79 Message 79: From extropians-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Tue Aug 10 00:05:51 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA15538; Tue, 10 Aug 93 00:05:50 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 AA05209; Tue, 10 Aug 93 00:05:41 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by panix.com id AA18328 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for more@usc.edu); Tue, 10 Aug 1993 03:01:14 -0400 Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1993 03:01:14 -0400 Message-Id: <199308100701.AA18328@panix.com> To: Exi@panix.com From: Exi@panix.com Subject: Extropians Digest X-Extropian-Date: August 10, 373 P.N.O. [07:00:58 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Status: RO Extropians Digest Tue, 10 Aug 93 Volume 93 : Issue 221 Today's Topics: [1 msgs] Balt.NAACP Endorses Drug Decriminalization [1 msgs] ECOMAD: Gaia Liberation Front Madness [2 msgs] Existence exists? [3 msgs] FORWARD: Re: DIET: Alcoholic beverages [1 msgs] HEX: Trading is down... [1 msgs] INVEST: $100 billion daydream [1 msgs] INVEST: Transaction costs [1 msgs] INVEST:extropians, cypher [1 msgs] META: Include Message ID's of folks you quote, please [2 msgs] gods [2 msgs] good predictors [2 msgs] Administrivia: No admin msg. Approximate Size: 53852 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 9 Aug 93 18:12:21 EST From: mike@highlite.gotham.com (Mike Wiik) Subject: gods > > But never mind -- R.A.W.'s point that we only model reality -- we > > cannot directly perceive it -- seems quite valid. > > > > Perry > > Valid only as much as any other philosophy might be. It certainly isn't > objectivist (not implying here that extropians must be objectivist, just > stating fact). This is because this philosophy denies that one can ever > know any truth, but instead can only know approximations of the truth. I've read most everything of RAW's, as far as objectivism, I just finished _Atlas Shrugged_ yesterday. RAW gives most credence to the "operational" viewpoint, which, it seems to me, is a lot more valid than any other philosophy since it talks about only what we can know scientifically. I don't see a conflict between RAW's "models" and objectivism, as the latter may well be the best way to model reality at the moment. (see RAW's _Quantum Psychology_ for quik'n'easy definitions of objectivism, operationalism, etc). > I'll do one quick analogy, just in case someone isn't familiar with this > (I expect most are). Take the statement "most humans can talk". An objectivist > like myself would take this as being true, as being an accurate statement > of "reality". > [...] In other words, no matter what model to the contrary that someone > holds with respect to humans talking, most _can_ talk, and that is reality. Well, maybe most humans can talk to each other (eventually). We need to define, of course, what we mean by "most","humans","can" and "talk". To uploaded Jupiter-size brains, human speech may not fit their definition of "talk", since it conveys information at so torpid a rate... :) Maybe ancient aliens kidnapped humans and have bred a deaf and dumb race of billions on some other planet, in which case the phrase "most humans can talk" seems untrue. > Now, I don't want to push objectivism, but I thought I'd just remind anyone > who cares where R.A.W.'s beliefs (as relayed on this list - I haven't read > any of it) lie. Some of it's on the reading list. _Prometheus Rising_ is especially recommended. For example, I enjoyed _Atlas Shrugged_, but having read RAW for years I don't think I'm in danger of thinking that Objectivism is THE ONE TRUE PHILOSOPHY, or, "objective". I got a lot out of _AS_, but not dogmatic belief... > Tony Hamilton > thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com > HAM on HEx -Mike | o==== . : ... : : . |Mail Me Neat Stuff->POB 3703 Arlington VA 22203 --@-- . o o o ... O -O- o o : | mike@highlite.gotham.com | ... : : |----------------------------------------------- mEssAGE fRoM sPAcE ARt stUdiOs |The moan of her breath, the shudder of his body ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Aug 93 15:52:19 PDT From: szabo@netcom.com (Nick Szabo) Subject: INVEST: $100 billion daydream Perry Metzger; > If I had 100 Billion in CASH to invest today, I think I could do > pretty well with it -- there are several projects I can think of that > I could do if I had resources like that which would produce > spectacular returns. Let's have specifics! This is a fun topic, a nice takeoff point for expressing our priorities in a quantitative way (and we all daydream about this stuff, right?) I'd start out by investing half the $100 billion in a Browne-like portfolio, but heavily diversified across currencies and countries. With the other $50 billion I'd slowly work into the following markets (eg start with $10 million and control over one or two small companies, and slowly expand to the $10+ billion range as the industry expands): $5 billion: brain biotech companies, eg those targeting Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, etc. I'd eventually move a few companies into smart drugs and neural-implant brain enhancment, perhaps underground. Obviously linked to life extension, and eventually there would be tie-ins with cryonics. $10 billion: biotech in general, but emphasis on life extension research (eg treating underlying linked causes of heart disease, stroke, cancer, immune suppression, etc. at 70+ years of age). $5 billion: Cryobiology and organ-transplant companies, cryonics research (eg 21st Century Medicine, etc.). The cryonics end would start out with small-scale charity (Foresight research in cell repair machines, cryobiology scholarships, etc.) and try to work the industry towards large-scale profitable status. I'd break down the barrier between cryobiology/organ-transplant and cryonics companies. $5 billion: buy Autodesk or other major CAD company, and expand into offering highly automated science & engineering services. One goal (initially just charity research) would be the automation of scientific discovery, eg via linking automated labs to genetic programming/symbolic regression. Specially targeted would be symbolic regression of brain data and consequent designs for implants, drugs, etc. $15 billion: digital markets & "crypto-anarchy" stuff: electronic banking, digital cash, secure phones, decentralized on-line markets, programmed trading operations (my own specialty), data havens, etc. $10 billion: Buy a space-related company not totally dependent on government (eg divisions of Loral, or Hughes from GM, or Scientific Atlanta). Expand into DBS, phone cell sats, remote sensing, etc. A bit of charity for research NASA is ignoring (comet mining research, asteroid/comet spectroscopy, meteorite analysis, etc.) Much of this stuff would be straight charity in the short term. I'd probably spend about $10 billion over 10 years doing research in smart drugs, life extension, cryonics, automation of scientific discovery and engineering, etc. without expectation of near-term profit, but gathering knowledge to create the industries and profit from them in the long term. In real life nobody has $100 billion cash. Even far more modest sums (eg $10 million) could be strategically targeted to make a big difference in several of the above fields (but could also be easily squandered by a naive or wishfully thinking donor or investor who has made their fortune in different fields). Nick Szabo szabo@netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1993 16:10:14 -0700 From: dkrieger@Synopsys.COM (Dave Krieger) Subject: META: Include Message ID's of folks you quote, please Hey folks, just a suggestion: When you quote someone else's post, include the identifying header ("X-Message-Number: #93-8-275") so that those who didn't receive it (excluded user or thread) can ::resend it quickly to read what the quoted author said, in context. I will try to remember to do this myself in the future. dV/dt ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1993 19:16:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Carol Moore Subject: Balt.NAACP Endorses Drug Decriminalization A local Washington tv news story stated that the Baltimore MD NAACP has come out for decriminalization of all drugs and treating drug abuse as a medical and not a criminal problem. Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke, a decrim advocate, is going to be running for governor of Maryland and this may be part of the effort to support his candidacy (he is African-American). Good to see also that those disproportionately victimized by drugs laws- African-Americans- are starting to fight back. (-: cmoore@cap.gwu.edu :-) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1993 16:24:34 -0700 From: dkrieger@Synopsys.COM (Dave Krieger) Subject: Existence exists? At 6:29 PM 8/9/93 -0400, Mark Sulkowski wrote: >From: Arkuat >>Rand's rants to the contrary, "Existence exists" is not and cannot be an >>axiom. It is a tautology, a statement with null information content. > > Would it be less objectionable to phrase it something like: > > There is an existence. > -or- > Things exist. > -or somesuch... >|| Mark \/enture || How about putting it mathematically? ___ __| ___| X "There exists an X". In the words of Zaphod Beeblebrox, "Shrewd but dull." "There exists an X" doesn't say anything about the world or even about logic. It doesn't attempt to say _what_ exists, or anything about the thing(s) that exist. It doesn't even tell us that the things we appear to sense really exist... the X that exists might be an ideal X in some inaccessible Platonic realm we can never sense. It doesn't even attempt to define "exists". When a Randroid says "Existence exists," what s/he really means is "Things exist _the way we think they exist_"; in other words, that perception (at least the perception of Randroids) is infallible. The "assertion" that really offends me is "A is A". This is even less informative than "Existence exists", because while most of us think we have some notion of what we think it means to exist, nobody knows what the hell "A" is supposed to mean. What Randroids really mean by "A is A" is "A is 'A'" -- meaning, "Things are what we say they are," or again, "Perception is infallible." This constitutes willful ignorance, and turns into a recipe for disaster when things turn out not to be what you say they are. ("Cigarettes are harmless." -- Ayn Rand, 1965 :-) dV/dt ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1993 19:27:14 -0400 From: Duncan Frissell Subject: INVEST:extropians, cypher T.>and one was something like the US T.>government operating on something like T.>57% of the GNP right now. I think this T.>meant that the current budget, T.>combined with interest on the national T.>debt, equals 57% of the GNP. The chart T.>showed that about 30 years ago that T.>figure was only 10% or something, and T.>that it would be 100% soon enough. That would be that the (official) National Debt is about 57% of (annual) GNP. Debt is around $4.3 Trillion. GNP is about $5.9 Trillion. Duncan Frissell --- WinQwk 2.0b#0 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Aug 93 19:32:06 WET DST From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) Subject: ECOMAD: Gaia Liberation Front Madness Andy Wilson () writes: > > Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1993 15:28:24 -0500 > From: extr@jido.b30.ingr.com (Freeman Craig Presson) > > In <9308091955.AA27378@custard.think.com>, Andy Wilson writes: > [Ray sounds alarm about eco-alarmists] > |> I will reiterate my heresy: > |> > |> I see no contradiction between extropian values and common sense about > |> environmental concerns. > > That's not heresy, but it is a _non seqitur_. Ray was hardly > describing the beliefs of any common-sensical groups. Even moderate > > He did indeed state that "the environmental movement" would be an > obstacle to extropian values. That would include reasonable > environmentalists. Also it is indeed heresy on this list, judging > from the period that I have been on it. Another recent post jokingly > suggested killing environmentalists would be a good thing. The reasonable environmentalists do not control the political leadership of the environmentalism movement. Are you telling me that Earth First, Greenpeace, Audobon, and the Greenparty are reasonable? These groups are the cornerstone of the political environmental movement. Are you trying to tell me that the conference at Rio wasn't opposed to extropian values? (Agenda 21: tax $600 billion from the 'North' everyyear and send it to the 'South' Scientific American praised Agenda 21's bold plan) > My point was precisely that Ray was using the statements of a fringe > group to discredit the entire movement, a classic ploy of propagandists. > I would much rather see substantive posts like Nick Szabo's (although > it was colored by the use of the word "ecofascist") than simple rants > like Ray's. Entertaining rants, on the other hand, can be a lot of > fun ;-). Nick's post was not qualitately different from mine except he enumerated the lunacy among the ecofascists. I promised myself I wouldn't waste my time doing it (since the last Earth Day debate) because it falls on deaf ears anyway. It's not just "fringe" groups like the Gaia Liberation front which reflect on the movement, but mainstream groups like Greenpeace. (Greenpeace is part of the anti-chorline idiocy) In fact, the VP of the US, Al Gore, holds quite unreasonable viewpoints. Do you consider him 'fringe'? -- 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, 09 Aug 93 12:01:10 PDT From: edgar@spectrx.saigon.com (Edgar W. Swank) Subject: FORWARD: Re: DIET: Alcoholic beverages Andrew I Cohen asked: I usually have a glass of wine with dinner, but that's all. Alas -- am I bringing myself to a premature grave? Is there any evidence that alcohol consumption in such moderate quantities is foolish? Anybody done any reading on this topic? No. No. Yes. I think I posted this here several months ago, but here (again?) is a report on a controlled study, which I extracted from the Medical Conference on the RIME network: DOES ALCOHOL PROTECT AGAINST CORONARY DISEASE? Although many studies show that alcohol drinkers have lower rates of coronary artery disease than abstainers, it is not clear that drinking itself is actually protective. It has been argued that the apparent increased risk among abstainers reflects the fact that many stopped drinking because of existing illness. This New Zealand study refutes that contention. The authors performed two case-control analyses in subjects identified from a population-based surveillance study. One analysis compared 299 people with nonfatal myocardial infarction with 866 age- and sex-matched controls; the other compared 158 people with fatal MI with 544 controls. Interviewers who were unaware of the study goals collected data on alcohol consumption and other risk factors from either patients or next of kin after MI or death. After controlling for age, smoking, hypertension, social class, and exercise, lifelong abstainers (those who drank less than once per month) were more likely to have a fatal or nonfatal MI than drinkers at all levels of consumption (up to 56 drinks per week). For men, the relative risk of MI among drinkers was 40 to 60 percent that of lifelong abstainers. For women, the reduction in risk was even greater. These data further support the hypothesis that light or moderate drinking is cardioprotective and that adverse selection among nondrinkers does not account for their increased risk. --KIM. Jackson R; et al. Alcohol consumption and risk of coronary heart disease. BMJ 1991 Jul 27; 303:211-6 -- edgar@spectrx.saigon.com (Edgar W. Swank) SPECTROX SYSTEMS +1.408.252.1005 Cupertino, Ca ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Aug 93 16:36:01 PDT From: thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com (Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~) Subject: INVEST: Transaction costs Perry, Let's get down to it. I'll step back in to hopefully simplify things. I judge any money-making endeavor in relative terms, as well they should be. Thus, if it isn't outpacing inflation, interest rates, mutual funds, or other low-risk means of income, it just isn't worth it. I'm a proponent of intelligent trading, but I put the following to you. Figuring the following factors, if you can say you're making 25+% net returns, then I think it is time to stop talking, and start giving specific advice (your choice as to whether you should sell it or not) :-) If, however, you are not, then it is simply time to stop talking. Account for the following: 1. Transaction fees 2. Inflation 3. Human resources (your time) 4. Losses (one's successes cannot be put into perspective until you subtract from then one's failures.) 5. Capital gains. 6. Time (how well one does over a longer period of time) Once you account for all that (and I hope I haven't missed anything), then compare it with other forms of investment (including similar factors in those). I'm not arguing that you're a phony or anything. It's just a lot easier to discuss all this if the variables are known. I certainly feel that there's a fortune to be made if it's done right. Oh yes, of course, in order to address your claims of simplicity, the above figures would also have to run for your friends which are all so successful at this. Careers and experience also might be interesting factors to account for, and perhaps even education. I'm saying all this because one of your most important premises seems to be the success of those you know, including yourself I presume. From where I sit, I've seen a great many intelligent people waffle around the break-even point for years. Or, they're simply making 10-20% gross profit, without taking into account all the things above. I do know a few who do _really_ well in the market, making from 30-50% in a given year, but they spend _all_ their free time in the library researching companies, pouring over histories. I figure they're making a decent salary for the time the spend, but that's all. They're not getting rich (I should point out that they don't make those number _every_ year. Sometimes they crash and burn) Bull (Nick and Perry said it, so in a flash of herd mentality, I had to reciprocate) Tony Hamilton thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com HAM on HEx ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1993 16:44:14 -0800 (PDT) From: phoenix@ugcs.caltech.edu (Sin and maul evil!) Subject: ECOMAD: Gaia Liberation Front Madness In #93-8-265 Ray writes: Just watch an episode of Captain Planet one day or sit in on an elementary school class. Earth First's values are being taught by the school system. (I recently had a visit by my 15 year old cousin and she has been totally brainwashed.) === Related to this: Last year (91-92) I was on my high school's Academic Decathlon team, and the Superquiz topic was "Habitat Earth". The assigned book for that, whose title and author escape me now, and will probably continues to do so given the book's location 2000 miles away, was in general fairly good, discussin various problems and concepts, with lots of tables and references. (It claimed nicotine was a hundred times more toxic than DDT...nice to use on my smoking parents.) And it did mention market based environmental techniques, including one groups buying of land so they can sit on it. But in the last part of the book the author went on about "what we must do about this" and advocated a "sustainable" economy vs. the "frontier" economy of continual expansion and devouring of new resources. "less with less instead of more with more." The West must turn away from growth, as it cannot go one forever. Definitely not the part I desired to re-read. This isn't quite indicative of schools around the country (only ecological stuff I got in high school, fortunately I didn't limit myself to it) but it was the material of a national academic competition, sponsored by Motorola and Scientific American, among others. -xx- Damien X-) phoenix@ugcs.caltech.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Aug 93 16:46:08 PDT From: thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com (Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~) Subject: gods > > I'll do one quick analogy, just in case someone isn't familiar with this > > (I expect most are). Take the statement "most humans can talk". An objectivist > > like myself would take this as being true, as being an accurate statement > > of "reality". > > [...] In other words, no matter what model to the contrary that someone > > holds with respect to humans talking, most _can_ talk, and that is reality. > > Well, maybe most humans can talk to each other (eventually). We need to > define, of course, what we mean by "most","humans","can" and "talk". To > uploaded Jupiter-size brains, human speech may not fit their definition > of "talk", since it conveys information at so torpid a rate... :) > > Maybe ancient aliens kidnapped humans and have bred a deaf and dumb race > of billions on some other planet, in which case the phrase "most humans > can talk" seems untrue. But this one of the key points of objectivism (as I see it). Objectivists don't (or shouldn't anyway) concern themselves with semantics. They deal with reality, which is what it is regardless of the language attached to it. Thus, when I say "talk" to another objectivist, we pick up on the connotations of what that is, and if the context of the statement makes sense, then we go on. If not, then we discuss it a little more, realize that while we may interpret the semantics differently, we're both now thinking of the same concept, and again, move on. Like I said, it's a practical philosophy. That doesn't mean its the best philosophy. However, philosophy is directly related to our actions. We live our lives and conduct ourselves according to a philosophy at all times, regardless of whether or not we attempt to put a label on it. This is something to think about. I happen to think that 90% of the complaints about objectivist are a result of all the different objectivist factions with different, often extreme, views on the root philosophy. The other 10% is valid ... :-) Tony Hamilton thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com HAM on HEx ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Aug 93 16:56:52 PDT From: thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com (Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~) Subject: Existence exists? > When a Randroid says "Existence exists," what s/he really means is "Things > exist _the way we think they exist_"; in other words, that perception (at > least the perception of Randroids) is infallible. I sure am glad you are qualifying your statements as being in relation to Randroids. I say that because most non-Randroid objectivist I know make no such claims. > The "assertion" that really offends me is "A is A". This is even less > informative than "Existence exists", because while most of us think we have > some notion of what we think it means to exist, nobody knows what the hell > "A" is supposed to mean. > > What Randroids really mean by "A is A" is "A is 'A'" -- meaning, "Things > are what we say they are," or again, "Perception is infallible." This > constitutes willful ignorance, and turns into a recipe for disaster when > things turn out not to be what you say they are. ("Cigarettes are > harmless." -- Ayn Rand, 1965 :-) Well, its been a while since I've read any non-Rand objectivist texts, but I believe that a more objectivist axiom would be that "reality exists". What this means is that, no matter what our subjective perceptions tell us, reality exists as it exists. How some objectivists twist this into the above is beyond me. Just a clarification, since I'm basically in total agreence with Dave here. Tony Hamilton thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com HAM on HEx ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Aug 93 18:58:21 CST From: "" Subject: good predictors On Mon, 9 Aug 93 0:47:01 PDT, Nick Szabo wrote: >Dan Goodman: >> Robert Heinlein came up with the teleoperated remote manipulator, the >> powered exoskeleton, and the waterbed. He disclaimed credit for "waldos". As for the waterbed, I've read that the ancient Persians had them. >Heinlein made ten explicit predictions in 1950, commented upon in his >1980 _Expanded Universe_. Alas the book is still packed up in >boxes, but three I recall vaguely are: > >(1) predicted the downfall of Communism. Although in 1980 he >was lamenting that this now looked less likely to come true! >(Indeed, in 1980 Communism was at its zenith in terms >of governments controlled by Communist or Marxist-Leninist >parties). > >(2) birth control would cause a major change in sexual mores >(this had come true by the late 1960's). > >(3) All planets in the solar system would be explored by 2000. >This came partly true: (a) they were explored by robots, not >astronauts on-site, and (b) we won't get to Pluto by 2000, though a >currently planned NASA mission may come close. > >(4) Predicted the failure of SDI, ABMs, etc.: "The most important >military fact of the latter half of the 20th century will be, there >is no good way to defend against attack from space." (note that 1950 >is at least 5 years before the first operational ICBM). > >(5) Predicted the failure to achieve human-like AI or robotics. >(But also missed out on PCs, etc. -- the characters in his >pre-1960's books look things up in log tables, carry around slide >rules, etc., and look badly outdated now). > >Alas, many of the other predictions were stated in rather vague terms, >eg "technology XYZ will be important". > >Also in Heinlein's "Future History" mileau, c. 1940, he predicts >fundamentalist TV preachers. He goes even farther, and has >his Pat Robertson clones take control of the U.S. government >(thus providing stories in which his scientifically-correct >heroes fight back). At that time, there was already a radio version of Nehemiah Scudder operating in Canada -- the founder of the Social Credit Party. Heinlein quite likely didn't know about this. However, he did grow up in the Bible Belt -- and he knew American history. His prediction of TV preachers with political power is impressive only because so many others failed to see the obvious. Dan Goodman dsg@staff.tc.umn.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Aug 93 20:09:25 WET DST From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) Subject: META: Include Message ID's of folks you quote, please Dave Krieger () writes: > > Hey folks, just a suggestion: When you quote someone else's post, include > the identifying header ("X-Message-Number: #93-8-275") so that those who > didn't receive it (excluded user or thread) can ::resend it quickly to read > what the quoted author said, in context. > > I will try to remember to do this myself in the future. > dV/dt For people whose mail readers do the right thing (e.g. add an RFC compliant In-Reply-To: header), I could probably make the software do it automatically. How should the software add it? X-Reference: #93-8-275 ? -- 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, 9 Aug 1993 17:23:15 -0700 From: dkrieger@Synopsys.COM (Dave Krieger) Subject: HEX: Trading is down... Are you frustrated by the slow progress of your reputation stock into the market? Are you worried about losing your shirt in the coming auctions? Are you bored with the low level of activity on HEx? Have I got a deal for you! Some weeks ago, in an attempt to thicken the market on HEx, I (essentially) gave all my stock away, rebating the purchase price to the buyers. This worked great -- my stock went up 50% from the "giveaway" price and has stayed (somewhat) constant since. It occurred to me that the barrier to this might be that the issuers of stock fear they might not get the price they want in such an arrangement. So, in the interest of promoting an active market, I am offering to serve as a clearinghouse for those who wish to see what their stock will do once it's all on the open market: I will buy any or all of your stock, at whatever price you ask, if you send me (via the PAY command) the Thornes to do so. This is the reverse of the deal that I offered in my divestiture. This allows you to get your reputation stock out into the world, at whatever price you feel it is worth, once and for all. Shortly thereafter, the price should settle to a representative market value. How do you use this new service? Simply send a PAY command to HEx for the amount of money you want me to spend on your stock, being sure to cc: me on the message. The body of the message (which HEx simply ignores) should contain the corresponding BUY command you want me to issue for your stock. (I'll check to make sure the totals come out right, so no funny business.) Meanwhile, issue a SELL order to HEx for the same price and number of shares of your reputation. I will buy your stock at your desired price. Yours for a livelier market, dV/dt ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Aug 93 19:38:32 CST From: "" Subject: good predictors On Mon, 9 Aug 1993 00:23:26 -0100, Carl Feynman wrote: >>I'm looking for writers who 1) Have/had a consistently good record of >>prediction or 2) made one, or perhaps a few, lucky hits. >> >>Dan Goodman dsg@staff.tc.umn.edu > >I take it you are interested in writers of fiction. Not necessarily. >The only recent writer that springs to mind-- and I've read almost all the >science fiction published in book form before 1979-- is John Brunner. In >_The Shockwave Rider_ (circa 1975) he predicted computer viruses. They weren't widely-known then, but I think there were such back in the '60's. In >_Stand on Zanzibar_ (circa 1972) he predicted designer drugs, music videos, >how we can receive satellite broadcasts from other countries on our home >anntennas but don't bother because they're boring, the dissemination of >scientific literature as on-line hypertext, brand-name clothing, and the >prevalence of murderers who shoot lots of strangers in a kill-crazy >rampage. Mass murderers have been around for hundreds of years, as have serial killers. Dan Goodman dsg@staff.tc.umn.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Aug 1993 21:03:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Mark Sulkowski Subject: Existence exists? >From: dkrieger@synopsys.com (Dave Krieger) > >"There exists an X". In the words of Zaphod Beeblebrox, "Shrewd but dull." > >"There exists an X" doesn't say anything about the world or even about >logic. It doesn't attempt to say _what_ exists, or anything about the >thing(s) that exist. It doesn't even tell us that the things we appear to >sense really exist... the X that exists might be an ideal X in some >inaccessible Platonic realm we can never sense. It doesn't even attempt to >define "exists". Well, it's awefully hard to answer all of these questions in a single sentence. :} It does say that we are not dealing with total non-existence. >When a Randroid says "Existence exists," what s/he really means is "Things >exist _the way we think they exist_"; in other words, that perception (at >least the perception of Randroids) is infallible. Randroids may very well mean that. Ayn Rand may have believed that at heart. I don't believe that objectivism demands that interpretation. In fact, I don't remember Ayn Rand ever claiming that humans were infallible {just that she was. :} >The "assertion" that really offends me is "A is A". This is even less >informative than "Existence exists", because while most of us think we have >some notion of what we think it means to exist, nobody knows what the hell >"A" is supposed to mean. This is a good point. However, "A is A" was probably intended to mean "a thing is itself", in other words, "a thing is not something other that what it is" or "a thing has a particular nature". Why say something like this? To emphasize that, for example, cars are not dogs and should not be treated as such. Why? Because they have different natures and are therefore different things. C is not D because C is C and D is D. Instead of criticising statements like "A is A", why don't you criticise the her full metaphysical position. That seems more promising. >What Randroids really mean by "A is A" is "A is 'A'" -- meaning, "Things >are what we say they are," or again, "Perception is infallible." This >constitutes willful ignorance, and turns into a recipe for disaster when >things turn out not to be what you say they are. ("Cigarettes are >harmless." -- Ayn Rand, 1965 :-) On this I am in complete agreement. * . ====\\. ~ //==== || \\ ~ . *// || || \\ * // || || \\.~// || || \\// || || Mark \/enture || ==================== ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1993 20:31:34 -0500 From: pgf@srl01.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) Subject: Extroponeurship: Possible idea?, and Schelling Points... Over the weekend while I was stuck at a relative's in New Orleans for a (completely unrelated to prev. relative) relative's wedding (BTW, where can I find more info on the symbolism in a Jewish wedding?) (BTW^2: The ceremony was in Hebrew and English. No Yiddish was spoken or heard. Just for the edification of some of the German posters on this list...) Anyway, I was unable to use the net for a while, and while reading Byte an idea germinated in my head. Has anyone here ever seen the Dell ads in said magazine? All of the systems there were "underpriced" wrt the amount of "Power" they had, but grossly overpriced considering such little things as "SX" chips they were sticking users with, _and_ how many of the low-end systems were stuck with 4MB of RAM (some mail order co's in the mag had 2 meg of ram with their 486sx 33 mhz systems). Also, the higher end systems generally had much better color monitors that would for 98%+ users be indistinguishable from those on the low end systems (but they had to generate a price differential somehow). Anyway, this triggered my instinct. Here was an opportunity. And Instinct plus Opportunity equals Profit, or so sayeth the Ninth Ferengi Law of Aquisition. Perhaps there would be a small market (~ 1000 machines a year) for PC clones especially configured to take advantage of the way the new operating systems work (virtual memory, et cetera...). I mean, do you know what I _think_ is happening when you turn on Word Perfect for Windows on a laptop with 4 Meg of ram and 12 meg of swap space... (I know, Microsoft says that more than 1:1 of swap to ram will degrade performance, but the user has the option (and when he's bought something like WPfW and doesn't have any more cash around, and is trying to get it to run on said 4Mb ram laptop, guess what he's going to do...) of making it 1:3...) esp. with Adobe Type Manager in background and the dictionary/spellchecker/grammarchecker/contentchecker (to make sure everything you write is entropically correct... Happiness will Prevail!) (watch for more info on ContentChecker software! We help sponsor the New CBS Series, Checker 911!) (Okay, back to the serious proposal). I think it's reading the program from the hard disk. Into Ram. Filling it up. Then writing program back out to hard disk virtual memory... In short, it seems to me that the systems are increadibly under-rammed. Like a guy in a 13 foot boat with a 200 HP motor, wondering why said boat isn't handling the waves very well... I was thinking especially of a PC that would come with any operating system we could buy or get for pre-installation on that machine (reflected in the cost, of course); Linux would be a special case, of course. MS Windows would be frowned upon because of the fact that (apparently) it isn't possible to buy it for installation per machine. The user would be free to buy it for his machine, though, and the proprietary firmware (Optional, not required like it seems to be on a lot of the laptops) would have a Windows version. (Hold the thought on the proprietary firmware for a sec.) As far as I can tell, SCSI will age more gracefully than IDE in the future. I would like the user to feel free about upgrading. I would especially invite comment about drive controllers from people more knowledgeable than myself. Base drive configuration: _two_ hard drives. There isn't really a standard yet for the successor to floppies, and in my personal experience floppies are (as used by everyday users) too unreliable to store data on for backup or everyday use. (I speak as someone who has done a lot of floppy stuff in the past two months, on two different machines. The media themselves seem to be of poor quality with faults straight from the manufacturer, and there's no way to tell that the file has been munged when you copy it) The proprietary firmware I was talking about would simply duplicate (on a certian schedule) the data directory on the primary disk drive (programs and data) onto the second hard disk drive (swap space, data backup). I thought that (_if_ the controller could multitask or something like that) that having the swap space and programs on two different drives would make execution and the use of virtual memory much "cleaner." Any comments on that, and the "dual disk" thing in general? (Another reason: backups for the purpose of repartitioning the disks will be a lot easier now). Another couple ideas: _Iron_ is cheap. Aluminum is cheap. Plastic is cheap. It won't cost the company _any_ more to have the machine with decent air-flow through the machine for better heat dissipation. Lately I've been looking at getting an Amiga 1200 (when business gets better, and we can use it w/ the camera stuff), and I found out that a 68040 upgrade won't arrive until the low-power-consumption 68040's come out, due to the heat buildup. I think Commodore must have saved $ 3.00 on the manufacturing cost making it this way. Let's spend that $ 3.00. And get a machine that will run a couple months between reboots (software permitting). Being wildly optimistic, I figured that maybe a thousand of these "alternate OS specials" could be sold in a year. How much do fans cost in lots of a thousand? What happens if we have two or three of them per machine? (I don't see it increacing the cost of the machine that much). Finally: Emphasize, _concentrate_ on the non-DOS, non-Windows market. Emphasize that OS/2 will run Windows programs. That someday Linux will run Windows programs. (That someday Linux will be stable... oops!) Try to use the most _standard_ SCSI controller (on a board, not on the motherboard. Emphasize upgradeability! You're not locked in! You won't make a mistake if you're a small mom-and-pop business instead of the sort of large company that seems to upgrade by simply chucking out the old machine and chucking in a new one), the most standard accelerated graphics, tested to work on all the OS's we provide with the machines. (Preliminary list: OS/2, NS/FIP, Linux. What else do I need?) (That wasn't a rhetorical question. Are you using an oddball OS on your machine that's not listed above?) (F'instance: I know that Dan Stephenson bought a nice SVGA card only to find out that the manufacturer is declining to write an OS/2 driver for it; Dan _lives_ in OS/2 on his machine at home, and will use DOS or Windows only through it). (And yes, I know the infamous Dan Stephenson. He's into Rand, and maybe soon he'll get into extropianism. Give me time ;-) Second Finally: Emphasize the rock-steadiness of the machines. Perhaps a commercial with the gorilla from the Sampsonite Luggage ads? Seriously, such a commercial would be beyond what I envision the budget to be. Any advice or comments? I'm just at the brainstorming stage right now. My target is to get an idea of a machine I could build cheaply with all the stuff the others charge more than they should for, that would have a machine that was _basic_ (not the fastest processor on the market) but not crippled either (I'm currently waiting for the announcement of the PentiumSX: blazing 120Mhz! Backward compatible 4 bit data path! and only $ 1000 in the new multimedia machine from Radidio Shack! Where we're dumping all of the CD engines we couldn't sell as players five years back due to reliability problems, and the two dollar speakers for same! Your Treknology Store!). Anyway, I welcome comments. On another note, I was thinking of writing something for whoever would pay decent money (or a little less than decent money) to publish it about how the personal computer users in this country have suffered due to abusive attempts to find Schelling points in hardware and software configurations in the market. Will posting rough drafts here make it infeasible for me to submit it for publication for money elsewhere? And does anyone here want to read something like that? I know from phone conversations that Tim May is leaning towards disagreement with my thesis. I am also leaning towards another thesis: the age of those particular Schelling Points is now over. Please post to the list or email me any comments that come to mind on the above. P.S.: My dad does have an abridged copy of Plutarch, and I've read it sometimes... I'm going to try it. +-----------------------+Here, all too soon the day! |"Standard disclaimer" |Wish the moon to fall and alter our tomorrow; |pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu |I should know, Heaven has her way: +-----------------------+Each one given memories to own... ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V93 #221 ********************************* &