From extropians-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Tue Aug 10 18:13:56 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA24758; Tue, 10 Aug 93 18:13:53 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 AA15658; Tue, 10 Aug 93 18:13:35 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by panix.com id AA01651 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for more@usc.edu); Tue, 10 Aug 1993 21:10:38 -0400 Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1993 21:10:38 -0400 Message-Id: <199308110110.AA01651@panix.com> To: Exi@panix.com From: Exi@panix.com Subject: Extropians Digest X-Extropian-Date: August 11, 373 P.N.O. [01:10:13 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Status: RO Extropians Digest Wed, 11 Aug 93 Volume 93 : Issue 222 Today's Topics: [2 msgs] ADICO: Anarchist FDIC [1 msgs] ADICO: Anarchist FDIC [1 msgs] ADMIN: Bug fixed (hopefully) [1 msgs] ADMIN: list bug [1 msgs] ECON: Side note on investment thread... [2 msgs] Extropians Digest V93 #0459 [3 msgs] Extropians Digest V93 #0459 [1 msgs] FRAUD!: Re: NASA: Project Centauri [1 msgs] HEX: .01 bids? [1 msgs] INVEST:extropians, cypherpunks and congresscritters [1 msgs] NASA: Project Centauri [1 msgs] Natural Law and Perry Metzger [1 msgs] good predictors [1 msgs] how bad is the weight of Government regulation? [1 msgs] investing [2 msgs] weddings and symbolism [1 msgs] Administrivia: No admin msg. Approximate Size: 51729 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1993 15:15:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Harry Shapiro Subject: exclude prefix econ -- Harry S. Hawk habs@extropy.org Electronic Communications Officer, Extropy Institute Inc. The Extropians Mailing List, Since 1991 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Aug 93 12:23:47 -0700 From: cappello@cs.ucsb.edu (Peter Cappello) Subject: ECON: Side note on investment thread... >The most valuable trend here is to go from a 30-year fixed to a >15-year fixed with little or no monthly payment differential. Would >you agree, Perry? I know there are still some people who have (why I >don't know) still not done this. The differential between 15 year and 30 typically is about 1/2 a point (in the rate). In a stable economy, I would say that it is worth it. Today, if you want to buy real estate, you might want to keep as flexible a position as possible. Getting a 30 year mortgage, and paying it down at the 15 year rate (or faster, if you can afford it), may give you the room that you need later when things go badly for you: you lose your job, your wife loses hers, whatever. The difference in rate that you pay is the cost for this flexibility. It is a rather personal matter as to whether or not you think its worth the price. There are, of course, many other options out there: 30 due in {5 | 7}, variables, ... -Pete ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1993 15:26:52 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: good predictors Freeman Craig Presson says: > In <3773.dsg@staff.tc.umn.edu_POPMail/PC_3.2.2>, "" writes: > |> On Mon, 9 Aug 1993 00:23:26 -0100, Carl Feynman wrote: > |> > [...] > |> >The only recent writer that springs to mind-- and I've read almost all th e > |> >science fiction published in book form before 1979-- is John Brunner. In > > Wow. Carl has a strong mind indeed. And I hope he reads very fast, > and has mondo BS filters. > > |> >_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. > > The term 'virus', and the associated concept of a program that inserts > itself into host programs, was invented in 1983 by Dr. Fred Cohen. "The Shockwave Rider" definately had the idea of viruses down, and the name as well (although through most of the book the characters refer to various kinds of viruses, such as the "phage" (which is a real kind of biological virus) that the main character has inserted into the net to hide his traces.) > If > I remember _Shockwave Rider_ right, that program was a worm, which > copied itself onto as many computers as it could. That was one of several such items that showed up in the book. There were lots of biological metaphors. Perry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Aug 93 12:44:37 PDT From: thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com (Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~) Subject: ECON: Side note on investment thread... > The differential between 15 year and 30 typically is about 1/2 a > point (in the rate). In a stable economy, I would say that it is > worth it. Today, if you want to buy real estate, you might want to > keep as flexible a position as possible. Getting a 30 year mortgage, > and paying it down at the 15 year rate (or faster, if you can afford > it), may give you the room that you need later when things go badly > for you: you lose your job, your wife loses hers, whatever. The > difference in rate that you pay is the cost for this flexibility. It > is a rather personal matter as to whether or not you think its worth > the price. It does take determination, though, if you are going to stick with the 30. But I agree, it does give you more flexibility. > There are, of course, many other options out there: 30 due in {5 | > 7}, variables, ... As low as adjustables are now (_really_ low on a point buy-down), they're a good deal (IMO) for people like me who are getting into a house and don't expect to be there forever (5 years probably.) They're always a risk, but the leverage they give you from the start can go a long way. Refinancing is always an option, too, if it gets out of hand. Tony Hamilton thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com HAM on HEx ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1993 15:54:03 -0400 From: "W. Scott Meeks" Subject: FW: Stargazers alert ------- Forwarded Message >From groff@osfpost.osf.org Tue Aug 10 15:38:15 1993 Received: by osf.org with Microsoft Mail id <2C67F95D@osf.org>; Tue, 10 Aug 93 15:39:09 EDT From: Paul Groff To: junk Subject: FW: Stargazers alert Date: Tue, 10 Aug 93 15:38:00 EDT Message-Id: <2C67F95D@osf.org> Encoding: 98 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 This is forwarded because it has some interesting information in addition to the news about the event itself. ---------- From: nonbiz-request To: nonbiz Subject: Stargazers alert Date: Tuesday, August 10, 1993 2:52PM * METEOR STORM ALERT * ====================== Astronomers predict the possibility of exceptionally high meteor activity on the night of August 11-12, 1993. If the prediction proves to be true both astronomers and the general public might be treated to a spectacular rain of shooting stars of an intensity that is seen only a few times in a century. If it actually occurs, the event can be easily observed with the naked eye. The possibility that sky-watchers will be treated to a spectacular celestial pyrotechnics show in the night of August 11-12 during the annual Perseid meteor shower has greatly increased since the re-discovery last September of the parent comet of the meteor stream, named Swift-Tuttle. The meteoroids in the Perseid stream are derived from the dust emitted by Comet Swift-Tuttle as it moves in its orbit about the Sun. This dust is dispersed along the entire orbit of the comet, but the concentration is the greatest in the vicinity of the comet itself, where recently ejected material is still present. Since Comet Swift-Tuttle only "just" passed through the inner Solar System (late in 1992) the Earth will actually encounter the main dust-belt located behind the comet on August 11-12, 1993, as a consequence of which we may see a very strong meteor shower. The first indications that the Perseid stream might produce something unusual this year were found by the International Meteor Organization when an analysis of world-wide observations in 1988 and 1989 revealed slightly increased Perseid activity. In 1991, the shower produced a rate of many hundreds of meteors per hour for about an hour for Japanese stargazers, while an even more spectacular display was observed in Asia and Eastern Europe in 1992. This year, the passage of the Earth through the comet's orbit only a few months after the comet passed the same location leaves open the chance that we might encounter a very dense collection of dust and even be witness to an outburst stronger than in 1991 or 1992. This geometry might even lead to a "storm" of shooting stars. Meteor storms are characterized by meteors occurring at the rate of one every few seconds and sometimes as high as several per second. Real meteor storms are very rare events. In the last two centuries, strong meteor storms have taken place on only a handful of nights: November 13, 1833 (America), November 14, 1866 (Europe, America), November 27, 1872 (Europe), October 9, 1933 (Europe), October 9, 1946 (America), and November 17, 1966 (America). Contrary to most other rare astronomical events, such as eclipses, a meteor storm may be seen only once in a lifetime. It can be observed only on the night side of Earth. Also, unlike eclipses, meteor storms cannot be predicted in advance with certainty as it is impossible to know precisely the dust distribution around the parent comet's orbit. However, the conditions that MAY lead to a meteor storm can be calculated beforehand. The encounter geometry in 1993 is similar to that of another meteor shower, the Leonids, in 1833 when a most spectacular meteor storm occurred. Some witnesses compared the 1833 event to a snow storm. During the meteor storm of 1966, meteor activity reached 40 meteors per second. Some observers were left with the impression that the Earth was traveling through a tunnel of shooting stars at an incredible speed. The present calculations suggest that meteor activity will be at its climax near 0100 Universal Time on August 12, 1993. This timing favors Europe and may include Eastern North America, as observers there might witness the event during the night of August 11 - 12. The exact time is also somewhat uncertain; storm activity could occur as much as 6 hours on either side of this time. Even if storm activity does not occur, a spectacular outburst as in 1991 and 1992 remains very likely. Hence it is more than worth-while to watch the Perseids during the night of August 11-12. Higher than normal activity might furthermore extend to the nights of August 9, 10, 12, and 13 as well. The best period to watch the shower on these other nights is from midnight until dawn local time, though, because the position of the point in the sky where the meteors appear to radiate from is higher at those times. Whatever the 1993 display produces it will go down in history as one of the most waited for showers ever. [Info via the International Meteor Organization] ------- End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Aug 93 15:54:27 -0400 From: pavel@PARK.BU.EDU (Paul Cisek) Subject: NASA: Project Centauri Here's something of potential interest: (many forwards removed) >================= >From: Associated Press Electronic BBS >To: Technology Review Forum (U.S.) >Cc: <> >Subject: GenTech Inc., Calif. agreement in principle / Genetic disbursement >Date: Friday, August 06, 1997 8:58AM > >GenTech Inc. and Protozen Inc. announce joint chromosomal storage initiative > > SANTA CLARA, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--GenTech Inc. and Protozen Inc. >reached a tentative agreement with vice president Al Gore on budget allocation >for proposed "Project Centauri" Tuesday. Extra allocation of funds for NASA >were said to be a "much need boost" according to Alfred T. Buttle, chief of >operations at NASA. >Project Centauri plans over the next 12 years to launch into space via LPSV >(Limited Personnel Space Vehicle) complete, digitized genetic information >required to rebuild a wide variety of animal and vegetable plant life on a >different, yet to be determined, planet. > >CEO for GenTech Inc., George Falderton, said that his firm was >gratified with the agreement, and that "although there were many >hurdles still to surmount, development science labs from both GenTech >Inc. and Protozen Inc. were well on schedule to complete the [Plasma >Chromosomal Regenerator (PCR)] well in advance of the first launch." > >Project Centauri is a multi-billion dollar space project involving >proposed several >space flights, probably 4, but as yet undecided, to the 4 nearest solar >systems. >The objective is to transplant Earth-based life forms to planets in >solar systems >other than our own. >Extract from agreement summary: >"Each flight is to ultimately remain in orbit while each stage of >transplantation establishes itself before the next introduction takes >place. The example cited was that bacteria required for soil mucus >formation needed for plant growth would need to be firmly in place >before attempts were made to introduce the first plant seeds. Animal >life forms would be the last to be introduced, and even at that, it is >likely that this would involve only rudimentary forms, such as insects." > >Until now, criticism from many quarters has made it all but impossible >for GenTech Inc. and Protozen Inc. to acquire the necessary funds for >such a huge undertaking, and Falderton admits that the turnaround was >due to the major breakthrough in genetic engineering his firm achieved >last January. Although not yet perfected, this is the ability to >reconstruct an entire living organism simply from it's pure genetic >code set. Critics blast the process as inconclusive since the only >organisms thus far produced have been very basic plant life such as >common garden grass, one of the most simple, primitive plant life in >existence. Editor of Scientific American, Richard DeVeer, says nothing >serious will ever come out of this white elephant project, and that it >is just another corporate sham to extract hard cash out of an already >strapped federal wallet." Falderton rejects these criticisms claiming >"animal life reconstruction is but an extension of what we have already >achieved and we will most likely have proved that issue before the new year". > >GenTech Inc. stocks soared from $25.75 Monday to 64.125 by close of >trading Tuesday. Today they closed at $62 even. Protozen Inc. is fully >owned by the Pepperton family of San Francisco and is not traded. >GenTech Inc. and Protozen Inc together employ 230 in three sites, Santa >Clara CA, Denver CO, and Buffalo NY. > > > CONTACT: GenTech Inc. > Oliver Feuscher, 216/986-5567 > Brian McMurtagh, 216/986-2255 > or > Protozen Inc, Santa Clara > Mike Bernhardt, 503/522-5333 > or > Protozen Inc, Boston > Doug Steele, 617/536-0440 > >Copyright (c) Associated Press Inc. >Received by NewsForum Distributers/GTE: 08:56 > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Aug 93 16:03:18 WET DST From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) Subject: ADMIN: list bug A number of you have notiified me of a strange bug in the message lists (of filtered msgs). I am taking a look at it now, hopefully it will be fixed by tommorow. -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: 10 Aug 93 13:18:41 U From: "Kent Hastings" Subject: ADICO: Anarchist FDIC ADICO: Anarchist FDIC#000# When someone objects to free banking (in gold, for example) on the grounds that unregulated banks will have fractional reserves and have no incentive to stay honest, perhaps describing an Anarchist Deposit Insurance COmpany (ADICO) will ease their fears. A new or relatively obscure offshore bank would gain the trust of potential depositors by agreeing to cooperate with surprise inspections of their gold supply. Depositors would pay a small premium to cover loss from bank failures due to theft or fraud. Cryptographic protocols would need to be developed to allow the ADICO to see a verified total amount on deposit, without revealing anything about any particular depositor. The total should match the physical amount of gold in storage, assuming 100% reserves. Does anybody know of work on this, or think it is worth researching? Kent - #000# ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Aug 93 16:26:01 WET DST From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) Subject: ADMIN: Bug fixed (hopefully) For those on the new software, there was a bug in the filterlist/list which would cause the subject/from columns to disappear. This bug only affected messages by Tim Starr because his mailer puts extra whitespace in the Message-Id: which confused my regexp matching code. It is fixed now, but the fix is not retroactive. New messages by Tim will show up properly, the old ones in the archive list won't (since they are stored in the message database that way). -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: Tue, 10 Aug 93 15:29:40 CDT From: eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder) Subject: investing Meridian Investment Co. - D. Eder proprietor Investment Letter #1 Mr. Hamilton suggested putting together an investment newsletter - so here goes: THE RISK-REWARD MAP AND CHOOSING AN OPTIMAL INVESTMENT SET I have had many discussions with brokers and financial planners (usually when they were trying to sell me something), and have been uniformly disappointed in the quality of their reasoning. This is one of the reasons I now do money managing for myself and for others. In this article I will try to show how to determine which investments you should consider and which you should reject out of the many possibilities. I want to do this in a quantifiable manner. Imagine a graph which has reward as the y axis and risk as the x axis, and on which various investments are plotted. It should be obvious that the best investments are the ones that have the highest return with the lowest risk. These would appear on the upper left part of the graph. If you start with the lowest risk investment with a positive return, you can build a set of the best investments by finding sucessive points with higher returns at higher risk levels. Grpahically you are picking the upper leftmost points. Points in the lower right have high risk and low return, and should be rejected from further consideration. Let us now make some quantitative examples. Let the reward axis be measured in expected rate of return per year (%ROI). Let the risk axis be represented by the standard deviation of the rate of the return for one year (%SDEV). For example, a 30 year Treasury bond held for 1 year would have an expected return of, say 7%, and a %SDEV of 10% due to variations in bond prices. That same bond held for 30 years would have a %SDEV of zero, since the bond would be paid off at that point. In these examples, I will neglect inflation and taxes for simplicity. A rental house with no mortgage might have an expected return of 7% and a variation of 0.3% (due to vacancy), while one bought with an 80% mortgage might have a return of 19% and a variation of 2% (also due to vacancy, but magnifies by the smaller investment). A single stock might have an expected return of 12% and a %SDEV of 40%, while a portfolia of stocks would have the same expected return, but with the %SDEV reduced to 16%. This is the principal behind mutual funds, they move to the left on the risk axis while staying abut level on the return axis (they have fees, but they also have lower brokerage comissions than most individuals would get, these terms partly cancel). If you want a fast, crude approximation of standard deviation, take the return for six years, find the average of the best and second best years, then the average of the fifth and sixth best years. subtract the latter from the former and divide by two. This is a value for the standard deviation. Of course, given a spreadsheet or good calculator, you can figure the %SDEV for as much data as you can stand to type in. By thinking of investments as points on this graph, you can filter out the good from the bad, and choose among the good according to what risk/reward you want to obtain. D. Eder [This is issue #1 of an occasional newsletter on investment topics. Discussion is encouraged, and distribution to those outside the Extropians list is permitted] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1993 13:37:03 -0700 From: dkrieger@Synopsys.COM (Dave Krieger) Subject: FRAUD!: Re: NASA: Project Centauri At 3:54 PM 8/10/93 -0400, Paul Cisek wrote: >Here's something of potential interest: > >(many forwards removed) > >>================= >>From: Associated Press Electronic BBS >>To: Technology Review Forum (U.S.) >>Cc: <> >>Subject: GenTech Inc., Calif. agreement in principle / Genetic disbursement >>Date: Friday, August 06, 1997 8:58AM >> >>GenTech Inc. and Protozen Inc. announce joint chromosomal storage initiative >> >> SANTA CLARA, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--GenTech Inc. and Protozen Inc. >>reached a tentative agreement with vice president Al Gore on budget allocation This is obviously a fraud!!! Al Gore won't still be VP in 1997!! :-) :-) dV/dt ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1993 16:59:18 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: ADICO: Anarchist FDIC "Kent Hastings" says: > ADICO: Anarchist FDIC#000# > When someone objects to free banking (in gold, for example) on > the grounds that unregulated banks will have fractional reserves > and have no incentive to stay honest, perhaps describing an > Anarchist Deposit Insurance COmpany (ADICO) will ease their fears. > > A new or relatively obscure offshore bank would gain the trust of > potential depositors by agreeing to cooperate with surprise > inspections of their gold supply. Depositors would pay a small > premium to cover loss from bank failures due to theft or fraud. > > Cryptographic protocols would need to be developed to allow the > ADICO to see a verified total amount on deposit, without revealing > anything about any particular depositor. The total should match > the physical amount of gold in storage, assuming 100% reserves. > > Does anybody know of work on this, or think it is worth researching? Good job -- you have come up with a very interesting problem indeed. A cryptographic protocol that permitted an outsider to determine the amount of (pick your favorite) on deposit without requiring that the bank reveal who owns what would be a neat trick. I suspect, based on some of the voting protocols people are coming up with, that it might in fact be possible, although it might end up involving an outside auditing agency in many of the transactions. Whether a practical protocol to permit this to be done would be possible is an extremely interesting research topic -- many of the voting protocols I've heard of are quite impractical if you have millions of voters. To my knowledge, nothing to solve what I will now dub the "Anonymous Auditing Problem" has yet been done, and this is the first time the question has been posed. Perry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1993 14:08:08 -0700 From: rpeck@pure.com (Ray Peck) Subject: Extropians Digest V93 #0459 Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu writes: >From: pmfitzge@fitz.b30.ingr.com (Patrick Fitzgerald) >Subject: ECOMAD: spontaneous deprogramming > >She just returned from a visit with my uncle in Washington >state. She visited several areas of glorious forestation, >and saw some signs that said "this area was clear-cut and >replanted in 192x, 194x, 196x". Kind of woke her up to the >notion of a "renewable resource". I've been through those areas, too. What I saw was not "glorious forestation" but tree farms. All the trees were the same type and same size. Monoculture of the same form as midwestern corn. A tree farm, while perhaps neccessary for producing the wood our economy uses, is by no means a forest and is no substitute for one. On that trip, I also saw a lot of freshly clearcut mountains, with all their topsoil clearly sliding down and silting the rivers. While the topsoil isn't truely lost, it doesn't do us much good sitting at the bottom of a lake. Yes, old groth forests are a renewable resource. But while many of us hope to, I suspect none will live the 5000 years to see them regenerate. Any question of aesthetics aside, monocultures are very unstable ecosystems. Complex ecosystems made up of large numbers of plants and animals can adjust to changes (in climate, sun, whatever). Monocultures typically cannot. This and soil erosion alone is enough to make me speak out against clearcutting. 95% of the old growth in this country is gone. Even if we do clearcut the last 5%, how long is that going to last us? Is it really worth destroying the last 5% of something that takes so long to rebuild for such a small short-term profit? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1993 16:47:09 -0400 From: nzr20@amdahlcsdc.com (Nicholas Russon) Subject: INVEST:extropians, cypherpunks and congresscritters Perry said: > Why can't they keep pace? I see no reason they can't. Remember, the > economy itself is growing -- and would be growing at quite a strong > clip were it not for the government. > > (By the way, my personal guess is that the government shaves at least > 10% of the growth off the economy -- possibly far more. I think from > what I've seen that economies should increase their growth rate > post-industrialization, not decrease it, with time.) I think Perry is being very, very conservative in his estimate of the "weight" of government on the economy. If you just assume that half of all the money taken in taxes is wasted, then we're already near 20%, not counting the anti-growth effect of all those regulations and trade barriers, etc. Can we (again, conservatively) estimate the effect of government as being, say 30-40% of the potential growth rate? More? Just the effort taken to avoid the worst excesses of either taxation or bureaucracy must be more than the 10% cited above. Note that I'm only assuming that half of all money taken is wasted. How many Extropians feel that the wastage is even greater? Regards, Nicholas P.S. Is it customary to announce a de-lurk before or after the fact? -- Nicholas Russon nzr20@meadow.uucp | Giving money and power to Amdahl Canada nzr20@amail.amdahl.com | government is like giving 416-542-6530 nicholas.russon@canrem.uucp | whiskey and car keys to 416-750-0979 | teenage boys. (P.J. O'Rourke) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Aug 93 15:05:41 PDT From: thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com (Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~) Subject: investing > Mr. Hamilton suggested putting together an investment newsletter - so > here goes: Mr. Hamilton is pleased ... :-) Seriously, it was a very nice article, and I think that using %ROI and %STDEV as your axes for the graph are most appropriate. The fundamental difficulty remains, however, in acquiring statistics meaninful enough to graph. Many authors have written on on such matters with respect to stock investing alone. However, even those statistics are usually specific to one or another "system". Although, I have seen some good books which cover a lot of ground. THen once you have the statistics you have to figure out how to interpret them. As Perry states many times, those "in the know" should certainly be more successful, but there again, are there statistics? Perhaps an upcoming article might address this problem of arriving at the numbers. Curious: have there been any public or privately funded efforts to conduct in-depth, scientifically sound studies into the matter? Perhaps a report or two the SEC or FTC might have published on this? Tony Hamilton thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com HAM on HEx ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Aug 93 15:12:22 PDT From: thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com (Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~) Subject: HEX: .01 bids? Is it _really_ necessary for someone to have a p.01 bid on most every reputation in the market? At the same time, there _are_ reputations which haven't sold a single share. C'mon owners, start asking less. Your reputations aren't moving anyway - it can't hurt. On another note, if it hasn't been corrected by tonight, my own HAM reputation might show some "interesting" numbers in the report. An investor made an honest mistake, and in the interest of shareholder satisfaction, we'll work something out to make the appropriate corrections) Tony Hamilton thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com HAM on HEx ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Aug 93 17:53:22 WET DST From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) Subject: Extropians Digest V93 #0459 Ray Peck () writes: > Any question of aesthetics aside, monocultures are very unstable > ecosystems. Complex ecosystems made up of large numbers of plants and > animals can adjust to changes (in climate, sun, whatever). Evidently, not changes from humans. A lot of environmentalists seem to make ecosystems out to be incredibly fragile and that one upset in the balance brings the whole thing crashing down. > Monocultures typically cannot. This and soil erosion alone is enough > to make me speak out against clearcutting. "monocultures are very unstable ecosystems" I am tempted to say "of course." Why view them as ecosystems at all? They are tree factories, engineered, and they shouldn't be "stable" Humans can do much better than nature (maxmimize yield) by pushing life way past dynamic equilibrium. I'd be pleased if the environmental movement would put its energy into technological alternatives for trees (artificial wood, genetically engineered trees better tree farms, etc) so we wouldn't have to cut down the natural stuff. Unfortunately, the intellectual (radical) leadership of the movement is much more interested in stopping growth. (seems like they have Dynamic Pessimism) > 95% of the old growth in this country is gone. Even if we do clearcut > the last 5%, how long is that going to last us? Is it really worth > destroying the last 5% of something that takes so long to rebuild for > such a small short-term profit? To tell the truth, I'm rather indifferent. I don't care what the government does with "public" US lands. I'm much more worried about rain forests and the oceans with respect to the long-term viability of the planet {until we colonize space or we upload, then I don't really care either way ;-)} -- Ray Cromwell | Engineering is the implementation of science; -- -- EE/Math Student | politics is the implementation of faith. -- -- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu | - Zetetic Commentaries -- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1993 18:47:18 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: how bad is the weight of Government regulation? Nicholas Russon says: > Perry said: > > (By the way, my personal guess is that the government shaves at least > > 10% of the growth off the economy -- possibly far more. I think from > > what I've seen that economies should increase their growth rate > > post-industrialization, not decrease it, with time.) > > I think Perry is being very, very conservative in his estimate of the > "weight" of government on the economy. If you just assume that half of > all the money taken in taxes is wasted, then we're already near 20%, not > counting the anti-growth effect of all those regulations and trade > barriers, etc. Well, we can assume we'd have 20-30% more capital available every year, but what growth rate that would translate into I suspect no one can honestly say. I would agree that growth might even be higher than I estimated, but I have no way of really estimating so I felt that being conservative would make far more sense. Certainly I see no reason we couldn't at least match the growth rate in places like Hong Kong and I suspect we could do two or three times better, but there really is no hard data. Perry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Aug 93 17:46:21 CST From: "" Subject: weddings and symbolism On Mon, 9 Aug 1993 20:31:34 -0500, Phil G. Fraering wrote: >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...) Try the Folklore list. Send your sub to listserv@tamvm1.bitnet Or read a book on Judaism for children. Dan Goodman dsg@staff.tc.umn.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Aug 93 18:54:05 EDT From: Andy Wilson Subject: Extropians Digest V93 #0459 From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 93 17:53:22 WET DST Ray Peck () writes: > Any question of aesthetics aside, monocultures are very unstable > ecosystems. Complex ecosystems made up of large numbers of plants and > animals can adjust to changes (in climate, sun, whatever). Evidently, not changes from humans. A lot of environmentalists seem to make ecosystems out to be incredibly fragile and that one upset in the balance brings the whole thing crashing down. Clearing *all* of the old growth forest is not "one upset in the balance". [...] > 95% of the old growth in this country is gone. Even if we do clearcut > the last 5%, how long is that going to last us? Is it really worth > destroying the last 5% of something that takes so long to rebuild for > such a small short-term profit? To tell the truth, I'm rather indifferent. I don't care what the government does with "public" US lands. I'm much more worried about rain forests and the oceans with respect to the long-term viability of the planet {until we colonize space or we upload, then I don't really care either way ;-)} Those of us who live in the developed world will have little success in convincing the third world nations not to destroy their forests just like we did if we continue with the hypocrisy of tearing down our own forests. The "Do as I say, not as I do" approach won't work any better for nations than it will for children, as nations behave very much like children. Andy ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1993 19:09:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Mark Sulkowski Subject: Natural Law and Perry Metzger From: "Perry E. Metzger" >> Please let me in on how natural law is "religious" in any sense >> which entails unreason. > >It tends to hold that there are immutable categories that we call "The >Good" and "The Bad" into which all actions fall and that there are a >set of "Inalienable Rights" that one has, much like platonic essences, >whic are defined strictly and clearly, the violation of which is "Bad". Actually, I never noticed that sort of thing in James Donald's Natural Law. It is possible, I suppose, that he assumes minimizing violence is a good thing. I'm not sure about that. Even if he does, his idea of Natural Law may still describe a way of minimizing violence, and that is not something we need accept on faith. However, if you are really trying to slam objectivism, you are doing a poor job of it. >This viewpoint holds that the source of "The Good" and "The Bad" is >the set of rules. Who ever said this? Neither James Donald nor Ayn Rand. >Where do the rules come from? "The nature of >things", i.e. they are revealed truth, whether or not that revelation >id done by god or not. It all depends on what you mean by rules coming from nature. That can mean one hundred and two different things. We won't get anywhere until we decide which one we are talking about. * . ====\\. ~ //==== || \\ ~ . *// || || \\ * // || || \\.~// || || \\// || || Mark \/enture || ==================== ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1993 19:13:24 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: Extropians Digest V93 #0459 Andy Wilson says: > Those of us who live in the developed world will have little success in > convincing the third world nations not to destroy their forests just like > we did if we continue with the hypocrisy of tearing down our own forests. Could someone please tell me what the problem is with cutting down our forests so long as we replant them? And if the "95% of old growth forest has been cut down" statistic is true, why isn't there plenty of land to use for tree farming? It would seem that the remaining 5% might not be worth cutting. Tossing wood on the fire... Perry ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V93 #222 *********************************