banks/Insurance companies aren't out of business because > > of bad risk assessment. If they end up not giving a loan to someone who > > has good credit it is better than giving one to someone who has bad credit. > > Yikes! Where do you get this stuff? That is the _conventional_ wisdom that > ruined the industry! They figured that if they could just minimize risk, they > could make more money. What they ended up doing was turning away valuable > customers - in such numbers that the end result was the opposite of that > desired. You can only make money if you loan money, and they weren't loaning > money. They're realizing now that its far better to loan more money and > accept the bad risks. Those risks are minimal compared to the profit gained > from doing more business. Where have you been the last 5 years? I think you have fallen Clinton/Gore babble about the "credit crunch" I heard plenty of statistics going both ways, but those which say "X% of all new businesses fail" (with X > 70%) are telling. Let's take the opposite (absurd) claim that money should be lent totally without regard to reputation in anarchist society. Here's my prescription of how to get rich quick for life: First, make up a fake ID, fake deeds, whatever is needed. next, apply for a $10,000 small business loan. Finally, take the cash and run. Anyway, I think I will defer to Perry on this matter since he is a much better expert at risk assessment and investment than I am. > Tony Hamilton > thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com > HAM on HEx > -- 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: Mon, 2 Aug 93 9:56:39 PDT From: thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com (Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~) Subject: The Age of Robots > > 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. We are assuming that "wealth" will be characterized in the same manner for uploaders as for "biofolk". If that premise is true, these arguments are valid, but I would be cautious about such an assumption. > 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? Well, most books I've read on the topic of _stockbrokers_ show that they are no better than dartboards. My impression is that only a small number of smart investors can beat out the mutual funds and the like. However, I think that when they do, they do it in a big way. In other words, you're either wasting your efforts like most people, or you've caught on to some "system" which works really well. On mutual funds, they do well at times, and not so well at others. They at least seem to have longer cycles of good and bad times, however, so they are somewhat more predictable. > 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.") But again, will bio-humans actually compete directly with uploaders? > -fnerd > play me back and quote me I just did ... :-) Tony Hamilton thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com HAM on HEx ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 93 10:36:56 PDT From: thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com (Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~) Subject: FSF: Some Useful Software, No Useful Politics > > Excuse me, Ray, but that is just the point I've been trying to make. You've > > been proposing this whole time that we'll be able to use contracts and > > copy rights and arbitrations to defend our property. ?? > > Yes. Contract/arbitration enforcement can also spontaneously arise > in a voluntaristic "anarchistic" society. See the various Privately Produced > Law articles. I do not wish to give a lecture on these things, please read > the literature (Machinery of Freedom, and The Enterprise of Law, plus > Tom Morrow's Privately Produced Law in Extropy #7?) Well, you have me there. There is only so far we can go until I've read these sources. However, I've heard numerous quotes, references, and discussions relating to PPL, and none of it particularly impresses me. I won't rule out, however, that there are a great many details which can only be found be doing the reading. I'll try. > > > Most high-tech companies "write > > > off" development costs and start counting profits from zero. (e.g. > > > Saturn. They report profits but they haven't factored in the 1 billion > > > in Saturn development costs.) > > > > Shows how little you know. This isn't true at all. Do you understand anything > > of a balance sheet? Do you know how corporations track assets from year > > to year? Where do you get these impressions of how things are done? If you > > look at all the big semiconductor companies, computer companies, and so > > forth, you'll find them "eating it" in many quarters of their history, > > during times of heavy investment in capital expense or R&D. You don't see > > Intel "eating it" because they have a sizable amount of cash lying around > > to buffer this. But it never _doesn't_ report its expenses, of any kind. NOr > > does any other corporation do this. > > Simple. I read trade magazines and Clarinet market reports. For Intel to make > a profit on the Pentium, it has to sell a certain volume X. X happens to be > very large because the new fabrication plant costs mondo $$$. I think > Intel will do it, but many other companies can't count on having such a > steady market. > As chips get smaller, the prices of new plants will skyrocket. There is > already talk of using synchotrons for X-ray lithography. We're talking > multibillions in startup costs there. The "write-off" technique is also > common among aerospace companies. Private industry doesn't write off development costs. THey write off losses. I don't know how government contractors work, though. > Frankly, you are starting to argue that private personal information > is "property" If I follow your reasoning on anti-intellectual property > applied to software, it should be quite ethical for anyone to keep > mega-databases on every citizen of the US. Once released, your personal > history, psychiatric reports, children's grades, everything, is fair game > for copying and archiving. Think of the personal safety > factors you would have if you knew what people, neighborhoods, businesses, > and products to avoid. Except that the very act of acting upon such information will result in deliterious effects. The person who attempts to micro-manage their dealings with others by using all this information will find that they lose out in the end. So yes, I would argue that there is no way to keep this information from circulating. Its value, however, will be greatly diminished. > > Yikes! Where do you get this stuff? That is the _conventional_ wisdom that > > ruined the industry! They figured that if they could just minimize risk, they > > could make more money. What they ended up doing was turning away valuable > > customers - in such numbers that the end result was the opposite of that > > desired. You can only make money if you loan money, and they weren't loaning > > money. They're realizing now that its far better to loan more money and > > accept the bad risks. Those risks are minimal compared to the profit gained > > from doing more business. Where have you been the last 5 years? > > I think you have fallen Clinton/Gore babble about the "credit crunch" > I heard plenty of statistics going both ways, but those which say > "X% of all new businesses fail" (with X > 70%) are telling. Let's take > the opposite (absurd) claim that money should be lent totally without > regard to reputation in anarchist society. Here's my prescription of how > to get rich quick for life: First, make up a fake ID, fake deeds, whatever > is needed. next, apply for a $10,000 small business loan. Finally, take the > cash and run. > > Anyway, I think I will defer to Perry on this matter since he is a much better > expert at risk assessment and investment than I am. Clinton/Gore didn't invent the "credit crunch" concept. Nor did they invent anything else they stand for, a great deal of which is hogwash, IMO. However, unless you've been involved with applying for credit throughout the period in question, you'll never know. The whole problem never adverseley affected me personally, since I'm fairly resourceful when it comes to acquiring funds when I need them, but I can tell you from firsthand experience that there _has been_ a credit crunch. It isn't some mystical, made-up phenomenon. Anyone who has lived through the 70's and 80's knows how the credit scene changed over time. It becomes fairly obvious that a significant portion of potential commerce never took place because of the credit problem. It's just so classic, and it happens every time. Every time someone suddenly decides to eliminate risk, it causes more problems than it solves. Micro-management of anything, including risk management, from the top-down, has never worked. Tony Hamilton thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com HAM on HEx ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V93 #213 ********************************* &