From extropians-request@extropy.org Thu Dec 1 03:02:16 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 DAA16339 for ; Thu, 1 Dec 1994 03:02:15 -0800 Received: from news.panix.com by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA11093; Thu, 1 Dec 94 03:02:06 PST Received: (from exi@localhost) by news.panix.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) id GAA29389; Thu, 1 Dec 1994 06:02:01 -0500 Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 06:02:01 -0500 Message-Id: <199412011102.GAA29389@news.panix.com> To: Extropians@extropy.org From: Extropians@extropy.org Subject: Extropians Digest #94-12-1 - #94-11-555 X-Extropian-Date: December 1, 374 P.N.O. [06:01:01 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org X-Mailer: MailWeir 1.0 Status: RO Extropians Digest Thu, 1 Dec 94 Volume 94 : Issue 334 Today's Topics: BASICS: Coalitions and firepower [1 msgs] BASICS: Environment and markets [1 msgs] BASICS: Anarchy is not Chaos [2 msgs] BASICS: Pop., Simon, & Environment [1 msgs] BASICS: Re: environment [1 msgs] BASICS: Transhumanist principles [1 msgs] BOOK: Orwell's Revenge: The 1984 Palimpsest, by Peter Huber [1 msgs] dumb barter [1 msgs] FWD:HUMOR:TECH: Pentium jokes from comp.sys.intel [2 msgs] NANOTECH: Closure [1 msgs] RESULT: talk.politics.libertarian 266:23 [1 msgs] singularity [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: 29392 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dasher@netcom.com (Anton Sherwood) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 21:01:19 -0800 Subject: [#94-12-1] RESULT: talk.politics.libertarian 266:23 > RESULT > unmoderated group talk.politics.libertarian passes 266:23 says it all! *\\* Anton Ubi scriptum? ------------------------------ From: szabo@netcom.com (Nick Szabo) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 21:24:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [#94-12-2] FWD:HUMOR:TECH: Pentium jokes from comp.sys.intel Why is everybody beating up on Intel for one rare bug which is more trivial than the problems that can commonly be found in their rival's less well tested RISC chips? Perhaps it's because folks are jealous of their dominant position in the market with what some aesthetes feel is an ugly architecture? If so, we should soon see even more beating up on Microsoft, which has orders of magnitude more ugliness and bugs in their systems. Nick Szabo szabo@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: EdRegis@aol.com Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 00:52:48 -0500 Subject: [#94-12-3] NANOTECH: Closure >...funding will increase...In the future, billions, tens of >billions and more will be spent....It will be possible to >produce several tons of material using nanotech >assemblers with positional control analogous to >those described in Nanosystems within fifty years. As I've said before, some people just *love* to make predictions! (Note: This is a curable disease.) Ed edregis@aol.com ------------------------------ From: Jordan Sparks Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 22:03:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [#94-12-4] singularity Lately, I've been questioning the possibility of a singularity happening at all. I cannot see how there can be a sharp distinction between "now" and "afterwards." If intelligence is increasing exponentially, then it is not approaching an asymptote and should go on increasing forever. Most of the world is already beyond the understanding of any individual. As I see it, the world will simply be increasingly beyond our understanding. The singularity smacks of the religious afterlife. Is there someone out there who can explain to me why there should ever come a moment when "all the rules change?" ------------------------------ From: dasher@netcom.com (Anton Sherwood) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 22:24:56 -0800 Subject: [#94-12-5] dumb barter A couple of you have asked me what "dumb barter" means. Here's how I understand it: A trading ship lands on a strange shore. The crew sets out some goods on the beach, returns to the ship, and waits. Natives come down, set out some goods of their own, and retreat to cover to watch. If the sea-people like what they see, they pick up the natives' offering and split. If not, they add to or subtract from their own offering, and repeat the cycle. Eventually, one side accepts the offer by picking it up and departing. In unrelated news, Phil Goetz asks: > Why have a government? Anyone feel qualified to answer that one? Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* DASher@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: freeman@netcom.com (Jay Reynolds Freeman) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 22:51:01 -0800 Subject: [#94-12-6] BASICS: Coalitions and firepower > C'mon, Jay, you know better than this. Ah, but would I admit it if I did? > [Dave Krieger and T. David Burns make thoughtful, relevant comments on police, personal security arrangements, states, and so on.] A lot of history looks to me disturbingly like evidence that "king of the hill" (Burns's term) is indeed one of the more stable solutions (which is not necessarily to say that I advocate it, except -- certainly -- as a debating position for the Squirrel). It is interesting to speculate why that might be so -- and relevant, for if an anarchy or a libertarian society is not stable against strongmen, it may not last long enough for full realization of any other merits it possesses. Details will certainly vary with geography, weapons and communication technology, and relative levels of training of various armed entities -- and we could waste a lot of energy arguing about what examples were relevant to what contemplated circumstances -- but certainly there have been many periods in which a full-time, well-equipped and trained police force or military organization has been considerably more effective than even a substantially numerically superior force of part-timers. I suspect that there is also an issue of coordination and poorly-defined chain of command when small defense organizations attempt to amalgamate to meet a larger threat. Certainly everything from local police in neighboring jurisdictions, to NATO forces, spends a lot of effort on coordination exercises. I wonder if part-time militias, or groups of armed neighbors, would have time to do that. The nature of the cultures most of us live in makes it infrequent that we are subject to armed hostile action by groups much larger than a small handful, yet I suggest that there is no natural size break; a non-centralized society might in principle have to cope with strongmen on any scale from a neighborhood gang to a fully-mobilized empire spanning a continent; the former perhaps more often from within, the latter from without. Even if you can band together neighbors sufficiently to stop the local burglary team, can you do so sufficiently to turn back an army. I respectfully also submit that for a vast majority of historical weaponry, and for a substantial proportion of likely future weaponry, a defense organization must operate in a geographically localized manner to be effective -- all I am saying is that most weapons have finite range, and concentration of firepower within that range of the target is often crucial. I concur that that makes the formation of a state from the defense organization more likely, but that does not make the advantage of concentration go away. One might usefully orthogonalize the discussion of the advantages of a police force versus other kinds of protective coalition, from the discussion of how to control a state; that is, if you could form a state which could satisfactorily be controlled by its members, then possibly you could control its military and police arms; but if not, you would get unanticipated effects and alterations in others of its services than police protection. Lo, the Squirrel doth ramble; I shall close for now. -- Jay Freeman, First Extropian Squirrel ------------------------------ From: werch@well.sf.ca.us (Christian Wernstedt) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 01:06:17 -0100 Subject: [#94-11-548] BASICS: Transhumanist principles >>Is it possible to be a statist and a transhumanist at the same time? > >Its quite possible, the human mind can handle much more amazing >contradictions. Transhumanism is a dynamic philosophy, which means it >won't fit very well with conservative thinking. Thats why libertarianism >and transhumanism get so well together. But one can imagine other >combinations. For example, imagine some sort of early >communist-revolutionary society, where one of the dogmas is the continued >evolution and progress of mankind (it might not be stable for a long time, >but its not that an unreasonable ideology). This society might not >embrace the ideas about the total freedom of people, but might encourage >all forms of self-transformation (in approved directions, of course). > >In fact, it might be a good idea to worry about this type of statist >transhumanism. What happens when Singapore gets the idea to improve its >population? This may be a memetic bomb, which could drag transhumanism >into the company of fascism in the minds of many people. What I was thinking of were not the contradicions possible in peoples minds, but rather if statist principles could work in real life for transhumanist individuals. I wanted to provoke "liberal" transhumanists, socialist transhumanists or perhaps conservative transhumanists :) to speak up and explain the benefits of their pet brand of statism. I just can't see how one could expect to live millions of years and enjoy endless technological progress in a society where one has to ask couch potato voters or a dictator permission to follow one's own judgement. If Singapore wants to improve its population how would they do it? With what technology? Produced by whom? I don't think they'd have any progress in the long run unless they get rid of statism. --chris ------------------------------ From: plaz@netcom.com (Plaz) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 16:17:22 -0800 Subject: [#94-11-549] BASICS: Anarchy is not Chaos At 1:10 PM 11/30/94 -0800, Dave Krieger wrote: A really wonderful reply to Phil Goetz that brought up something I hadn't gotten around to mentioning. >At 10:53 AM 11/30/94, Phil Goetz wrote: >>It sounds like the Dark Ages to me, when every big town had a watch, >>every village hoped their local toughs would be stronger than raiding parties, >>and being raped &/or murdered was a risk that was part of being a farmer >>far outside the city walls. Yes, Phil. It would be exactly like the Dark Ages except for every convenient advantage technology and progress has given us in the last 1000+ years. ________________________________________________________________________________ Geoff Dale | Mail me -> mailto:plaz@netcom.com AnarchyPPL Anarch | Visit me -> http://io.com/user/plaz/ Plastic Beethoven | Hire me -> http://io.com/user/plaz/rez.html plaz@netcom.com |AnarchyPPL Charter -> http://io.com/user/plaz/AnarchyPPL.html ________________________________________________________________________________ "God feeds indiscriminately, and so shall we. We shall feed on the rich and the poor and all in between. Imports, exports, growth, failure, life and death shall be our sustenance." - Vampire Le State, to his newly created companion Slick Willie. (Apologies to Anne Rice) ------------------------------ From: dkrieger@netcom.com (Dave Krieger) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 15:45:10 -0800 Subject: [#94-11-550] BOOK: Orwell's Revenge: The 1984 Palimpsest, by Peter Huber There's an excerpt in this month's Forbes ASAP, and I just ordered a copy from Laissez-Faire. Judging by the excerpt, it's very, very, very cypherpunk, libertarian, and Extropian. An excerpt of the excerpt: >"You are right," the prisoner said intensely, leaning forward. "On the >telescreen, everything shall be forgiven, whether or not called art. Some >forms of telescreen expression will be unspeakably vile. They will be >tolerated not because all art is beautiful, but because all Thought Police >are ugly. There is room enough on the network for every form of diseased >intelligence. Freedom includes the freedom to be foolish, to be sick. >Free choice includes the freedom to choose badly." > >"For others as well as yourself?" said O'Brien. "Your free choice of women >defecating will appear in my living room too." > >"With the telescreen, people can create their own censors and keep their >own thought police on private retainer," the prisoner replied. "The >editors of the _Times_ will serve as private censors employed at the >pleasure of their readers. A credit company will supply private protection >against fraud. Copyright will be protected not by laws and courts but by >private encryption. For every possible private fraud, for every private >oppression, there will be private protection. With the network, people can >join together to coordinate private police forces as they never could >before." dV/dt The prisoner continued to speak. "Real freedom is now at hand. The telescreen gives man the power to decide for himself whom he will approach or avoid, what he will divulge or conceal, by whom he will be entertained or employed, what he will say or hear, show or see, think or believe. Man now holds in his hands the power to share his own thoughts precisely as he pleases, with friends near or far and with no one else." -- Peter Huber, "Orwell's Revenge: The 1984 Palimpsest" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Extropy is $18/four issues, USA; $32, Canada and Mexico; $44 (air) elsewhere. Checks payable to Extropy Institute, 13428 Maxella Ave., No. 273, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292. e-mail more@extropy.org. ------------------------------ From: pmr@plaza.ds.adp.com (Michael Reed) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 12:14:34 -0800 Subject: [#94-11-551] BASICS: Pop., Simon, & Environment On Wed, 30 Nov 1994 13:27:21 -0500, goetz@cs.buffalo.edu wrote: >It seems many people on this list assume that someone has worked out an >alternative to government, but never state their reasons for thinking so. >Is there an anarchy FAQ that I'm missing out on? God's teeth, man! How many times do you need to be referred to David Friedman's _Machinery of Freedom_ before you'll finally read it? _______________________________________ ------------------------------ From: tburns@mason1.gmu.edu (T. David Burns) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 13:17:56 -1000 Subject: [#94-11-552] BASICS: Environment and markets At 12:53 AM 11/30/94, Dave Krieger wrote: >OK, here is The Official Extropian Policy on the >Environment [1]: > > 1) Ensure that all resources are privately owned. > 2) Eliminate the government. Well, yes, but this is hand-waving. Certainly a lot of easy problems can be solved in a straight-forward fashion with this principle. But not necessarily all. Property rights need effective enforcement mechanisms. It's all very well if I own the atmosphere of the planet, but if I can't enforce my property rights it's pretty worthless. Has free-market environmentalism come up with a magic bullet yet? So at the very least, point #1 involves a non-trivial research/homesteading/entrepreneurial effort. Another nit-pick ... seems to me that 1) implies 2). (Though if we put a different semantic spin on it, we could think of all resources already being privately owned, with 1) translating to "Ensure that the government doesn't own us.") Dave tburns@mason1.gmu.edu ------------------------------ From: tburns@mason1.gmu.edu (T. David Burns) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 13:18:02 -1000 Subject: [#94-11-553] BASICS: Anarchy is not Chaos At 8:58 AM 11/30/94, Jay Reynolds Freeman wrote: > An occasional problem with defense by force of arms is the need to >maintain enough firepower to cope with the largest coalition that can >ever to take arms against you. The only solution is to be king of the hill? If so, the game has no stable equilibrium solution, since the game is symmetric but only one player (or coalition) can be king of the hill. Or can we have a stable coalition that includes everyone? >Sounds like it would save us all lots >of money if we got together and backed a police force that disbanded, >disarmed and dispersed such coalitions, as they formed. Except that such a police force would have to disband, disarm and disperse itself. This gives us the choice between the danger of such a coalition and the certainty of it. If we know enough about the internal dynamics of organization or institutions, there's no problem. But we don't. If we know enough about the external dynamics, the problem might also be solved. >[...I]t would save still more money if we directed >the police force, even in the absence of coalitions, to confiscate all >weapons more powerful than, say, spitballs Oops, there go my steak knives! Careful with that 500 terawatt laser steak knife! > > In any case, the issue is presumably one of economics; if the >state-controlled police force is truly a more cost-effective solution >to the problem of personal physical security than is arbitrarily large >private ownership of weapons, then it will eventually drive the >gun-toters out of the market. The state is an externality, not a good (or even a bad). Since Joe Sixpack never gets to go down to the grocery store and choose between Acme Survivalism or Brand X Statism, their cost-effectiveness (for personal protection) are never compared. They do not compete on this basis. The state is an attractor in strategy space. We need to change the payoffs. Dave tburns@mason1.gmu.edu ------------------------------ From: tburns@mason1.gmu.edu (T. David Burns) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 13:18:04 -1000 Subject: [#94-11-554] BASICS: Re: environment At 7:11 PM 11/30/94, Dave Krieger wrote (quoting Goetz): >>(BTW, who prints new money when there's no government? >>Banks? That didn't work well in the 19th century.) Actually, where it was really tried it did pretty well. Scottish free banking did fairly well, and was ended only because it embarassed the Bank of England so much. There are a number of interesting works on this topic by Lawrence White and George Selgin, among others. Kurt Schuler gave a paper on the history of free banking in South America (not discouraging) at a seminar I attended, but I'm not sure whether it's in print anywhere. > >Fractional reserve banking is a >painfully inflationary mechanism. I'd amend that to "central banking". There's no reason fractional reserves can't be part of a free banking system. >(Inflation is a hidden tax, because, by >creating new dollar bills out of thin air to spend, the State reduces the >value of the dollars in your pocket.) This only follows from an *extremely* literal interpretation of the quantity theory, which I doubt even the staunchest Chicago type would want to defend. It is an okay first approximation, true if all things are held constant and the amount of new dollars is above some delta (where delta is difficult to define). >[...]It really doesn't matter what one uses for money, so >long as it's (a) not easily forged (doesn't "grow on trees"), and (b) >backed by some commodity that's valuable in itself. (b) is helpful, but not necessary. People need to expect it to be worth something when they try to get rid of it. That's all. ------------------------------ From: fcp@nuance.com (Craig Presson) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 22:23:56 -0600 Subject: [#94-11-555] FWD:HUMOR:TECH: Pentium jokes from comp.sys.intel > Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel Q&A: THE PENTIUM FDIV BUG Q: How many Pentium designers does it take to screw in a light bulb? A: 1.99904274017, but that's close enough for non-technical people. Q: What do you get when you cross a Pentium PC with a research grant? A: A mad scientist. Q: What's another name for the "Intel Inside" sticker they put on Pentiums? A: The warning label. Q: What do you call a series of FDIV instructions on a Pentium? A: Successive approximations. Q: Complete the following word analogy: Add is to Subtract as Multiply is to: 1) Divide 2) ROUND 3) RANDOM 4) On a Pentium, all of the above A: Number 4. Q: What algorithm did Intel use in the Pentium's floating point divider? A: "Life is like a box of chocolates." (Source: F. Gump of Intel) Q: Why didn't Intel call the Pentium the 586? A: Because they added 486 and 100 on the first Pentium and got 585.999983605. Q: According to Intel, the Pentium conforms to the IEEE standards 754 and 854 for floating point arithmetic. If you fly in aircraft designed using a Pentium, what is the correct pronunciation of "IEEE"? A: Aaaaaaaiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeee! TOP TEN NEW INTEL SLOGANS FOR THE PENTIUM - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9.9999973251 It's a FLAW, Dammit, not a Bug 8.9999163362 It's Close Enough, We Say So 7.9999414610 Nearly 300 Correct Opcodes 6.9999831538 You Don't Need to Know What's Inside 5.9999835137 Redefining the PC -- and Mathematics As Well 4.9999999021 We Fixed It, Really 3.9998245917 Division Considered Harmful 2.9991523619 Why Do You Think They Call It *Floating* Point? 1.9999103517 We're Looking for a Few Good Flaws 0.9999999998 The Errata Inside \\ fcp@nuance.com (Craig Presson) CPresson@aol.com\ -- WWW: http://www.nuance.com/~fcp/ -----------------\ -- President & Principal, T4 Computer Security ------> -- P.O. Box 18271, Huntsville, AL 35804 -------------/ // (205) 880-7692 Voice, -7691 FAX -----------------/ ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V94 #334 *********************************