From extropians-request@extropy.org Mon Nov 15 22:46:12 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA20567; Mon, 15 Nov 93 22:46:09 PST Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: from apple-gunkies.gnu.ai.mit.edu by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA07396; Mon, 15 Nov 93 22:45:56 PST Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by apple-gunkies.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) id ; Tue, 16 Nov 93 01:37:25 -0500 Received: from news.Panix.Com by apple-gunkies.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) with SMTP id ; Tue, 16 Nov 93 01:37:04 -0500 Received: by news.panix.com id AA22220 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for exi-remail@apple-gunkies.gnu.ai.mit.edu); Tue, 16 Nov 1993 01:36:39 -0500 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1993 01:36:39 -0500 Message-Id: <199311160636.AA22220@news.panix.com> To: Extropians@extropy.org From: Extropians@extropy.org Subject: Extropians Digest X-Extropian-Date: November 16, 373 P.N.O. [06:36:31 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Status: RO Extropians Digest Tue, 16 Nov 93 Volume 93 : Issue 319 Today's Topics: [1 msgs] Re: INVEST: Efficient Market Hypothesis and Wacky P/E Ratios[1 msgs] AIT: Question on algorithmic parsimony and GP [1 msgs] Bo's comments... [1 msgs] FDA and health supplements [1 msgs] Feedback, Collegiality, and Improving the S/N [1 msgs] Kangaroos [1 msgs] Oceania [1 msgs] Oceania [1 msgs] Oceania opinion [6 msgs] Oceania opinion [1 msgs] Oceania vs. Cyberspatial Libertaria [1 msgs] TRIV: Far and Away? [1 msgs] unsubscribe [1 msgs] Administrivia: No admin msg. Approximate Size: 51674 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 11:26:07 -0700 (MST) From: Bo Subject: MOVIE: Fearless Does anyone recall an "old" comic book series called "Challengers of the Unknown"? It ran back in the early 60's... The premise was that this group of guys survived this plane crash....which was so bad it broke all their watches. Thus they considered themselves to be living on "borrowed time", and would do ANYthing, since they were on borrowed time anyway... Think the author of Fearless ever read those comix...? ;-) Bo ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bo the Bohemian....disregarding conventional standards and behavior. "Narrow-mindedness is a rampant disease.....help stamp it out!!!" **********************************Bo@bohemia******************************** ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 11:22:38 -0700 (MST) From: Bo Subject: Bo's comments... Tim M. responds... >Bo writes: >> The main thrust of my program was to push a little and see what developed. >> I like to put my finger in the water and watch the ripples....... >> >> I must admit that I pushed a little much...but then that's my job. >Just so you understand, Bo, it may be _your_ job to push, as you view >things, but is is not necessarily _my_ job to push back, to respond to >the baiting comments, whatever. Nothing personal, Bo. No offense taken!...This is what I was waiting for! >Currently, no one is in my ::exclude file, and no threads are being >excluded, either. Thus, I see all posts that go to the list. Many of >them I mark for deletion after the first several seconds of glancing >at them...for a variety of reasons. Others I respond to. Others I >read, enjoy, laugh at, save, etc., withoug needing to comment on them. A "most excellent" attitude! >Your posts have been too bizarre for me, for whatever reasons. It Gee, thanx! I do tend to pride myself on being....."bizarre". >could be I just don't respond well to off-the-wall ramblings, to casual >insults (not yet directed at me, so I have no personal sense of >insult, of course), and to comments aimed more at provoking the >reptilian portions of people's brains than the parts that evolved >later. It is exactly THAT portion that I try to reach.....to give me a basis to understand the rest of the animal. I find the more primitive portions to be more indicative of the true "nature of the beast". >Perry will in fact argue with people who raise real points. Just >insulting him is not likely to work. (Sometimes folks will slip and >respond to rudeness with even more rudeness. Hmmm..only the points Perry Metzger thinks are real...as I said before...if everyone on this list was like Perry....blechh! > You may even think _this_ >message is rude, thought I assure you it is not being written with that intent. I think no such thing! I truly appreciate the feedback, as it "fleshes out" the profile I have on everyone....including you. BTW...you never did mention whether you were familiar with the "Sewer Break" at the base of the Capitola hill...?? >If you have some real points to make, make them. We sorely need some >good topics for some meaty discussions. Flip through some copies of >"Extropy," read some of the many fine books many of us like, and come >up with some real topics for discussion. Controversy is fine, but >insults and gonzo comments are generally unproductive. Insults? I apologize for anything I may have said that was _untrue_, perhaps I was misinformed. But gonzo is a very viable "protocol" to immediately get to the bottom of things. Not that all the results are valid, of course...but it sure produces results! ;-) >> Al I can say is...it's my job to push......I question authority and >> disregard conventional standards. I see so much CRAP (pardon my french...) >If it's your job to push, then phrase your points in a more >interesting way, in a less insulting way. In a voluntary readership >system such as ours, with so many messages per day that people have to >prune quickly, you need to figure out what "works" as a conversational >style. I merely try to demonstrate that narrow mindedness is truly a disease. Some very important things can arise out of the most obnoxious situations...like bread mold. > As it stands, I don't think you're being listened to. I guess it's the price I have to pay...but then it DOES keep the rif-raf out...;-) > Just some comments I hope will help. Indeed! I appreciate it. ...and taking your suggestion to heart, watch for my next thread.... Bo ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bo the Bohemian....disregarding conventional standards and behavior. "Narrow-mindedness is a rampant disease.....help stamp it out!!!" **********************************Bo@bohemia******************************** ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 13:33:35 -0600 From: cpresson@jido.b30.ingr.com (Craig Presson) Subject: Oceania opinion In <9311151532.AA17330@cs.wpi.edu>, Peter F Bastien writes: |> Since you, the remaining people on this lists, normally seem to |> be quite intelligent and forward thinkers, I would like to solicit your |> opinions about the Oceania project. I recently received a copy of their |> constitution and the general "we need your help" message and I was |> wondering if in your opinion if they are worthwhile to get involved |> with. I'm looking for opinions concerning practicality, reasonability, |> realization of goals, parallels with other project, and projected |> problems. Please back up your opinion with fact and/or reference |> material. This is for my own personal interest and to hopefully get |> a worthwhile thread going. I think the Oceania constitution and especially the laws are too elaborate for a startup. I think they will have serious logistical problems, and I don't see how the US and other states who have committed billions to interdicting the drug trade will tolerate the startup of an offshore minarchy which refuses to restrict trade in molecules and herbs. I'd dearly love to see something of the sort work, but I'm not betting on this one. There are other examples in a book called _How to Start your Own Country_ available from Loompanics. Minerva was one of the most interesting, but it was overrun by the King of Tonga as it began to assert sovereignty. Oceania will be better funded and more public than any of the previous attempts. I can only guess that they are depending on world opinion for self-defense; a single Argus missile cruiser could take them out in an afternoon, and only a lack of the will to use it will save them. ^ / ------/---- cpresson@ingr.com (Freeman Craig Presson) /AS 5/20/373 PNO; ISGS 9/373; ExI 4/373, NRA 5/373, etc. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Nov 93 14:06:42 CST From: moormajb@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Joseph Moorman) Subject: FDA and health supplements Dan Davis writes: >I would appreciate if someone in the know could send me any >information they have on the current status of the law with respect to >the FDA and supplements, their new powers taking effect this January, >their recent abuses in terms of banning supplements, and the status >and language of the current bills which attempt to counter their >abuses. Time is of the essence. Much thanks. According to Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw, one proposed new FDA rule that has been published in the Federal Register will give the FDA the authority to "declare amino acids to be unapproved drugs and to declare vitamins and minerals, at whatever potency they decide is appropriate, to be unapproved food additives." Furthermore, "if there are no advertising or label claims for medical purposes, such as vitamin E's use in the prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer, they can deem the prodcut to be an unapproved drug simply on the basis of stories that appear in the media... if there are articles in the newspapers about vitamin E preventing heart disease, the FDA can declare vitamin E an unapproved new drug and remove it from the marketplace." So in the name of consumer safety they are willing to take away our right to buy products which have been demonstrated to be beneficial to one's health. And when we get sick under Clinton's new health care program, will we also have to get government approval for treatment? Rep. Richardson (from where and what party I do not know) has introduced a bill, H.R. 1709, the _Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1993_ in response to some of the FDA's proposed new rules. The bill, if enacted, would: (1) require that all supplement manufacturers employ good manufacturing practices (2) raise the quality standards of products (3) require manufacturers to notify the FDA 30 days prior to approval marketing products with health claims (4) prevent dietary supplements from being classified as drugs and distinguish between a dietary ingredient and a food additive (5) create an Office of Dietary Supplements to further assist the FDA in assessing and researching the health claims about dietary supplements (6) require the FDA to revise the Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) to reflect new scientific evidence of the health benefits of vitamins and minerals While I find a few of the provisions in here bothersome (specifically provisions 3 and 5), I believe it would be good if the congress passed this bill. Otherwise, we might not be able to buy vitamin E without getting a prescription from a doctor. It won't be just vitamin E; anything with a health claim will be in jeopardy if this bill is not passed. I think that H.R. 1709 is up for a vote very soon. I hope you found the information useful. ---------------------------------------------------------------- | | | Joe Moorman | | | | To achieve Liberty in my time, | | Ready to relocate to Oceania... | | | | (finger for PGP public key) | | | | "I'm old enough not to care too much | | About what you think of me | | But I'm young enough to remember the future | | And the way things ought to be" | | -Neil Peart | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 12:55:10 -0800 (PST) From: Oliver Seiler Subject: Oceania opinion On Mon, 15 Nov 1993, Peter F Bastien wrote: > Since you, the remaining people on this lists, normally seem to > be quite intelligent and forward thinkers, I would like to solicit your > opinions about the Oceania project. I recently received a copy of their > constitution and the general "we need your help" message and I was > wondering if in your opinion if they are worthwhile to get involved > with. I'm looking for opinions concerning practicality, reasonability, I believe it is a fairly worthwhile cause. They have, in the past month been building up more and more steam toward there current goal for the actual design of the initial stage of building Oceania (the first phase will be a resort/gambling facility, floating hotel, to generate the required capital for other parts of the city. The city/country itself will probably built in hexagonal components, and sold off to people in chunks to those interested in the land investment). This is being designed by a Swedish (I think it's Swedish) architect (whose name escapes me) who also designed another floating hotel which is now around Singapore I think... There initial design unveiling is in February in Las Vegas... > realization of goals, parallels with other project, and projected > problems. Please back up your opinion with fact and/or reference > material. This is for my own personal interest and to hopefully get > a worthwhile thread going. > I'd like to see some discussion on this as well. The Constitution as I have read it is fairly sound. Very precise in it's definitions. I am planning on making a contribution of at least $100. Since my current goal is to get out of North America quickly, by boat, I think Oceania would be a nice place to live/work... (I want to get out before the economy collapses, which, IMHO, is pretty soon if nothing changes... I don't believe that NAFTA will have a great effect in avoiding such a collapse... Or maybe I'm just paranoid...) Full design (ie. electrical, plumbing, etc) is the next major milestone, aif I recall they need $45,000. If everyone on there current e-mail mailing list sent in $100, they would have it... Any other people supporting this effort on the list? > Pete Bastien > ptbast@cs.wpi.edu -Oliver ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 13:11:35 -0800 (PST) From: Oliver Seiler Subject: Oceania opinion On Mon, 15 Nov 1993, Craig Presson wrote: > I think the Oceania constitution and especially the laws are too > elaborate for a startup. How so? They are extremely specific in what they restrict, and since most of the restrictions are based on the libertarian notions of coercion and fraud, I don't see how this can be very difficult to interpret. The only thing I can see as a possible startup problem would be lack of formal courts. This I can't see as being a major problem for more than a week or two... (of course I have been called overly optimistic) > > I think they will have serious logistical problems, and I don't see > how the US and other states who have committed billions to > interdicting the drug trade will tolerate the startup of an offshore > minarchy which refuses to restrict trade in molecules and herbs. > Me and friend were discussing this. Since protecting such an investment as building your own country seems to me to be important, I would be interested in defending it. Not with my life however (I'd rather just sail away on a boat if things got to that point). We were thinking that a system of cheap radio control, or even better, robots, flying around the perimeter of the main island would be kinda interesting. They could be effective against many forms of attack, such as jet (as a jet nears, explode into fragments, or multiple fragments of large lead pellets which a jet would fly through...), submarines (using smart undersea mines looking for big chunks of metal, other than the country itself), kamikaze midget robot boats and planes filled with massive amounts of high explosives... Built small and cheap, they might actually provide a good defense... Paying for it would become a possible problem, since money would have to come from the residents directly... Could be offered as part of an insurance plan... > I'd dearly love to see something of the sort work, but I'm not betting > on this one. > Yeah, not a good bet. But it's even a worse bet that the any country you'll find yourself in anytime soon is going to be better... I'm not particularly interested in 'good bets' since anything that is a good bet is generally uninteresting for me... Riding my bike to school and work everyday isn't a good bet if I don't want to get hit by a car (which is true), but I do anyway... > There are other examples in a book called _How to Start your Own > Country_ available from Loompanics. Minerva was one of the most > interesting, but it was overrun by the King of Tonga as it began to > assert sovereignty. > > Oceania will be better funded and more public than any of the previous > attempts. I can only guess that they are depending on world opinion > for self-defense; a single Argus missile cruiser could take > them out in an afternoon, and only a lack of the will to use it will > save them. Perhaps we could buy some nukes from Russia... But really, I think the best choice would be to make Oceania a generally bad idea to destroy. Invite world leaders to the country, make it a center for commerce, trade, and communications. Make it a center for learning. Do everything possible to make it linked to every other country in some way. Make it a base for worldwide environmental cleanup operations. Use it as a base for deep sea mining and sea floor mining. All these things can make it unpractical for the US (the only real threat to it's existance) to attack it... > ^ > / > ------/---- cpresson@ingr.com (Freeman Craig Presson) > /AS 5/20/373 PNO; ISGS 9/373; ExI 4/373, NRA 5/373, etc. -Oliver ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 17:02:19 -0500 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: Oceania opinion Oliver Seiler says: > Full design (ie. electrical, plumbing, etc) is the next major milestone, > aif I recall they need $45,000. If everyone on there current e-mail > mailing list sent in $100, they would have it... And then they'd need $50,000 to to the next stage, and $100,000 for the next one after that, and N Million to do construction, etc. If they want to raise venture capital, let them. I don't donate money, especially not to enterprises that need to raise a huge sum in order to have any success at all. Perry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 14:06:12 -0800 From: nws@garnet.berkeley.edu (Nan Wolfslayer) Subject: Oceania opinion Hummmm, sounds kind of like Foundation... Nan ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Nov 93 15:25:38 -0400 From: "donald p dulchinos" Subject: unsubscribe please unsubscribe me. thanks. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 14:06:12 -0800 From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty) Subject: Kangaroos Ray claims > >When Bruce was kicked off, the same people were complaining. This is incorrect. I do not believe that I made any complaint when Bruce White was removed from the list. If you have evidence to the contrary, please produce it; otherwise, I'd like to see this statement retracted. -- Lefty (lefty@apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Nov 93 23:24:09 GMT From: sjw@liberty.demon.co.uk (Stephen J. Whitrow) Subject: Feedback, Collegiality, and Improving the S/N Extropians should favour tolerance, diversity, and the promotion of memetic evolution, yet the list should be allowed to fulfil its original purpose of a collegial "safe haven". The current arrangements clearly fall someway short of the ideal when valued community members such as Hal Finney are prompted to leave the list, and a number of others express dissatisfaction. Under my proposals the list would serve as the safe haven, _and_ combine new functions which would allow optional positive feedback, spleen-venting, and the submission of new ideas into the meme pool. There would be little or no cost to members in lowering of S/N or volume rises; in fact each person would likely get more signal and less noise. The benefits would be at some increase in CPU costs, but this could be self-financing. The ::exclude feature is potentially very useful, but probably under- utilized. So far I haven't ::excluded any users or threads, as I prefer to scan each post rather than risk missing something worthwhile, and anyone might have something interesting to say. (If Pandit or Dale W. were still members, I'd probably *plonk* them.) Taking Kennita's point first about positive feedback, this would be operated on a subdivision of the main list, called the "halcyon" channel. Any of these posts would require a "HALCYON:" prefix in the Subject: line. (I don't think the old prefix system worked very well, but this could still be used if desired, eg HALCYON: POLI: ***** .) So for lurkers and people desiring low volume, the halcyon channel would be ::excluded. But most posters would be rather pleased to see someone agree with their ideas, so most of them (except for the thick-skinned) would subscribe. (It would be quite sufficient for a maximum of 2 or 3 to express support. And this could help to reconcile former antagonists: "I had some differences with your views on *****, but I enjoyed your latest post, and fully agree.") But what about the thick-skinned member, who is feelin' mean and starts to see red after reading some post? This person would subscribe to the FLAME: channel! (And probably even ::exclude halcyon posts.) If a post had a FLAME: prefix it would be alright to make ad hominem attacks, eg: "Your last post was such a load of $&?! that it's proof positive your IQ is in the liquid nitrogen temp. range. In fact, if your brain was placed on the tip of a STM it'd be like a free quark wandering aimlessly in the middle of the largest universe in the omniverse." Any increased CPU charges would have to be paid for, though. Probably flame posts could be received under the standard subscription of $4 - 12, but posters who wanted the luxury of flaming would have to subscribe at a higher rate, eg $20. Total volume might not be raised too much, as some of the flame channel's content would just have been diverted from the normal safe haven band (increasing S/N for its subscribers). And the flamer's opponent might be unsubscribed, or if not and fed up with the thread could claim to have been, so these threads would die out quicker -- no one would feel "honour bound" to respond. If flaming was deemed to have occured without the prefix then this would count as actionable as before. (A misspelling of "flame" would be unacceptable as defense.) The default setting would be to ::exclude both halcyon and flame channels, and this is how new list members would start. After a person had been on the list for a time, they might start posting and subscribe to halcyon. Some would opt for the more expensive flame channel. If ExI are compared to the party hosts, owners of the residence, the default setting is the non-flame, high S/N "front room". People could choose to go off to the "positive reinforcement" zone, or they could choose to step outside with the rowdy guests, each being adjacent locations in cyberspace. Each zone would have a different set of rules allowing alternative modes of behaviour. But the whole area would have something in common -- if you implied that the hosts were untrustworthy cheats for instance, this might well be actionable. You could not expect to come to their private residence, start spreading rumours about them and guarantee to get away with it, even if you'd uttered the questionable pronouncements whilst temporarily in the garden. An alternative to outright banning of a member from the list would be to banish them to the flame zone. Even if the member was posting a polite article it would have to have the FLAME: prefix. And such banishments would be highly publicised affairs. If you were flamed by such a banished person it would carry very little weight, unlike the case of the flamer being a (normally) respectable list member. But the default "front room" location would be the safe haven, and a highly collegial atmosphere would be developed. Quality threads, like the AIT Virtual Seminar and "Beating the Stock Market" would be unmolested by troublemakers. Anyone caught debating the basics whilst in the front room would find themselves up on charges. Another function of the list could be carried out in the "back room". As Extropians, we recognise that memetic evolution has superseded biological evolution. The front room debates would help to further memetic evolution, but an additional zone could be allocated for dealing with a high volume of concepts, from which memes could spring up. Part of the job is generating the new ideas in the first instance, then if they are rubbish they deserve to be shot down. But by allowing a measure of brainstorming, generating a high volume of new ideas, the chance of producing a decent meme increases, and even if the idea is fatally flawed part of it might provide inspiration for the construction of useful memes. Again, some of this channel's material would simply be that which had previously been sent to the safe haven, the whole list. And hopefully some of the rest would be useful. This would be the concept zone. Members in this area would be encouraged to submit any new ideas, if they felt the value to be anything above zero, and not to be concerned if the ideas were falsified. Eventually, if the backroom folk produced something interesting, it could be handed over to the front room crowd. So we'd have the halcyon, flame and concept zones, in addition to the safe haven. There would be an increase in revenue from flame subscribers, who'd have to pay the whole $20 or whatever even if they only subscribed for a fraction of a year. It wouldn't seem fair for the halcyon folk to pay extra, and ditto probably for the concept members. I don't know how much CPU time would be increased by, say, a doubling of posting volume with the extra 100% only being sent to 20% of list members, or how close a doubling of CPU time would come to doubling list outlay. Maybe there would be many disputes as to whether a post should have had the flame prefix, and Harry would need additional panels of judges. A post that appeared in the front room would be subject to the main list PPL, but folk posting in other zones could sign up with alternative PPLs. These proposals could anyway be treated as an experiment, its continuance after an initial trial period to be dependent on CPU charges and administration costs. I hope members like Hal are able to remain in the residence, occupying those rooms where the best discussion may be found. Steve Whitrow sjw@liberty.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Nov 93 18:42:37 EST From: smo@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Shawn O'Connor) Subject: Oceania When I first saw the ad in Reason from Galt's Gulch Development Corp. I was intrigued. The ad copy was printed over the achetypical image of Atlas holding up the world. The text made it clear that the time had come for those freedom-loving Atlases of the world to break the statist chains and start their own country. I called and got on the mailing list. It's now the Oceania project and they're still lobbying for the few thousand dollars it will take to build a model. The real lobbying for cash will start once they have the models, they say, since it won't be blue-sky then. I wish them luck. The main problem I have with it is that they are making a government, it's no PPL. Not even close. What's worse is that the constitution also looks like it's written by a high school student. Do you need a few thousand lines to say "Do not initiate force"? Much better would be a private venture building the space for a profit, without a care about Gender-Neutral Constitutions, etc. Although I used to (often) entertain the notion of starting another country, I now think freedom will be had via strong cryptography much sooner than via Oceanian projects. Buy some books with the $100. Shawn smo@gnu.ai.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Nov 93 16:03:12 PST From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) Subject: Oceania vs. Cyberspatial Libertaria > Although I used to (often) entertain the notion of starting another > country, I now think freedom will be had via strong cryptography much > sooner than via Oceanian projects. Buy some books with the $100. > > Shawn > smo@gnu.ai.mit.edu I agree completely with Shawn and urge readers of this thread to read some of the previous posts on this topic. I may forward some of my old articles on this, or I may not. Too bad we don't have archives. Like Perry, I think the notion of a multibillion dollar enterprise (putatively) grubbing for handouts of $20 and $50 from Randroid die-hards is amusing at best and deceptive at worst. Cyberspace offers much more exciting opportunities, with lower costs of entry and a richer environment. Also, folks won't have to leave their homes, their friends, and whatnot to partake of it. Oceania is unlikely to ever get beyond the balso wood model stage. If it does, it'll like exist as a rusting collection of pontoons in some harbor somewhere. And if by chance it somehow became the floating Galt's Gulch ("Remember, Smoking IS Required") that it's supporters dream of, the remaining nations of the world would have many reasons to sink it with a few well-placed mines or torpedos. As it sinks, broadcast on CNN would be Janet Reno denouncing the crazies and fanatics who put all those drowning women and children at risk. Every time this Oceania thread comes up (and the "Port Watson, Bahamas" thread, too), the same naive points are raised. In fact, isn't it about time for the obligatory mentions of the mailing list devoted to ocean colonization? I forget the name, but a bunch of Extropians were extolling the virtues of this mailing list some time back. Does it still exist? If the supporters pull off the Oceania project, somehow, and don't get sunk, more power to them! But, please, enough with the solicitation of money to help them build a model, or write a report, or whatever. Me, I need to save that $10 to help my friends build a rocket ship! --Tim May -- .......................................................................... 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: Mon, 15 Nov 93 19:04 EST From: kqb@whscad1.att.com Subject: Oceania opinion Oliver Seiler says: > But really, I think the best choice would be to make Oceania a generally > bad idea to destroy. Invite world leaders to the country, make it a center > for commerce, trade, and communications. Make it a center for learning. Do > everything possible to make it linked to every other country in some way. > Make it a base for worldwide environmental cleanup operations. ... Also, nobody would want to destroy their own cash cow, would they? Which businessmen, power brokers, politicians, etc. need to profit from a successful Oceania to ensure that destroying it is politically unwise? I would like to hear some feasible-sounding proposals (for a little story I'm cooking up). It would be unfortunate to have to rely on a MAD-like "poison pill" defense. Thanks. Kevin Q. Brown INTERNET kqb@whscad1.att.com or kevin_q_brown@att.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 18:43:55 -0600 From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: AIT: Question on algorithmic parsimony and GP I thought I'd try to start a new thread on Algorithmic Information Theory right now. I'm tired of the excess verbiage and nounage about the Donald Incident, but the only good idea I can think of right now is to start talking about something else. Please be patient, I'm pretty much a beginner at AIT. I know I need to get the books and read them. But here's my idea: Nick wrote at length during the last AIT thread about his idea that Occam's Razor could be rephrased as "the most fit algorithm for out of two equally accurate algorithms for a particular data set is the one which is most parsimonious." My question is: Can Genetic Programming be used to express any algorithm as a data set and an arbitrarily parsimonious GP algorithm? Let me illustrate: Suppose there is an algorithm for predicting a data set D() from input A() that was created by a Genetic Programming engine which operated in the following fashion: 1. The binary expression trees are generated with the help of a random number generator P(), or more accurately, since if you don't take care about whether or not you're living in a state of sin you might end up with a pseudorandom number stream, a pseudorandom number generator P(). 2. There are succeeding generations created from the initial generation by testing the generated algorithms against a fitness function F(), and performing some sort of crossover on the survivors. This too involves input from P(). Now the entire algorithm can be recreated without the data stream D() or the fitness function F() as long as the sequential output of the fitness function O(F()) is available and P() can be reset to where it was at the beginning of the algorithm. I know that this probably won't compress the size of the algorithm's representation, although it would be nice if it did. The gist of the matter: Is this a compression of the algorithm into a small GP algorithm plus the trivially small algorithm for generating P() from scratch plus the output from the original fitness function? I know that this hides the algorithmic complexity of the fitness function, but how important is that? Is this idea of any use? Are there definitions for what has been done in this example? Is it a mistake to think of the algorithm as a data set that can be represented by a smaller combination of algorithm and data set? I see references to "self-modifying code" some of the time, and in Lisp the distinctions between data and instruction are rather blurred. Comments, anyone? I'm not sure what this thought experiment signifies, but I find it rather interesting nonetheless. +-----------------------+To entrust to an editor a story over which |Phil Fraering |you have labored and to which your name and |pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu |reputation is attached can be like sending +-----------------------+your daughter off for an evening with Ted Bundy. - Edna Buchanan, _The Corpse Had A Familiar Face_ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Nov 93 16:58:54 PST From: Eli Brandt Subject: Oceania opinion Before you shell out x hundred dollars to Oceania, invest five or ten in _How To Start Your Own Country_, from Loompanics. It's an interesting read, and contains a number of case histories of similar attempts -- a number were named Oceania, in fact, and I think there's some personnel overlap too. Startup countries have even lower success rates than startup businesses. If you want to support a quixotic gesture (and there's nothing wrong with that), donate some money to Oceania. But don't imagine that it's going to work. To actually provide for a more free future, put that money towards books, or fake ID, or a pistol -- it depends on your pessimism level. Eli ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 17:38:07 -0800 From: jamie@netcom.com (Jamie Dinkelacker) Subject: Oceania Extropians -- One man's personal opinion... Oceania, like other new-world models, has strengths and limitations. It is a worthy promise, but the devil's in the details. The promise seems very far in the future (e.g., its existence on sea) while a mundane limitation seems very near ("Brother, can you spare a dime?"). Having only skimmed the Oceania material for the past two or so months (I admit not having read it deeply), there doesn't yet seem to be an articulated, step-wise plan of how to "get there from here," at least in at the granular level that assuages my business instincts. Notably, what are the enabling steps? Of the options, what are the decision processes leading to particular choices? Are new technologies needed? Perhaps there's a need for modern marine engineering solutions? Who's to fund the R&D? Where's it to be done? And the builders, who are they? The boats, cranes, ... where do they come from? When? Whose $$$? Is this all an investment, or just a charitable gift to someone's sandbox? Is this a better charitable gift than supporting nanotechnology? Not a tough choice for me. It'd be nice to be real, but plans often fail in their execution regardless of their pristine design. What are the organizational roles and responsibilities for overall execution? Who's actually gonna do the grunt work? And they'll be paid how? Also, it appears that much of Oceania's thrust is a set of appeals to individuals, yet Oceania is to be an organizational entity. Where are the organizational alliances? I'd like to see some press releases from several global-scale engineering firms that they'd underwrite a model building competition at several universities, or at least some form of major-league organizational support for the concept. It's great PR for a big firm, if the value of the idea is presented to hook their interest (sorry, I don't buy that such engineering firms would duck this because of some political ramifications of Oceania in the great by-and-by). What is the plan to focus on building relationships? Who are the candidates? Who has the lead? Smart money is cautious. There are at least several on this list who could easily pen a check to underwrite some efforts (e.g., model building) but we haven't. To me, that also speaks. For me, the idea is appealing, at least as much as I've reflected on it. It would be nice to have Oceania come into existence in the next -- what, decade? Century ... will it be quicker/better/cheaper/faster than building on the moon? But my attention is elsewhere until more of the financial and alliance aspects are nailed down. So, my answer isn't "no," it's "not now." Nice thoughts, but other avenues have higher payoffs for action. Just one man's opinion ... tx for the bandwidth. -- ................................ Jamie Dinkelacker Palo Alto CA Jamie@netcom.com 415.941.4782 ................................ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Nov 93 2:53:04 GMT From: nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu Subject: Re: INVEST: Efficient Market Hypothesis and Wacky P/E Ratios I think it's safer to argue that government makes people even less rational than they usually are, rather than arguing that people are especially rational. How long did that stock maintain a P/E of 1000? Nancy Lebovitz ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Nov 93 19:06:22 PDT From: "Randall M. Clague" Subject: TRIV: Far and Away? To my surprise, this seems to be a stumper - does anyone remember the name of the Tom Cruise character in Far and Away? -- Randall M. Clague | "Assembly of Japanese bicycle require great Coast Micro Inc. | peace of mind." rclague@netcom.com | -- Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V93 #319 *********************************