From extropians-request@extropy.org Fri Sep 17 23:23:47 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA15385; Fri, 17 Sep 93 23:23:42 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: from ude.tim.ia.ung.gnu.ai.mit.ed (ude.tim.ia.ung.gnu.ai.mit.edu) by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA24923; Fri, 17 Sep 93 23:23:31 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by ude.tim.ia.ung.gnu.ai.mit.edu id AA27495; Sat, 18 Sep 93 02:15:50 EDT Received: from news.panix.com by ude.tim.ia.ung.gnu.ai.mit.edu via TCP with SMTP id AA27485; Sat, 18 Sep 93 02:15:07 EDT Received: by news.panix.com id AA14521 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for exi-maillist@ung.gnu.ai.mit.edu); Sat, 18 Sep 1993 02:15:01 -0400 Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1993 02:15:01 -0400 Message-Id: <199309180615.AA14521@news.panix.com> To: Extropians@extropy.org From: Extropians@extropy.org Subject: Extropians Digest X-Extropian-Date: September 18, 373 P.N.O. [06:14:01 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Status: RO Extropians Digest Sat, 18 Sep 93 Volume 93 : Issue 260 Today's Topics: [4 msgs] "Hey, ::exclude You, Too!" [2 msgs] "Hey, ::exclude You, Too!" [2 msgs] CRYPTO: Subpoenas issued in encryption cases [1 msgs] Delta Clipper tech debate [1 msgs] ECON: What's wrong with a service economy? [2 msgs] Ethics: the virtue of [1 msgs] GUNZ: "Pro-gun" is not equal to "pro-violence" [1 msgs] Gang shootings: this is not a joke ... [1 msgs] Japanime [1 msgs] META: GUNZ'n'LOGIC [1 msgs] META: Proposal for Paying for Advanced List Features [2 msgs] META: list software, regexp's, and exclude bombs [1 msgs] Meaninglessness [1 msgs] PHIL: But what if _everyone_ did X? (was: Is the State a "person"?)[1 msgs] Party: Photo-CD, now it can be told [1 msgs] _Fame_ [2 msgs] phone bills [1 msgs] stealing from the post office [1 msgs] Administrivia: No admin msg. Approximate Size: 51978 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 17 Sep 93 9:20:57 CDT From: lists@alan.b30.ingr.com (lists (Alan Barksdale)) Subject: phone bills > Tony Hamilton wrote on August 26: > > I guess here we have to ask ourselves, how do the phone companies get > > away with flat monthly rates for local service? . . . . [...] > And maybe flat billing is mandated by the terms of the monopoly license. > > *\\* Anton Ubi scriptum? Call your local 'phone monopoly and check whether "measured service" for local calls is available. South Central Bell offers it here in Huntsville, Alabama. I pay a monthly access/tax/911 charge of about $14. I pay for each of my few local calls. As with long-distance calling, the rates are less at night and on weekends. ______________________________________________________________________________ | The central fact is that...the earth's climate seems to be cooling down. | | [Meteorologists] are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will | | reduce agricultural productivity. --- _Newsweek_ (28-04-75) | | The atmosphere may be reaching the limit of its capacity to absorb emitted | | carbon dioxide without falling into a disastrous greenhouse effect. | | --- _Newsweek_ (01-06-92) | | Alan Barksdale -- uunet!ingr.com!b30!alan!alan -- alan@alan.b30.ingr.com | | -- ingr.com!b30!alan!alan@uunet.UU.NET -- afbarksd@infonode.ingr.com -- | ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Sep 93 15:35:16 BST From: jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway) Subject: GUNZ: "Pro-gun" is not equal to "pro-violence" Jay Freeman writes: >Andy Lowton's presence prompts me to ask whether there are British >libertarians, and if so, whether their feelings on gun control are as >strong as the feelings of their American counterparts? Yes, me. -- ____ Richard Kennaway __\_ / School of Information Systems Internet: jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk \ X/ University of East Anglia uucp: ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk \/ Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Sep 93 15:35:27 BST From: jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway) Subject: LOGIC: Superrationality Dave Krieger writes: >The meta-super-rational player, however, recognizes that all of the other >participants are going to reach this conclusion. He further realizes that >all of the other participants are going to recognize that, if everyone >_else_ cooperates, the individual defector can make a killing, and, >furthermore, he realizes that everyone else will realize _that_, and will >all defect. If he cooperates, and everyone else defects, he's >super-screwed... so he has to defect. > >I'm not saying the above chain of reasoning is "correct" -- there's so much >recursion in a problem of this type that I am skeptical of it having a >provably correct and stable solution -- but it's the one that led >Hofstadter's subjects to defect. But the meta-super-rational player must recognise (the other players being much like her/him) that everyone else will be meta-super-rational as well, and so... We've had this debate before. Personally, I see no resolution. The assumption that there must be a correct strategy seems to be refuted, but more than that I can't say. Here's another game. A and B are jointly offered by C $1000, but only if they can agree with each other how to share it. A says to B "I'll take $700 and you can have $300." B says to A, "No, I'll take $700 and you can have $300". A says "No way, the only choices I'm offering you are $300 or nothing, therefore it is rational for you to accept $300." B says the same... Welcome to the world of non-zero-sum non-game non-theory. -- ____ Richard Kennaway __\_ / School of Information Systems Internet: jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk \ X/ University of East Anglia uucp: ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk \/ Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Sep 93 09:33:00 -0500 From: "Patrick M. Fitzgerald" Subject: META: list software, regexp's, and exclude bombs Recently, people have been mentioning regexp's in excludes and includes. Nice feature, but what about escaping the special regexp characters (.*+?, etc.)? This could lead to problems. For example, assuming that exclude uses Perl regexp's, what if someone posted the following "exclude bomb" message: Subject: .*(you are all a bunch of techno-weenies)? If someone excluded that subject line, suddenly they would receive no messages. List warfare! Does the list software accept regexp's? Perhaps we need exclude for a string exclude, and exclude-r for regexp excludes? -- Patrick M. Fitzgerald, pmfitzge@ingr.com ______ / ___ ) The ideas of economists and political / __)/ /__ philosophers, both when they are right and (_/it(_____) when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of some defunct economist. - John Maynard Keynes ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Sep 93 15:37:01 BST From: jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway) Subject: META: GUNZ'n'LOGIC Apologies for the two duplicate messages I just posted. -- ____ Richard Kennaway __\_ / School of Information Systems Internet: jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk \ X/ University of East Anglia uucp: ...mcsun!ukc!uea-sys!jrk \/ Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1993 10:56:09 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: "Hey, ::exclude You, Too!" Harry Shapiro says: > I very much agree with what Tim says. > > a conscious being, Timothy C. May wrote: > > But when people publically announce their ::exclude intentions, and go > > on to explain why, doesn't that subvert the purpose, which is to > > ruduce flaming by removing sources of irritation? > > I would consider the public ::exclude's to be a violation of > list rules. The reason, being that if someone wanted to tell > some they had been excluded, they could do it in private e-mail. Pardon me Harry, but I completely disagree. I feel that its important that people know you are not answering certain people's postings because you don't see them. Currently, I exclude Tony Hamilton, Carol Moore, and James Donald's posts. If you feel that its a violation of list rules for me to say this, feel free to kick me off. Perry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Sep 93 8:28:46 PDT From: thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com (Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~) Subject: "Hey, ::exclude You, Too!" > Harry Shapiro says: > > I very much agree with what Tim says. > > > > a conscious being, Timothy C. May wrote: > > > But when people publically announce their ::exclude intentions, and go > > > on to explain why, doesn't that subvert the purpose, which is to > > > ruduce flaming by removing sources of irritation? > > > > I would consider the public ::exclude's to be a violation of > > list rules. The reason, being that if someone wanted to tell > > some they had been excluded, they could do it in private e-mail. > > Pardon me Harry, but I completely disagree. > > I feel that its important that people know you are not answering > certain people's postings because you don't see them. > > Currently, I exclude Tony Hamilton, Carol Moore, and James Donald's > posts. > > If you feel that its a violation of list rules for me to say this, > feel free to kick me off. > > Perry Actually, Perry _did_ mention his ::exclude of me as part of a normal posting, so I'm sure there is no breach of policy there. And, in addition, I did appreciate _knowing_ that I was being excluded. Had I not, I might say something like "what do you think, Perry?" in a public post, to no avail, and wonder why I was being ignored. In addition, I would just like to say that, with a single data point to work with (Perry's exclude of me - the only one I am _aware_ of anyway), the ::exclude feature has been successful for me. Our discussion styles tended to clash more often then not, and so now whenever I post I don't have to take that into consideration any more. BTW: loved Tim's Steve Martin parody ... Tony Hamilton thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com HAM on HEx (ps. you know, it's ironic. Now that Perry ::excludes me, I agree with him more often than I used to. Only, now he'll never know it... ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Sep 93 9:08:19 PDT From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) Subject: CRYPTO: Subpoenas issued in encryption cases Just a brief note. Last night at least two subpoenas were issued, to Austin Code Works for the the "Moby Crypto" set of programs (mostly by Grady Ward, a sometimes Cypherpunk subscribers, as I recall), and the set of programs surrounding PGP, namely ViaCrypt and Phil Zimmermann, the principal author/creator of PGP. The subpoenas call for them to appear and present all relevant documents to a Grand Jury in San Jose, CA, next Wednesday, September 22nd. Details of this are being hotly discussed in the usual places: sci.crypt, talk.politics.crypto, alt.security.pgp, and the "eff" talk group. No indictments yet--that's what Grand Juries are all about--but it appears the "grounds" will be something about exporting of crypto software, including DES, even though textbook descriptions are freely exportable and foreigners may thus implement the algorithms from the printed descriptions (sometimes exact code is printed in textbooks). Various Constitutional issues come up, and this may be the long-expected test case on some of these issues: * can disclosure of encryption keys be compelled? * if print versions of something are allowed, how is the computer version really different? Does "free speech" apply to computer networks? * does PGP violate the law? Lots of issues, lots of tension. -Tim -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Sep 93 09:20:53 -0700 From: freeman@maspar.com (Jay R. Freeman) Subject: META: Proposal for Paying for Advanced List Features [ Hawk tells how to donate to mailing list development ... ] Checks made out to ... ? (Probably "Extropy Institute", just checking.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Sep 93 12:23:27 EDT From: eli@suneast.east.sun.com (Elias Israel - SunSelect Engineering) Subject: "Hey, ::exclude You, Too!" Tony Hamilton writes: > In addition, I would just like to say that, with a single data point to > work with (Perry's exclude of me - the only one I am _aware_ of anyway), > the ::exclude feature has been successful for me. Our discussion styles > tended to clash more often then not, and so now whenever I post I don't have > to take that into consideration any more. I'll probably be reprimanded for saying this, but I can't hold my tongue (keyboard?) any longer. Perry's "style" clashes with virtually everyone he interacts with on this list. While he often has interesting things to say, a typical exchange with him proceeds quickly from conversation to half-hearted debate to outright flaming, and ends with him ::excluding whoever is unfortunate enough to have started the exchange in the first place. One wonders how many people he doesn't ::exclude and whether he wouldn't be better off leaving the list if he's that uninterested in hearing people disagree with him. And I doubt I'm the only one on this list who suspects that the PPL in place here is biased in favor of Perry's rude and childish behaviour. When Perry's brain is the size of Jupiter, will the amount dedicated to (n)ettiquette still be too small? Elias Israel eli@east.sun.com (NOTE: New user name!) HEx: E ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1993 13:12:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Mark Sulkowski Subject: Japanime From: plaz@netcom.com (Geoff Dale) >>Russell Whitaker wonders: >>>Does this mean that there are other anime/manga fans in >>>Extropia? Count me in, too. I spend a bit of time doing anime >>>translations to tickle my Japanese teachers at U of London. Count another one in. >Most, but not all, Anime has beautiful presentation, wonderful art and >animation. Agreed. It really is great stuff to watch. >I do, unfortunately, find a lot of entropic memes represented in Anime. The >Eco-Fascist and "things that man were not meant to know" are very >prevalent, not to mention the Japanese culture under-valueing individuality >and life. True. But that's everywhere. At least Anime tends to be technophilic. >Available in English: >Castle Cagliostro, Madox-01, Laputa (very eco-fascist tho), Bubblegum >Crisis (a series featuring Priss and the Replicants as a rock'n'roll band). >Yet to be translated: > Vampire Princess Miyu This HAS been translated (subtitled). > Dirty Pair: Project Eden Dirty Pair: Crisis on Nolandia (?) has been dubbed into english. I may have the title slightly off. >Urotsukidoji (bizarre monster-sex co-produced by Penthouse >featuring high school girls being raped and killed by demons from hell, a >TRULY great series) I have this in Japanese. Does anyone know what the plot of it is besides the obvious? * . ====\\. ~ //==== || \\ ~ . *// || || \\ * // || || \\.~// || || \\// || || Mark \/enture || ==================== ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Sep 93 18:19:23 GMT From: lowton@typhon.dra.hmg.gb (Andy Lowton) Subject: GUNZ: "Pro-gun" is not equal to "pro-violence" Hi all I don't want to prolong this thread as it is obviously old hat to most people, but I would like to say thanks to the people who replied. Mark Grant summed up the general feeling in his excellent post when he said: >Politically incorrect as the opinion may be, I really don't care about >a few morons shooting each other. I'd happily trade a few hundred dead >football hooligans each year for a halving of the rape and robbery rates. I >don't see any way of reducing them other than by giving people back the >means of self-defence and the legal ability to defend themselves. Similar sentiments were expressed by Tim May, who gave me a chuckle with: > As you may have guessed, I'd call a few dozen British dead football > fans a "good start." Further, why not just leave their alcohol-soaked > bodies lying about for a day or so, to give ordinary folks a good > chuckle the next day? Anyway, consider me convinced. Now where do I get me a gun 8-) Cheers mr lotion ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1993 12:39:28 -0500 From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: Delta Clipper tech debate I'd like to point out that further analysis on sci.space shows that Ruppe's analysis is bogus: several of the Saturn stages were capable of carrying payload into orbit as an expendable SSTO with ratios that Ruppe thinks is optimistic today, with materials science twenty years old. I can post the articles here if y'all want, although it would be easier for y'all to just look at them on sci.space. Phil ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Sep 93 10:42:29 -0700 From: kwatson@netcom.com (Kennita Watson) Subject: _Fame_ For the _Fame_ fans out there, a clarification: It's not specifically in _Fame_ that I didn't expect to find Extropian music, but in movie soundtracks in general -- they seem to be rife with paeans to struggle and codependency ("Be mine forever" (a long time to an Extropian!), "I can't live without you", "I'm nothing without you", "Gotta fight to make it through the day", etc.). I bought this one because I'd heard the title cut and it makes great dance music. I figured I might as well listen to the rest, and was pleasantly surprised. I've seen the Extropian book list; is there an Extropian music list? Kennita Watson | "Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc -- we gladly kwatson@netcom.com | feast on those who would subdue us. Not just pretty | words...." -- The Addams Family ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Sep 93 10:45:08 -0700 From: cappello@cs.ucsb.edu (Peter Cappello) Subject: Ethics: the virtue of >Or are you convinced that you follow the OneTrueAndOnlyWay? > >I see we have a few believers here in the list. As I understand it, you think that it is bad to believe, however tentatively, anything. This perhaps is your OneTrueAndOnlyWay. People here are open to propositions backed by evidence. Please do not confuse high standards of evidence with close-mindedness. -Pete ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Sep 93 13:59:16 EDT From: david@WAL6000A.UDC.UPENN.EDU (R. David Murray) Subject: META: Proposal for Paying for Advanced List Features I fully agree with your paid subscription proposal, Tim, and have wondered for a long time why, if the list really is a 'safe haven', exi hasn't been charging for list membership all along. Somebody let me know where to send the $30 (or whatever) and I'll drop the check in the mail. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Sep 93 11:12:45 PDT From: desilets@sj.ate.slb.com (Mark Desilets) Subject: _Fame_ Kennita errs thusly: > I've seen the Extropian book list; is there an Extropian music list? > > Shhh! Don't let *them* hear you, or you'll be told there is no such thing as Extropian music! Mark ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Sep 93 13:24:04 CDT From: eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder) Subject: ECON: What's wrong with a service economy? Mr. Hamilton claimed in a post on 13 Sep: "What is happening in the United States, however, is not -just- a shift from manufacturing jobs to service, but an actual -loss- of manufacturing, period. " The data does not support this claim. My source for data is "Economic Indicators: May 1993", Council of Economic Advisors, US Govt Printing Office, 1993. In 1983, the total number of wage and salary workers in goods-producing indutries was 23.334 million. This category includes construction, maufacturing, and mining. In Apr 1993, the latest data in this report, the total was 23.214 million. So manufacturing jobs changed a negligible amount over this 10 year period. In the service producing industries, workers increased from 66.866 million to 86.099 million, an increase of nearly 20 million. Thus, in response to the first claim of Mr. Hamilton, I say goods producing jobs have not shifted anywhere. Instead, I claim the service sector is expanding rapidly. In response to the second claim, total industrial production increased from 84.9 to 110.0 over the same period (1987=100.0 Index). Of this Manufacturing went from 80.9 to 111.0, Mining went from 104.8 to 96.1, and Utilities went from 93.6 to 113.1. Thus the absolute amount of industrial production increased over the period. If we look at the ratio of industial production per wage and salary worker (in units of 1987=100 and millions of workers repectively), we have a ratio of 84.9/90.2 = 0.941 in 1983, to 110.0/109.3 = 1.007 in April 1993. Therefore, we are producing 6% more 'stuff' per worker, even though a higher percentage of the workforce is in service industries. What has made this possible is apparently a large increase in manufacturing productivity: we are producing 30% more 'stuff' with the same number of people. Thus, I claim neither of the assertions by Mr Hamilton are correct when compared to the data. Dani Eder ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1993 14:48:06 -0400 From: tburns@gmuvax.gmu.edu (T. David Burns) Subject: Meaninglessness At 6:52 PM 9/16/93 +0000, Michael Clive Price wrote: > I shan't >bother to state that this is literally gibberish but, from the >perspective of having a background in the hard sciences, this all cuts >no ice with me. The fundamental objects of enquiry in science are >defined in operational fashion and tied to meter readings, gauges etc. >Can you formulate an operational test of "existence exists"? No. >Therefore it is a meaningless utterance. This is a statement of a philosophical position which by its own criteria is meaningless. To say that "existence exists" is non-operational may be accurate. To say that it is stupid, or wrong, or a waste of time may give us some information. But to say that it's meaningless exhibits incredible gall (an extropian virtue?) and mammoth myopia (an extropian virtue - not). Unlike philosophers, who can safely spend their entire lives innocent of any but the most naive notions of 'hard science,' 'hard scientists' have to live in a human world of meaning. Trying to redefine meaning to please one's self will not do the trick. tburns@gmuvax.gmu.edu (T. David Burns) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1993 14:48:20 -0400 From: tburns@gmuvax.gmu.edu (T. David Burns) Subject: META: 20 excludes limit At 1:08 PM 9/16/93 -0500, Jeffrey Adam Johnson wrote: > Apparently, the list software can only handle 20 "::exclude" >commands at once, per user. After education about the "::exclude" >command, I reached this limit after only 2 days of using it. Another approach would be to exclude everything and then resend or include specific threads. I was trying to use this a few weeks back, but I couldn't get the notify option to work, so I never knew what to resend without sending a filterlist command first. Would anyone else appreciate a new command for listing the subject lines of the posts still in the database? tburns@gmuvax.gmu.edu (T. David Burns) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1993 11:48:58 -0700 From: dkrieger@Synopsys.COM (Dave Krieger) Subject: Party: Photo-CD, now it can be told "::exclude thread PC_vs_Mac_religious_flamewar" :-) >From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) >Subject: Party: Photo-CD, now it can be told >X-Extropian-Date: Remailed on September 17, 373 P.N.O. [03:56:18 UTC] >X-Message-Number: #93-9-817 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1993 14:53:15 -0400 From: tburns@gmuvax.gmu.edu (T. David Burns) Subject: PHIL: But what if _everyone_ did X? (was: Is the State a "person"?) Richard Kennaway writes: >The descriptions "getting free postage on all my letters", "getting free >postage when I can't afford the cost of a stamp", and "attacking statist >monopolies" may all apply to the same action, yet universal adoption of >each of these would have very different consequences. For another example, Just so long as both your reputation and self-image can keep these distinctions distinct, all is well. I'm of two minds here. I prefer to act consistently and honestly, because then I send out consistent messages to others and also my self-image doesn't become confused. If some third party observes my action, will they make the same distinctions I do? If they see me cheat another organization and make an excuse, can they be sure I won't have some other excuse handy when I deal with them? Will I believe my own excuses? But I've never had to live somewhere like pre-reform China, where honesty would arguably be the worst policy. And the knowledge of and appropriate use of certain techniques needn't imply a danger to others - some of my acquaintances know martial arts and have had need to use them, yet I've never felt that their knowledge was a danger to me. >compare "persecuting degenerate scum" and "persecuting anyone I don't >like". Persons with power seem to sometimes have trouble with this one. tburns@gmuvax.gmu.edu (T. David Burns) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1993 15:09:55 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: "Hey, ::exclude You, Too!" Elias Israel - SunSelect Engineering says: > Tony Hamilton writes: > > In addition, I would just like to say that, with a single data point to > > work with (Perry's exclude of me - the only one I am _aware_ of anyway), > > the ::exclude feature has been successful for me. Our discussion styles > > tended to clash more often then not, and so now whenever I post I don't hav e > > to take that into consideration any more. > > I'll probably be reprimanded for saying this, but I can't hold my tongue > (keyboard?) any longer. Perry's "style" clashes with virtually everyone > he interacts with on this list. While he often has interesting things to > say, a typical exchange with him proceeds quickly from conversation > to half-hearted debate to outright flaming, and ends with him ::excluding > whoever is unfortunate enough to have started the exchange in the > first place. Untrue. I haven't excluded Tim Starr, for instance, with whom the most recent "flame war" (ha) occured. Indeed, I've excluded virtually no one on the list -- just three people, in fact. I've gotten into disputes with quite many. As a rule, I never exclude anyone who's posts might at some point have some value to me. Perry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Sep 93 15:22:16 EDT From: pmetzger@lehman.com (Perry E. Metzger) Subject: stealing from the post office I've been thinking more about my position on tricking the USPS into delivering your letter for free, and I've come to the conclusion that I was wrong. Although I myself don't like the idea, it is arguable that the action does not violate what I consider to be the rules of good conduct -- that is to say, that the action, if taken deliberately with the notion that one was attempting to undermine the postal monopoly, might be a "good" thing (for my personal value of good) and might not indicate a tendancy to try to violate contracts. In other words, I wouldn't do it, but I can see why people who I might still consider to be honest and upstanding might. Naturally, others must come to their own conclusions on this subject as moral codes are a personal thing. Perry Who notes that his message sounds disturbingly close to certain religious arguments concerning what actions are acceptable under religious law, and wonders if he isn't taking the wrong approach to moral systems again. Hmmm. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Sep 93 12:18:41 -0700 From: kwatson@netcom.com (Kennita Watson) Subject: Gang shootings: this is not a joke ... Please forward to anyone in the San Jose area whom you think might not have seen this, and call people who aren't on the Net. Let's look out for each other here. This one gives me the chills. Kennita. ------- Start of forwarded message ------- Subject: Heads up - Gang Violence The San Jose Police are putting out a report on a new initiation rite for gangs. A gang-member-wanna-be rides around at night with their car lights out. The first car that flashes their headlights (courtesy flash to let them know their lights are out) - the gang-member- wanna-be turns around and shoots (or shoots at) the occupants. This notice is being put out to local San Jose Hospitals, and already several cases have been reported - all detailing the same scenario. This information is also filtering into San Jose grade schools and high school. Moral of the story - don't be a nice guy and flash your lights at the car driving around with its lights out. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! An even scarier version of the same ... !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Here's a note that came off the wire someplace... thought it's scary enough to forward to all of you... SAN JOSE POLICE DEPARTMENT............... SPECIAL REPORT ON GANGS GAVE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: THE NEWEST FORM OF GANG INITIATION IS TO DRIVE AT NIGHT WITH THEIR LIGHTS OFF AND WAIT FOR THE FIRST VEHICLE THAT FLASHES THEIR LIGHTS AT THEM. THEY THEN FOLLOW THAT VEHICLE TO THEIR DESTINATION AND SHOOT TO KILL, IF THEY SUCCEED IN KILLING, THEY BECOME A PART OF THE GANG. THE REPORT SAID THAT WE SHOULD NOT FLASH OUR CAR LIGHTS AT ANY CAR DRIVING WITH THEIR LIGHTS OFF. WE DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GANG RELATED OR NOT. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ------- End of forwarded message ------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Sep 93 12:23:13 -0700 From: kwatson@netcom.com (Kennita Watson) Subject: Gang shootings: this is not a joke ... Additional apologies from me -- I hope this doesn't get too far around before it gets quelled. Kennita ------- Start of forwarded message ------- Return-Path: Date: Fri, 17 Sep 93 10:27:38 PDT From: Charlie Tomberg To: concerned_people@us.oracle.com Subject: [ctomberg: This is not a joke ...] All, Aparently the note that I just forwarded to you about gang violance is not true. I apologize for passing on bad rumors. I just received the following additional note from the person who forwarded me the original note. > Whew!!! Believe it or not, I lied: this *was* a joke! >Sorry for passing on a very bad rumor ... Charlie Date: Fri, 17 Sep 93 10:21:10 PDT From: Charlie Tomberg To: concerned_peopleCC Subject: This is not a joke ... Info that's going around here ... thought I'd pass it on ... it's pretty scary. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Subject: Heads up - Gang Violence The San Jose Police are putting out a report on a new initiation rite for gangs. A gang-member-wanna-be rides around at night with their car lights out. The first car that flashes their headlights (courtesy flash to let them know their lights are out) - the gang-member- wanna-be turns around and shoots (or shoots at) the occupants. This notice is being put out to local San Jose Hospitals, and already several cases have been reported - all detailing the same scenario. This information is also filtering into San Jose grade schools and high school. Moral of the story - don't be a nice guy and flash your lights at the car driving around with its lights out. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! An even scarier version of the same ... !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Here's a note that came off the wire someplace... thought it's scary enough to forward to all of you... SAN JOSE POLICE DEPARTMENT............... SPECIAL REPORT ON GANGS GAVE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: THE NEWEST FORM OF GANG INITIATION IS TO DRIVE AT NIGHT WITH THEIR LIGHTS OFF AND WAIT FOR THE FIRST VEHICLE THAT FLASHES THEIR LIGHTS AT THEM. THEY THEN FOLLOW THAT VEHICLE TO THEIR DESTINATION AND SHOOT TO KILL, IF THEY SUCCEED IN KILLING, THEY BECOME A PART OF THE GANG. THE REPORT SAID THAT WE SHOULD NOT FLASH OUR CAR LIGHTS AT ANY CAR DRIVING WITH THEIR LIGHTS OFF. WE DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GANG RELATED OR NOT. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ------- End of forwarded message ------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Sep 93 12:54:17 PDT From: thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com (Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~) Subject: ECON: What's wrong with a service economy? Dani provided some very good figures on manufacturing. I've seen some similar figures from others, as well as some other figures which provide the opposite conclustions. But, I have to admit, as of late, I have seen _more_ evidence presented to show that the US manufacturing output has actually increased in the last 10 years. What I propose, however, is that this may still not be the numbers we are after. After all, _what_ was manufactured is just as important as how much. And, of great significance, is the percentage of that output which is consumed in the US, and the percentage which is exported, over that same 10 year period. As I've suggested before (although I cannot remember if I did so publicly or perhaps in private), you must also look at imports. If manufacturing exports increase by 3%, but imports increase by 6% (just play figures), then the conclusion is that manufacturing is _declining_ relative to consumer consumption. I have always _understood_, through what information comes my way, that we are in fact losing ground in this area. That, overall (not looking at any specific industries, but rather the whole picture), we continue to import more and export less. But, I'm not going to be convinced of the opposite (and I _am_ open to convincing) unless we can get some _relevant_ data on this matter. I do appreciate data presented, but we need to look at the _whole_ picture. btw: apologies to those who may feel my terminology may be incorrect with respect to the study of economics. I have yet to take a formal class in this area, but that will change in a few months. In the meantime, let me know if my own crude terminology falls short. Tony Hamilton thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com HAM on HEx ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V93 #260 *********************************