From extropians-request@extropy.org Thu Sep 1 09:09:06 1994 Return-Path: extropians-request@extropy.org Received: from usc.edu (usc.edu [128.125.253.136]) by chaph.usc.edu (8.6.8.1/8.6.4) with SMTP id JAA20534 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 1994 09:09:05 -0700 Received: from news.panix.com by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA18416; Thu, 1 Sep 94 09:07:35 PDT Received: by news.panix.com id AA22793 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for more@usc.edu); Thu, 1 Sep 1994 12:02:17 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 Sep 1994 12:02:17 -0400 Message-Id: <199409011602.AA22793@news.panix.com> To: Extropians@extropy.org From: Extropians@extropy.org Subject: Extropians Digest #94-8-272 - #94-8-281 X-Extropian-Date: September 1, 374 P.N.O. [12:00:39 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org X-Mailer: MailWeir 1.0 Status: RO Extropians Digest Thu, 1 Sep 94 Volume 94 : Issue 243 Today's Topics: A Rebel Yell for Southland Extropians [2 msgs] FAQ: coming along fine [1 msgs] FWD: S1822 makes carriers responsible for screening obscenity [1 msgs] OOPS! [1 msgs] PHIL: Cosmic Anthropic Principle and God [4 msgs] The American Establishment--A-albionic Research Up-date of 8-2 ...[1 msgs] Administrivia: Note: I have increased the frequency of the digests to four times a day. The digests used to be processed at 5am and 5pm, but this was too infrequent for the current bandwidth. Now digests are sent every six hours: Midnight, 6am, 12pm, and 6pm. If you experience delays in getting digests, try setting your digest size smaller such as 20k. You can do this by addressing a message to extropians@extropy.org with the body of the message as ::digest size 20 -Ray Approximate Size: 26609 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: levy@cs.utk.edu Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 16:45:32 -0400 Subject: [#94-8-272] A Rebel Yell for Southland Extropians Fellow Extropians of the South, Having recently moved to Knoxville, TN to get my PhD in computer science, I am interested in organizing get-togethers of Extropians living below the Mason-Dixon line. I know there are small enclaves in Alabama, North Carolina, and my adopted state of Tennessee. Because we are so spread out, it will take more careful planning than the NoCal, LA, and Boston gatherings, but I think that if we try, we can show them Yankees a thing or two. Perhaps we should organize a "local" e-mail list (exi-dix?), as exists for those areas, to facilitate such events. If any of y'all are interested, please reply privately to levy@cs.utk.edu, and I'll see what I can do about getting the ball rolling. -- Simon ("Saah-mun") ------------------------------ From: mindseye@ix.netcom.com (Joe Moorman) Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 14:43:27 -0700 Subject: [#94-8-273] A Rebel Yell for Southland Extropians You wrote: > >Fellow Extropians of the South, > >Having recently moved to Knoxville, TN to get my PhD in computer science, I am >interested in organizing get-togethers of Extropians living below the >Mason-Dixon line. I know there are small enclaves in Alabama, North Carolina, >and my adopted state of Tennessee. Because we are so spread out, it will take >more careful planning than the NoCal, LA, and Boston gatherings, but I think >that if we try, we can show them Yankees a thing or two. Perhaps we should >organize a "local" e-mail list (exi-dix?), as exists for those areas, to >facilitate such events. > >If any of y'all are interested, please reply privately to levy@cs.utk.edu, >and I'll see what I can do about getting the ball rolling. > >-- Simon ("Saah-mun") > > ------------------------------ From: mindseye@ix.netcom.com (Joe Moorman) Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 14:55:19 -0700 Subject: [#94-8-274] OOPS! Sorry about that last message, folks. I hit the wrong button. I think it's about time to replace this mouse with a trackball, or find my mousepad! ------------------------------ From: Eric Watt Forste Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 20:01:52 -0700 Subject: [#94-8-275] FAQ: coming along fine Since it's been a while, and I've been procrastinating a bit what with getting bogged down in details and all, I just wanted to let y'all know that the FAQ is doing fine, is approaching 50 kilobytes (twice the size of the Principles), and will be published again Real Soon Now. I'll send a complete list of questions without answers to the list, with asterisks next to the new questions and the ones whose answers have been modified since last time. I'll also ::nosend a complete copy of the FAQ to the list so you can get it by sending a request to the MailWeir server. I will, as usual, publish it at my FTP and Web sites. I'll probably even send a copy to exi-essay, though all my own attempts to subscribe to that list have been in vain. (The real reason it's been taking so long is because I'm not happy with the answer to the question "What is PCR?" yet. It's getting there.) I'm looking forward to your comments. Eric Watt Forste || finger arkuat@c2.org || http://www.c2.org/~arkuat ------------------------------ From: "Phil G. Fraering" Date: Sat, 27 Aug 1994 16:04:05 -0500 Subject: [#94-8-276] PHIL: Cosmic Anthropic Principle and God (I hope the prefix works...) If there is a God, then what happens to mankind's "privileged observer" status in the Cosmic Anthropic Principle? If God exists, then mankind is no longer needed to observe the universe and make it real, and the laws of physics are no longer required to conform to the limitations that we must exist. No offense is meant in this message to theists, atheists, gnostics, agnostics, or believers or disbelievers in the Cosmic Anthropic Principle. It is not meant to proletsyze any variation of the above, or to forment against it. (Is this a good enough disclaimer for discussing religion on the list?) If we're going to discuss religion on the list, would someone please explain Sufiism? Phil ------------------------------ From: Chris Hibbert Date: Sat, 27 Aug 94 18:35:45 -0700 Subject: [#94-8-277] FWD: S1822 makes carriers responsible for screening obscenity Synopsis: New provision in S1822 requires carriers to ensure that minors don't get access to obscene material. EFF says they've just seen the proposal, so it needs "further analysis." They don't recommend any particular action by individuals, and say they'll be consulting with the legislators and "we hope to have this issue resolved [... by mid-September]". [three layers of headers from intermediate senders removed --cth] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 02:18:30 +0300 From: djw@eff.org (Daniel J. Weitzner) ==================== I. Overview During the final hours before the Senate telecommunications bill (S.1822) was marked-up by the Senate Commerce Committee, a provision was added which would expand the current FCC regulation on obscene and indecent audiotext (900 number) services to virtually all electronic information services, including commercial online service providers, the Internet, and BBS operators. This proposal, introduced by Senator Exon, would require all information service providers and all other electronic communication service providers, to take steps to assure that minors do not have access to obscene or indecent material through the services offered by the service provider. Placing the onus, and criminal liability, on the carrier, as opposed to the originator of the content, threatens to limit the free flow of all kinds of information in the online world. If carriers are operating under the threat of criminal liability for all of the content on their services, they will be forced to pre-screen all messages and limit both the privacy and free expression of the users of these services. Senator Exon's amendment raises fundamental questions about the locus on liability for harm done from content in new digital communications media. These questions must be discussed in a way that assures the free flow of information and holds content originators responsible for their actions. II. Summary of Exon Amendment The Exon amendment which is now part of S.1822, expands section 223 of the Communications Act to cover anyone who "makes, transmits, or otherwise makes available" obscene or indecent communication. It makes no distinction between those entities which transmit the communications from those which create, process, or use the communication. This section of the Communications Act was originally intended to criminalize harassment accomplished over interstate telephone lines, and to require telephone companies that offer indecent 900 number services to prevent minors from having access to such services. The 900 number portions are know as the Helms Amendments, having been championed by Senator Jesse Helms. These sections have been the subject of extension constitutional litigation. If enacted into law, these amendments would require that anyone who "makes, transmits, or otherwise makes available" indecent communication take prescribed steps to assure that minors are prevented from having access to these communications. In the case of 900 numbers, acceptable procedures include written verification of a subscriber's age, payment by credit card, or use of a scrambling device given to the subscriber after having verified his or her age. Failure to do so would result in up to a $100,000 fine or up to two years imprisonment. III. Carrier Liability and Threats to the Free Flow of Information These provisions raise serious First Amendment concerns. (Note that we use the term 'carrier' here to refer to a wide range of information and communication service providers. This does not suggest that these entities are, or should be, common carriers in the traditional sense of the term.) * Overbroad carrier liability forces carriers to stifle the free flow of information on their systems and to act as private censors If carriers are responsible for the content of all information and communication on their systems, then they will be forced to attempt to screen all content before it is allowed to enter the system. In many cases, this would be simply impossible. But even where it is possible, such pre-screening can severely limit the diversity and free flow of information in the online world. To be sure, some system operators will want to offer services that pre-screen content. However, if all systems were forced to do so, the usefulness of digital media as communication and information dissemination systems would be drastically limited. Where possible, we must avoid legal structures which force those who merely carry messages to screen their content. * Carriers are often legally prohibited from screening messages In fact, under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, electronic communication service providers are generally prohibited from examining the contents of messages or information carrier from one subscriber to another. * Extension of the 900 number rules to all electronic information services may be unconstitutional The regulation of indecent 900 number programming was only accomplished after nearly a decade of constitutional litigation, with rules being overturned by the Supreme Court. The regulations were finally found constitutional only after being substantially narrowed to meet First Amendment scrutiny. Since the access methods offered by online service providers are significantly different than simple telephone access to 900 services, we doubt that the same constitutional justifications would support the newly expanded rules. This issue requires considerable study and analysis. * Content creators, or those who represent the content as their own, should be responsible for liability arising out of the content In sum, it should be content originators, not carriers, who are responsible for their content. Any other approach will stifle the free flow of information in the new digital media. IV. Next Steps Having only just received the language offered by Senator Exon, EFF still needs to do further analysis, and consult with others in the online community. We also hope to speak with Senator Exon's staff to understand their intent. Another important hearing will be held on S.1822 in mid-September by the Senate Judiciary Committee. By that time, we hope to have this issue resolved. While we agree that these carrier liability problems are in need of Congressional consideration, we do not believe that the time is ripe to act. Before any action is taken, hearings must be held and careful evaluation of all the issues, not just indecency, must be undertaken. ================================================================== Daniel J. Weitzner Deputy Policy Director +1 202-347-5400(v) Electronic Frontier Foundation +1 202-393-5509(f) 1001 G St. NW Suite 950 East Washington, DC 20001 ------- End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------ From: Safier Date: Sat, 27 Aug 1994 21:55:35 -0600 (MDT) Subject: [#94-8-278] PHIL: Cosmic Anthropic Principle and God On Sat, 27 Aug 1994, Phil G. Fraering wrote: > > If we're going to discuss religion on the list, would someone please > explain Sufiism? > > Phil > could you please explain "explain"? try spinning around a few hundred times. if that dont make you understand sufiism, no amount of netchat will. if nature abhors a vacuum, does it like a broom? ********************************************************* (c) Phil Safier Wreckless Photic Driver "The Hawk" Just another jerk, taking pride in his work. M I N D G E A R N E U R O M O R P H P R O J E C T Official Sponsor : Search For Intelligent Life On Earth P O R T S O F T O T A L R E C A L L ( 5 0 5 ) 2 9 3 - 4 6 4 8 F A X 2 9 3 - 7 5 6 9 caution: may contain adult language difficult to process. ********************************************************* ------------------------------ From: NetSurfer Date: Sat, 27 Aug 1994 19:20:37 -1000 (HST) Subject: [#94-8-279] PHIL: Cosmic Anthropic Principle and God On Sat, 27 Aug 1994, Safier wrote re sufism: > > > could you please explain "explain"? try spinning around a few hundred > times. if that dont make you understand sufiism, no amount of netchat will. > Geez - why not give the man a straight answer? ;-) Sufism is a mystic branch of Islam, and Safier's reference is to Dervish meditation practices i.e. "whirling Dervish." The actual practice is complicated and takes _very_ _good_ concentration and coordination. Some speculate that the process is partially explained in hemispheric lateralization and the goal of bringing both sides to equal utilization, coordination, etc. Read Gurdjeiff or Ouspensky for some commentary on bringing some of these practices into turn-of-the-century terms - Ouspensky's "In Search of the Miraculous" is a popular work. -NetSurfer #include standard.disclaimer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> == = = |James D. Wilson |V.PGP 2.7: 512/E12FCD 1994/03/17 > " " " |P. O. Box 15432 | finger for full PGP key > " " /\ " |Honolulu, HI 96830 |====================================> \" "/ \" |Serendipitous Solutions| Also NetSurfer@sersol.com > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------ From: James Daugherty Date: Sun, 28 Aug 1994 15:00:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [#94-8-280] The American Establishment--A-albionic Research Up-date of 8-28-94 **American Establishment: Reports, Opinions, and Speculations by Richard Rovere year 1962 pp 308 hc/pb Hardcover Rare/Out-of-Print Seminal work on the American Establishment including its Anglophile roots in conformance with much of the Project theory. The most telling quote: (Pages 10-11) One important difference between the American Establishment and the party hierarchy in Russia is that the Establishment chairman is definitely not the man in the center of the picture or the one whose name is out of alphabetical order in the listings. The secret is astonishingly well kept. Some people, to be sure, have argued that when, as happens most of the time, the Establishment has a man of its own in the White House, he automatically becomes chairman-just as he automatically becomes commander in chief of the armed forces. I am quite certain that this is not the case. For one thing, the Establishment rarely puts one of its tried and trusted leaders in the White House. Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy have both served the Establishment and been served by it, but neither is or ever was a member of the innermost circle. Both, indeed, were admitted with some reluctance on the part of senior members, and Eisenhower's standing has at times been most insecure. I am not sure who the chairman of the Establishment is today athough I would not be altogether surprised to learn that he is Dean Rusk. By a thrust of sheer intuition, though, I did get the name of the 1958 chairman and was rather proud of myself for doing so. In that year, I discovered that J. K. Galbraith had for some time been surreptitiously at work in Establishment studies and he told me that he had found out who was running the thing. He tested me by challenging me to guess the man's name. I thought hard for a while and was on the point of naming Arthur Hays Sulzberger, of the New York Times, when suddenly the right name sprang to my lips. "John J. McCloy," I exclaimed. "Chairman of the Board of the Chase Manhattan Bank; once a partner in Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, and also in Cravath, de Gersdorff, Swaine & Wood, as well as, of course, Milbank, Tweed, Hope, Hadley & McCloy; former United States High Commissioner in Germany; former President of the World Bank; liberal Republican; chairman of the Ford Foundation and chairman-my God, how could I have hesitated-of the Council on Foreign Relations; Episcopalian." "That's the one," Galbraith said. He congratulated me for having guessed what it had taken him so much patient research to discover. Available from A-albionic Research, PO Box 20273, Ferndale, MI 48220 $45.00 plus $2.00 postage and handling. Join the New Paradigms Project -- Conspiracy Discussion group: e-mail to: majordomo@mail.msen.com subject: doesn't matter message text: subscribe prj index prj get prj gopher/keytogopher end \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\*///////////////////////////////////// James Daugherty, volunteer Postmaster for A-albionic Research (POB 20273, Ferndale, MI 48220), a ruling class/conspiracy research resource for the entire political-ideological spectrum. Quarterly Journal, book sales, rare/out-of-print searches, & networking since 1984. New Paradigms Gopher and FTP Site loaded with unique files and book catalogs. For introductory info on Weekly Up-date, Discussion List, free articles, & & free book catalogs e-mail to: majordomo@mail.msen.com message in body: info prj (subject doesn't matter) ------------------------------ From: pcm@world.std.com (Peter C. McCluskey) Date: Sun, 28 Aug 1994 23:56:13 -0400 Subject: [#94-8-281] PHIL: Cosmic Anthropic Principle and God pgf@srl01.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering") writes in X-Message-Number: #94-8-276: >If there is a God, then what happens to mankind's "privileged >observer" status in the Cosmic Anthropic Principle? If God >exists, then mankind is no longer needed to observe the >universe and make it real, and the laws of physics are no longer >required to conform to the limitations that we must exist. Tipler's hypothesis is that intelligence (i.e. us or our descendents) becomes God in the infinite future. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter McCluskey | pcm@world.std.com | oort@netcom.com | Repeal Gresham's Law! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V94 #243 *********************************