From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sun May  1 10:10:09 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 06:10:09 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Global catastrophic risk report
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFh7YGuQmtUmSV3p1iM4kwSb=zAT3NZhem-8sVYCDs1Tag@mail.gmail.com>

I came across the following:

http://globalprioritiesproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Global-Catastrophic-Risk-Annual-Report-2016-FINAL.pdf

### It lists global warming (renamed "climate change") right at the top,
even ahead of nuclear war. Really? This is so ridiculous it beggars
imagination.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160501/b98bdcf8/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Sun May  1 14:33:35 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 16:33:35 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Global catastrophic risk report
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFh7YGuQmtUmSV3p1iM4kwSb=zAT3NZhem-8sVYCDs1Tag@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFh7YGuQmtUmSV3p1iM4kwSb=zAT3NZhem-8sVYCDs1Tag@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <572613BF.2050906@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-01 12:10, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> I came across the following:
>
> http://globalprioritiesproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Global-Catastrophic-Risk-Annual-Report-2016-FINAL.pdf
>
> ### It lists global warming (renamed "climate change") right at the 
> top, even ahead of nuclear war. Really? This is so ridiculous it 
> beggars imagination.

Heh. I happen to know a fair bit about this report, since it was 
partially written by people in my office (GPP is half FHI). There is a 
degree of politics involved in what gets listed, even though I regard it 
as far more objective than the World Economic Forum global risk report 
(which is about risk *perception*). Note that it is not a list of 
*existential* risks, but just stuff that could mess up the lives for a 
few billion.

Still, extreme tail climate change is something worth taking more 
seriously as a risk than our community normally does. Vanilla climate 
change is slow and people tend to overestimate its badness (at least 
compared to other GCRs and xrisks) but there is a tail of extreme 
possibility that is rarely spoken about - extremely uncertain, way 
outside what we know how to model well, potentially making sizeable 
regions uninhabitable. Even the greens rarely bring it up except as a 
scare story to get people to see vanilla climate change as something 
urgent; once the discussion about that starts they tend to focus on 
vanilla stuff and become very uneasy when you start querying them on 
preparation for saving parts of the current biosphere. But if you think 
it is rational to have some preparation for big asteroids, then you 
should regard it as rational to have some preparation for heading off or 
handling big climate risk.

-- 
Anders Sandberg
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Oxford University

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160501/0593476f/attachment.html>

From protokol2020 at gmail.com  Sun May  1 15:00:21 2016
From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan)
Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 17:00:21 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Global catastrophic risk report
In-Reply-To: <572613BF.2050906@aleph.se>
References: <CAAc1gFh7YGuQmtUmSV3p1iM4kwSb=zAT3NZhem-8sVYCDs1Tag@mail.gmail.com>
 <572613BF.2050906@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CALMrAFRLbHJ6vFmpq6WzODYMnPkTWoxrH4ZVuVVJb6rwQFs6+Q@mail.gmail.com>

Give me some raw data. A lot of raw data, and I'll be able to see if there
is any statistically significant warming taking place,myself.

If you don't have the raw the data to publish, don't even bother.

On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> On 2016-05-01 12:10, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>
> I came across the following:
>
>
> http://globalprioritiesproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Global-Catastrophic-Risk-Annual-Report-2016-FINAL.pdf
>
> ### It lists global warming (renamed "climate change") right at the top,
> even ahead of nuclear war. Really? This is so ridiculous it beggars
> imagination.
>
>
> Heh. I happen to know a fair bit about this report, since it was partially
> written by people in my office (GPP is half FHI). There is a degree of
> politics involved in what gets listed, even though I regard it as far more
> objective than the World Economic Forum global risk report (which is about
> risk *perception*). Note that it is not a list of *existential* risks, but
> just stuff that could mess up the lives for a few billion.
>
> Still, extreme tail climate change is something worth taking more
> seriously as a risk than our community normally does. Vanilla climate
> change is slow and people tend to overestimate its badness (at least
> compared to other GCRs and xrisks) but there is a tail of extreme
> possibility that is rarely spoken about - extremely uncertain, way outside
> what we know how to model well, potentially making sizeable regions
> uninhabitable. Even the greens rarely bring it up except as a scare story
> to get people to see vanilla climate change as something urgent; once the
> discussion about that starts they tend to focus on vanilla stuff and become
> very uneasy when you start querying them on preparation for saving parts of
> the current biosphere. But if you think it is rational to have some
> preparation for big asteroids, then you should regard it as rational to
> have some preparation for heading off or handling big climate risk.
>
> --
> Anders Sandberg
> Future of Humanity Institute
> Oxford Martin School
> Oxford University
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>


-- 
https://protokol2020.wordpress.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160501/5a781b19/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Sun May  1 16:36:25 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 09:36:25 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Global catastrophic risk report
In-Reply-To: <572613BF.2050906@aleph.se>
References: <CAAc1gFh7YGuQmtUmSV3p1iM4kwSb=zAT3NZhem-8sVYCDs1Tag@mail.gmail.com>
 <572613BF.2050906@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <005f01d1a3c7$9b4736d0$d1d5a470$@att.net>

 

On 2016-05-01 12:10, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:



I came across the following: 

 

http://globalprioritiesproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Global-Catastr
ophic-Risk-Annual-Report-2016-FINAL.pdf


 

### It lists global warming (renamed "climate change") right at the top,
even ahead of nuclear war. Really? This is so ridiculous it beggars
imagination.





 
In the USA, we have what seems like a concerted effort on the part of public
elementary schools to instill in the students an awareness of climate
change.  If you talk to the students, they really really misunderstand the
risk, and I think teachers do as well.  But plenty of the students believe
the planet will be 10C warmer when they reach adulthood than it is now.
 
There must be ways to cash in on this belief by betting against it, by
betting on climate non-change.  But we must act quickly, for a generation
from now, I suspect plenty of these same students now grown will have an
inherent distrust of the process that led them to believe a falsehood.
Perhaps they will come to distrust any scientific research when politicians
take it up at any level.  Children's lives are filled with changes that are
big and fast.  We older ones realize that big changes happen very slowly if
they ever change at all.
 
If Science Inc. expects climate will change 1 degree C in 50 years, the
students come away with the notion that climate will change 10C in 5 years.
Otherwise, the grownups wouldn't make such a big deal over it.  10C in five
years will not happen.  We can bet on it.  We can cash in on it.
 
It feels like money is being tragically left unmade here.
 
spike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160501/228769f7/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Sun May  1 17:15:42 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 19:15:42 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Global catastrophic risk report
In-Reply-To: <005f01d1a3c7$9b4736d0$d1d5a470$@att.net>
References: <CAAc1gFh7YGuQmtUmSV3p1iM4kwSb=zAT3NZhem-8sVYCDs1Tag@mail.gmail.com>
 <572613BF.2050906@aleph.se> <005f01d1a3c7$9b4736d0$d1d5a470$@att.net>
Message-ID: <572639BE.6@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-01 18:36, spike wrote:
>
> There must be ways to cash in on this belief by betting against it, by 
> betting on climate non-change.


I think the trick is beachfront property. Climate denialists would say 
it is getting undervalued, climate worriers think it has declining value 
- this is an opportunity for trading or shorting.

I have never encountered a climate change sceptic in the insurance and 
reinsurance business. (They do tend to be sceptical about claims of 
increased hurricane frequency/intensity due to climate change though; 
the evidence from NOAA is not supporting it.)

So you think climate change is overblown, you should presumably expect 
the insurance business to be too cautious, and you could presumably make 
good money (in expectation) through long-term, widely distributed cat 
bonds.




-- 
Anders Sandberg
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Oxford University

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160501/b3ed1030/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Sun May  1 17:32:51 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 10:32:51 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Global catastrophic risk report
In-Reply-To: <572639BE.6@aleph.se>
References: <CAAc1gFh7YGuQmtUmSV3p1iM4kwSb=zAT3NZhem-8sVYCDs1Tag@mail.gmail.com>
 <572613BF.2050906@aleph.se> <005f01d1a3c7$9b4736d0$d1d5a470$@att.net>
 <572639BE.6@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <009601d1a3cf$7d248c40$776da4c0$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf
Of Anders Sandberg
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2016 10:16 AM
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Subject: Re: [ExI] Global catastrophic risk report

 

On 2016-05-01 18:36, spike wrote:



 

There must be ways to cash in on this belief by betting against it, by
betting on climate non-change.




>.If you think climate change is overblown, you should presumably expect the
insurance business to be too cautious, and you could presumably make good
money (in expectation) through long-term, widely distributed cat bonds. --
Anders Sandberg

 

 

Ja there is that.

 

I find it most striking the catastrophic failure in translating the
scientific consensus on climate change with the public perception of climate
change.  For instance, my best guess on scientific consensus is about 2C in
the next century.  Is that about the consensus now?  This would be
accompanied by about a 20 cm rise in sea level?  Anyone know the best
estimate of the models?

 

If you ask especially the younger set, the consensus will be waaaay more and
faster change.  So there is an enormous disparity in public perception and
the scientific community, with the disparity getting dramatically larger as
you get younger than currently college age.

 

It would be interesting to find a way to average the results (a direct
average doesn't help, since the one uninformed yahoo guessing a meter sea
level change swamps the 99 guessing 1 cm.)  Also, there is a time element.
Perhaps the best we can do then is to take the sea level change per year
average and temperature change per year estimated by Science Inc, compare to
the general public perception average for both, see how we can make money on
the spread.

 

spike

 
 
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160501/01ff8ad7/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Sun May  1 20:16:47 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 13:16:47 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Global catastrophic risk report
In-Reply-To: <572639BE.6@aleph.se>
References: <CAAc1gFh7YGuQmtUmSV3p1iM4kwSb=zAT3NZhem-8sVYCDs1Tag@mail.gmail.com>
 <572613BF.2050906@aleph.se>
 <005f01d1a3c7$9b4736d0$d1d5a470$@att.net> <572639BE.6@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNRFWvbmnC8jW2gA9UMe5x32u=3YqshhSnVDmBFKG269gQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> cat bonds
>

Just to be sure: you mean financial bond instruments dealing with
catastrophes, and not feline companionship, right?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160501/6b609dbb/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Sun May  1 21:48:02 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 23:48:02 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Global catastrophic risk report
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNRFWvbmnC8jW2gA9UMe5x32u=3YqshhSnVDmBFKG269gQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFh7YGuQmtUmSV3p1iM4kwSb=zAT3NZhem-8sVYCDs1Tag@mail.gmail.com>
 <572613BF.2050906@aleph.se> <005f01d1a3c7$9b4736d0$d1d5a470$@att.net>
 <572639BE.6@aleph.se>
 <CALAdGNRFWvbmnC8jW2gA9UMe5x32u=3YqshhSnVDmBFKG269gQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57267992.5050009@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-01 22:16, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se 
> <mailto:anders at aleph.se>> wrote:
>
>     cat bonds
>
>
> Just to be sure: you mean financial bond instruments dealing with 
> catastrophes, and not feline companionship, right?
>

Yup. Although newbies in insurance tend to snicker and have amusing 
pictures on their slides when dealing with them (not to mention the 
fashionable cat models). The joke gets old surprisingly fast; there is 
probably some subtle reason for a high discount rate.

Cat bonds are lovely when financial markets and disasters are 
uncorrelated. If they get correlated, such as through a lot of cat 
bonds, they lose their usefulness.

-- 
Anders Sandberg
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Oxford University

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160501/375598d5/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Sun May  1 21:56:24 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 23:56:24 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Global catastrophic risk report
In-Reply-To: <009601d1a3cf$7d248c40$776da4c0$@att.net>
References: <CAAc1gFh7YGuQmtUmSV3p1iM4kwSb=zAT3NZhem-8sVYCDs1Tag@mail.gmail.com>
 <572613BF.2050906@aleph.se> <005f01d1a3c7$9b4736d0$d1d5a470$@att.net>
 <572639BE.6@aleph.se> <009601d1a3cf$7d248c40$776da4c0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <57267B88.8050704@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-01 19:32, spike wrote:
>
> I find it most striking the catastrophic failure in translating the 
> scientific consensus on climate change with the public perception of 
> climate change.  For instance, my best guess on scientific consensus 
> is about 2C in the next century.  Is that about the consensus now?  
> This would be accompanied by about a 20 cm rise in sea level?  Anyone 
> know the best estimate of the models?
>

I guess the 2014 IPCCC is as mainstream as you can go. 2C and 20cm is 
about median of their scenarios: 
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

> If you ask especially the younger set, the consensus will be waaaay 
> more and faster change.  So there is an enormous disparity in public 
> perception and the scientific community, with the disparity getting 
> dramatically larger as you get younger than currently college age.
>
This is a bit like popular preceptions of risk, where risks commonly 
reported in media (murder, terrorism, exotic diseases) are overestimated 
by many times, while less reported risks (falls, auto accidents, stroke) 
are underestimated. Peope get more worried about being a victim of crime 
the more tv they watch.

Of course, thinking climate change will be drastic and intense does not 
preclude thinking not much will change in one's personal future - people 
are really inconsistent between near and far mode thinking. A survey of 
risk perceptions showed that many in the public expect apocalyptic 
disaster in their lifetime, yet do not seem to act on it (by lowering 
their time horizon).



-- 
Anders Sandberg
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Oxford University

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160501/b240ea77/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Sun May  1 22:30:11 2016
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 23:30:11 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Global catastrophic risk report
In-Reply-To: <57267B88.8050704@aleph.se>
References: <CAAc1gFh7YGuQmtUmSV3p1iM4kwSb=zAT3NZhem-8sVYCDs1Tag@mail.gmail.com>
 <572613BF.2050906@aleph.se> <005f01d1a3c7$9b4736d0$d1d5a470$@att.net>
 <572639BE.6@aleph.se> <009601d1a3cf$7d248c40$776da4c0$@att.net>
 <57267B88.8050704@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAL_armjB4pf8Fp89CtRN2e3gm6AWDs=DofOb0xBu7RFjD7OOMA@mail.gmail.com>

On 1 May 2016 at 22:56, Anders Sandberg wrote:
> I guess the 2014 IPCCC is as mainstream as you can go. 2C and 20cm is about
> median of their scenarios:
> https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html
>
>
> If you ask especially the younger set, the consensus will be waaaay more and
> faster change.  So there is an enormous disparity in public perception and
> the scientific community, with the disparity getting dramatically larger as
> you get younger than currently college age.
>
> This is a bit like popular perceptions of risk, where risks commonly
> reported in media (murder, terrorism, exotic diseases) are overestimated by
> many times, while less reported risks (falls, auto accidents, stroke) are
> underestimated. Peope get more worried about being a victim of crime the
> more tv they watch.
>
>

The trouble with averages (of course) is that they are averages.
Climate change will not be neatly evenly spread over the world. Some
areas will see little change, others will be disaster areas.

That doesn't mean that the areas with little change will be
unaffected. There will be a large flow of refugees from affected areas
and any produce / products from those areas will be lost. The chain of
problems will be considerable and start to occur while the 'average'
shows only a small change.

BillK


From danust2012 at gmail.com  Sun May  1 23:47:35 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 16:47:35 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Global catastrophic risk report
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNRFWvbmnC8jW2gA9UMe5x32u=3YqshhSnVDmBFKG269gQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFh7YGuQmtUmSV3p1iM4kwSb=zAT3NZhem-8sVYCDs1Tag@mail.gmail.com>
 <572613BF.2050906@aleph.se> <005f01d1a3c7$9b4736d0$d1d5a470$@att.net>
 <572639BE.6@aleph.se>
 <CALAdGNRFWvbmnC8jW2gA9UMe5x32u=3YqshhSnVDmBFKG269gQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <17105C6B-9854-4920-BEE6-33E185FC7B15@gmail.com>

On May 1, 2016, at 1:16 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:
>> cat bonds
> 
> Just to be sure: you mean financial bond instruments dealing with catastrophes, and not feline companionship, right? 

I wish you asked that question before I put all that money in catnip futures. ;)

Regards,

Dan
  Sample my Kindle books via:
http://author.to/DanUst
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160501/b816a140/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Mon May  2 00:31:58 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Sun, 1 May 2016 20:31:58 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Global catastrophic risk report
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFh7YGuQmtUmSV3p1iM4kwSb=zAT3NZhem-8sVYCDs1Tag@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFh7YGuQmtUmSV3p1iM4kwSb=zAT3NZhem-8sVYCDs1Tag@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv36fvMj5H5gJn9_TYrn9s7XUnce2bvCyQSSBVw+DUGoYg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 1, 2016 at  Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:

?> ?
> I came across the following:
>
> http://globalprioritiesproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Global-Catastrophic-Risk-Annual-Report-2016-FINAL.pdf
>
> ### It lists global warming (renamed "climate change") right at the top,
> even ahead of nuclear war. Really? This is so ridiculous it beggars
> imagination.
>

?In the March 31 issue of Nature
?there ?
is a article about sea level rise caused by global warming
?,?
and the news is twice as bad as previously thought, we only have 84 years
to prepare for a rise between 25 and 45 inches. Well that might cause a few
headaches but its not exactly a
?n?
existential threat;
?the sea has risen 400 FEET since
the peak of the last ice age 20,000 years ago
?,

?and ?during that time
the human race not only survived it thrived.

Homo sapiens
? has also gone through sea rise, glaciers, pandemics, and 2
super volcanoes
?, b
ut a nuclear war
?could?
 kill civilization and maybe even our species.
? It remains our greatest danger.?

? John K Clark ?


       ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160501/cb506281/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Mon May  2 05:38:38 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 01:38:38 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Global catastrophic risk report
In-Reply-To: <572613BF.2050906@aleph.se>
References: <CAAc1gFh7YGuQmtUmSV3p1iM4kwSb=zAT3NZhem-8sVYCDs1Tag@mail.gmail.com>
 <572613BF.2050906@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFhBsPzLmsCENsOW5EUZWQY9oNy+WrMBk0b2iHQ8n045Eg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> On 2016-05-01 12:10, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>
> I came across the following:
>
>
> http://globalprioritiesproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Global-Catastrophic-Risk-Annual-Report-2016-FINAL.pdf
>
> ### It lists global warming (renamed "climate change") right at the top,
> even ahead of nuclear war. Really? This is so ridiculous it beggars
> imagination.
>
>
> Heh. I happen to know a fair bit about this report, since it was partially
> written by people in my office (GPP is half FHI). There is a degree of
> politics involved in what gets listed,
>

### This does seem to be the case.

----------------

>
> But if you think it is rational to have some preparation for big
> asteroids, then you should regard it as rational to have some preparation
> for heading off or handling big climate risk.
>

### Yes, absolutely but in mentioning climate risk the report is right for
the wrong reasons. Realistically, there is no plausible high-temperature
condition that could have a catastrophic impact (as defined in the report).
The methane belch or sulphide belch ideas have been bandied about but they
are completely implausible given Earth's recent history of warming episodes
well in excess of current conditions that failed to trigger such events.
The only plausible catastrophic risk is cooling due to e.g. a solar minimum
leading to a positive feedback and an ice age. But the report concentrates
on the story of carbon dioxide accumulation and warming.

Either way, a major nuclear war is, I think, orders of magnitude more
likely than an equivalent climate catastrophe. That's why I find the
prominent place given the climate story so jarring.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160502/d4064b1a/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Mon May  2 06:04:02 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 02:04:02 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Global catastrophic risk report
In-Reply-To: <005f01d1a3c7$9b4736d0$d1d5a470$@att.net>
References: <CAAc1gFh7YGuQmtUmSV3p1iM4kwSb=zAT3NZhem-8sVYCDs1Tag@mail.gmail.com>
 <572613BF.2050906@aleph.se>
 <005f01d1a3c7$9b4736d0$d1d5a470$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFgAxeY6UNJqj5eepRm5vC1=-yyUfHPkfYmXcOUXxMuWFQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 12:36 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
> It feels like money is being tragically left unmade here.
>
>
> ### Short companies related to most alternative energy sources. Wind,
biomass, biodiesel, ethanol, they are going to be a perennial money-loser,
even as they soak up enormous amounts of crony capitalism money (i.e.
subsidies). Hold fracking, gas, consider investing in nuclear. Solar is a
bit more tricky, since here you could imagine technological developments
which could make it competitive even without subsidies (e.g. improved
efficiency, cheaper storage capabilities).

Avoid buying organic, green or fair-trade. Don't let the crooks make money
off you. Caveat: It may be reasonable to buy organic meat, milk and eggs
that are not produced from corn-fed animals.

Buying catastrophic risk bonds sounds like a good idea, especially as
related to sea level rise, hurricanes, drought, floods. It would be nice to
be able to separate bond exposure to these risks from others, especially
earthquakes, forest fire (could be more problematic with greater tree
growth that is seen), tsunami, lightning strike and others that are not
linked to climate. If there are any bonds on crop failure, buy them. Crop
failure risk may be overestimated by decision makers that forget about
carbon dioxide fertilization.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160502/230e0e41/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Mon May  2 08:36:01 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 10:36:01 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Global catastrophic risk report
In-Reply-To: <17105C6B-9854-4920-BEE6-33E185FC7B15@gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFh7YGuQmtUmSV3p1iM4kwSb=zAT3NZhem-8sVYCDs1Tag@mail.gmail.com>
 <572613BF.2050906@aleph.se> <005f01d1a3c7$9b4736d0$d1d5a470$@att.net>
 <572639BE.6@aleph.se>
 <CALAdGNRFWvbmnC8jW2gA9UMe5x32u=3YqshhSnVDmBFKG269gQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <17105C6B-9854-4920-BEE6-33E185FC7B15@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57271171.5050705@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-02 01:47, Dan TheBookMan wrote:
> On May 1, 2016, at 1:16 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com 
> <mailto:atymes at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se 
>> <mailto:anders at aleph.se>> wrote:
>>
>>     cat bonds
>>
>>
>> Just to be sure: you mean financial bond instruments dealing with 
>> catastrophes, and not feline companionship, right?
>
> I wish you asked that question before I put all that money in catnip 
> futures. ;)

Well, demand from fat cat capitalists ought to be fairly stable.

(I wonder if one could make something like catnip for humans? I think we 
do not have a signal substance like nepetalactone, but maybe we could 
use gene therapy to make ourselves sensitive to catnip too? It seems fun!)

-- 
Anders Sandberg
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Oxford University

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160502/38621cde/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Mon May  2 14:40:17 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 07:40:17 -0700
Subject: [ExI] thin cat capitalists,
	was:   RE:  Global catastrophic risk report
Message-ID: <008901d1a480$8c4caf20$a4e60d60$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf
Of Anders Sandberg
.



>.(I wonder if one could make something like catnip for humans? 

 

Isn't that marijuana?  Just askin', I'm no guru in these matters.  From what
I have seen, the hipsters hooting on reefers are of no more use than a cat
with her paws on the nip or the mare in the loco weed.

 

>.Well, demand from fat cat capitalists ought to be fairly stable. --
Anders Sandberg
 
Why are capitalists always fat cats?  We need to have a new category.  These
are they who read Adam Smith (and ooooh it turns them on (you can tell when
they have been digging around in the econ-porno (their cheeks glow))) these
who are hardcore defenders of truth, justice and the American Way (they
watched the old Superman movies (and we all know what Superman REALLY had in
mind with that American Way comment (not truth and justice, which he already
mentioned previously.)))
 
So I am thinking about a group of people who are not wealthy themselves but
abhor all forms of anything not unfettered capitalism: thin cat capitalists.
 
spike
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160502/a1969ae9/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Mon May  2 14:54:30 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 07:54:30 -0700
Subject: [ExI] thin cat capitalists
Message-ID: <009501d1a482$88579540$9906bfc0$@att.net>

 

 

 

 

Once in a while, Aeon whacks one out of the park:

 

https://aeon.co/essays/how-silicon-valley-rewrote-america-s-redemption-narra
tive?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter
<https://aeon.co/essays/how-silicon-valley-rewrote-america-s-redemption-narr
ative?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=7590d0ab15-Daily_Newsletter_02
_May_20165_2_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-7590d0ab15-68957125
>
&utm_campaign=7590d0ab15-Daily_Newsletter_02_May_20165_2_2016&utm_medium=ema
il&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-7590d0ab15-68957125

 

 

In the neighborhood, we have all the usual kid heroes: firemen, professional
football players (the SF 49ers have a stadium up the street) but everyone
wants to be Elon Musk.  He's the local fat cat capitalist with a herd of
thin cats chasing him and wanting to be him.

 

I won't buy a luxury electric car, but that whole landing a rocket on its
feet is such a cool stunt, I am cheering for him too.  Go Space-X!

 

 

 

I don't think Aeon will sue me if I paste the whole thing here:

 

 

 

 

 


Silicon phoenix 


A gifted child, an adventure, a dark time, and then ... a pivot? How Silicon
Valley rewrote America's redemption narrative 


by Kat McGowan <https://aeon.co/users/katmcgowan>  

 

writes about health, medicine and science for magazines including Nautilus
and Quanta, and is a contributing editor at Discover. She lives in New York
City and California. 

2,500 words

Edited by Pam Weintraub <https://aeon.co/users/pamweintraub>  

Like the great entrepreneurs who came before him, Elon Musk's life story
reads like myth. Or maybe a comic book. He was a precocious child of extreme
intelligence who read the encyclopedia for fun; not surprisingly, he was
picked on relentlessly. Bullies once pushed him down a flight of stairs and
beat him so badly he ended up in hospital.

But even as a child, he was obsessed with visions of a better future,
convinced that he must try to save humanity. Eventually, he identified five
possible species-ending threats to mankind, and resolved to address them.
The most solvable, in his opinion, was the need for sustainable
energy-production, and the need for a backup plan - say, a self-sustaining
million-person colony on Mars.

He began implementing this vision seriously in the early 2000s, using a $180
million payout from selling PayPal, his first huge company, to launch the
private rocketry firm SpaceX. A few years later, he put millions into the
electric car manufacturer Tesla. Car makers and tech people ridiculed his
plan to build a high-performance luxury electric vehicle and, eventually, a
cheap mass-market version. Everyone else started laughing when the first
SpaceX launch vehicle exploded, then another, and then a third.

By 2008, as the financial markets around the world melted down, his plans to
save the world through enlightened entrepreneurship were circling the drain.
Tesla cars were months behind schedule, and there was enough money only for
one more rocket launch. If this rocket exploded too, if the cars didn't
arrive, if the investors didn't come through, the game was over. Both of his
businesses would collapse, and his own fortune would vanish.

Musk says he was on the edge of a nervous breakdown, and then suddenly it
all turned around: the launch succeeded, NASA gave SpaceX an enormous
contract, the cars were delivered, and today Musk runs two groundbreaking
businesses, each worth billions. Now, it's Elon Musk's world. We just live
in it - until we move to Mars.

In Silicon Valley these days, you haven't really succeeded until you've
failed, or at least come very close. Failing - or nearly failing - has
become a badge of pride. It's also a story to be told, a yarn to be
unspooled. When a tech startup stumbles or fails, as most of them eventually
do, it is customary for the company's founder to detail how and why it
failed.

In fact, it's become a ritual. Many post-mortems appear on Medium; others
are collected at Autopsy.io, a site curating first-person tales of flops, or
at FailCon, a convention dedicated to picking apart failures. The stories
tend to unfold the same way, with the same turning points and the same
language: first, a brilliant idea and a plan to conquer the world. Next,
hardships that test the mettle of the entrepreneur. Finally, the downfall -
usually, because the money runs out. But following that is a coda or
epilogue that restores optimism. In this denouement, the founder says that
great things have or will come of the tribulations: deeper understanding,
new resolve, a better grip on what matters.

Silicon Valley is a sun-drenched utopia of money and world domination. Tech
entrepreneurs are household names. So why the tales of woe, the obsession
with darkness overcome? Why are people still preoccupied with Musk's
near-failures, even as they worship his current success? Unconsciously,
entrepreneurs have adopted one of the most powerful stories in our culture:
the life narrative of adversity and redemption.

Each of us has a story we tell about our own life, a way of structuring the
past and fitting events into a coherent narrative. Real life is chaotic;
life narratives give it meaning and structure. Studies in the field of
narrative psychology suggest that these tales we tell aren't just a
convenient way to describe the past: the way we formulate our own story
moulds who we are.

For Americans, the redemption narrative is one of the most common and
compelling life stories. In the arc of this life story, adversity is not
meaningless suffering to be avoided or endured; it is transformative, a
necessary step along the road to personal growth and fulfilment.

For the past 15 years, Daniel McAdams, professor of psychology at
Northwestern University in Illinois, has explored this story and its five
life stages: (1) an early life sense of being somehow different or special,
along with (2) a strong feeling of moral steadfastness and determination,
ultimately (3) tested by terrible ordeals that are (4) redeemed by a
transformation into positive experiences and (5) zeal to improve society.

This sequence doesn't necessarily reflect the actual events of the
storyteller's life, of course. It's about how people interpret what happened
- their spin, what they emphasise in the telling and what they discard.

Believing that you have a mandate to fix social problems requires a sense of
self-importance, even a touch of arrogance

In his most recent study
<http://skateboardingalice.com/papers/2015_McAdams.pdf> , the outcome of
years of intensive interviews with 157 adults, McAdams has found that those
who adopt this line tend to be generative - that is, to be a certain kind of
big-hearted, responsible, constructive adult. Generative people are deeply
concerned about the future; they're serious mentors, teachers and parents;
they might be involved in public service. They think about their legacy, and
want to fix the world's problems. But generative people aren't necessarily
mild-mannered do-gooders. Believing that you have a mandate to fix social
problems - and that you have the moral authority and the ability to do so -
also requires a sense of self-importance, even a touch of arrogance.

No wonder that the redemption narrative is so popular in Silicon Valley,
where the script of Musk's life emerges again and again in the stories that
founders tell. The Silicon Valley version of the Redemption Story has
adapted the format put forth by McAdams with three main chapters that tech
founders claim as their own: The Awesome Journey, The Pivot and, finally,
Making the World a Better Place.

The founder's story usually begins with the fun stuff - frantic work,
hair-raising scrapes with bankruptcy, and at least one long, dark night of
the soul in which the founder is nearly destroyed by doubt. In tech culture,
this is called 'the awesome journey' (as in 'It's been an awesome journey,
with tons of learning along the way') and relentless hours of work; Uber's
CEO Travis Kalanick refers to these as the 'blood, sweat and ramen' years.
In a talk a few years ago at FailCon, he told the epic tale of the business
he founded prior to Uber, and the marathon that kept it alive. He endured
two lawsuits, the burst of the first dot-com bubble, a bankruptcy, and
months of living at his parents' house on zero pay. After that, his
co-founder defected to Google, stole his main engineer, and scuttled a
million-dollar deal. Kalanick's talk focused on the gory details, which is
what his audience wanted to hear. The fact that his startup was eventually
acquired was a side note.

The awesome journey is equivalent to the 'moral challenge' of the classic
narrative. By recapping the hero's difficulties, it demonstrates his
resolve. McAdams describes the theme this way: 'I am a gifted adventurer who
journeys forth into a dangerous world.' The adversities encountered during
this phase are what later unlock the doors to triumph. For entrepreneurs,
these are not merely newbie errors. They are cathartic moments of suffering
that enable later greatness.

But first, the moment of truth.

It's a myth that Silicon Valley loves the demoralising experience of
failure. So startup postmortems aren't neutral accounts of what went wrong
and why. They promote the idea that failure enables later success.

That's why tech entrepreneurs refer to failure as a pivot. Originally
popularised by The Lean Startup (2011), a guidebook for entrepreneurs,
'pivot' has come to mean a moment of reckoning, the moment when one set of
plans is abandoned.

People pivot when it becomes obvious that their business plan is too
complicated, will never gain traction, has no potential customers, or is
just a bad idea. But tech is not like other sectors, where bad ideas merely
sink without a trace. People pivot, and they begin again. Pivoting turns
failure into rebirth, in which the difficulties and setbacks of the past
give rise to a new, stronger, better vision. This is not incremental
improvement; it is a transformation. A phoenix rises from the ashes, a door
opens, a new vision emerges from the old. In this moment of redemption, the
slate is wiped clean.

Obviously, this is a mythos, an outlook rather than a neutral accounting of
the facts. In reality, the idea that failure breeds success is empirically
wrong, points out the historian Leslie Berlin, who researches the history of
innovation at Stanford University. In a Harvard Business School study
<http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/09-028.pdf>  of thousands of
venture-backed companies, those entrepreneurs who succeeded the first time
were more likely to succeed again the second. Those who failed once were
just as likely to fail again the second time. 'In other words, trying and
failing bought the entrepreneurs nothing - it was as if they never tried,'
Berlin wrote in The New York Times. The narrative device of the pivot
sustains hope against this cruel reality.

'This is what happens when you work to change things. First they think
you're crazy, then they fight you, and then all of a sudden you change the
world'

But while faith in the pivot might be delusional, it is a valuable illusion.
When people think about their misfortunes as life-changing opportunities,
they gain an advantage, McAdams has found. 'The failures become part of the
grand narrative of progress: "That had to happen, and I needed that setback,
or I wouldn't have made this discovery",' he says. It keeps morale high. It
fosters grit and perseverance. People who tell these stories tend to be more
satisfied and feel that their lives are coherent and meaningful. People in
McAdams's interviews said that they turned the bad into good, or found new
strength inside themselves. It's a mindset that encourages resilience,
something every entrepreneur needs.

In the redemption narrative, the payoff for steadfastly enduring all the
challenges is a fresh opportunity to do good. People told McAdams that they
intended to create a better future for their family, community, or society
as a whole.

There's a reason that the idea sounds familiar: it's become a running joke
about the self-importance of tech. In the first season of the HBO spoof
Silicon Valley (2014-), one startup founder after another deploys that
mantra to convince investors to pump money into esoteric projects. Example:
'We're making the world a better place through canonical data models to
communicate between endpoints!'

The joke hits home. The iPhone tagline was 'This changes everything'. In
Google's S-1 - the regulatory paperwork a company submits before going
public - an entire section is titled 'Making the World a Better Place'.

That mentality was perfectly captured in just two sentences by Elizabeth
Holmes, the founder of the former Silicon Valley darling Theranos, which is
developing an improved blood-testing technology. The company, recently
valued at more than $9 billion, abruptly fell from grace in 2015 when it
became clear that the technology was not ready for prime time. In her
appearance on CNBC, Holmes played the notes of tech redemption: 'This is
what happens when you work to change things,' she declared. 'First they
think you're crazy, then they fight you, and then all of a sudden you change
the world.'

Sure, it sounds presumptuous, maybe even a bit phoney. The usual assumption
is that when people in tech talk about changing the world like that, it's
just a cynical bid for attention. That's because Silicon Valley has a
reputation for selfishness, where vast wealth stays in the pockets of CEOs
and founders rather than being diverted toward museums or universities -
never mind toward changing the world.

But an essential point about the redemption narrative is that, through the
telling, it culminates in a genuine desire to improve the world - and in the
case of tech, the conviction that it is possible to do so.

So maybe we've got it all wrong about tech. The logic of the redemption
narrative predicts that when Musk says that he plans to convert the world to
solar power and establish a colony on Mars, he's entirely sincere, as crazy
as he might sound. In a redemption narrative, the will to succeed in
business is perfectly compatible with a desire to change the world.

In fact, the idea of doing good by doing well goes back to the early years
of Silicon Valley. In his book From Counterculture to Cyberculture (2006),
the Stanford historian Fred Turner describes the origins of this train of
thought in the late 1960s, when visionaries such as Stewart Brand of the
Whole Earth Catalog rubbed shoulders with artists, military-funded
cybernetic theorists and commune-builders; the same utopian spirit lives on
today at the Burning Man festival in Nevada. For people who belong to this
world, it's self-evident that technical innovators can also solve social
problems. It's taken for granted that entrepreneurialism is the fastest road
to a better future.

So it seems possible that in the coming decade, as the tech titans of today
hit middle age, the most generative stage of life, they will unleash an
unprecedented wave of philanthropy. These optimists, fuelled by vast sums of
money and unwavering confidence in their own ability to fix things, might
become world-builders on an unprecedented scale. Already we see hints of
that: in the efforts of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to eliminate
malaria; in Mark Zuckerberg's efforts to improve schools; in Sean Parker,
the founder Napster, pledging $600 million for research into cancer and
malaria, among other causes.

Musk is taking that just a few steps further, by hoping to seed other
planets with human beings to avert the inevitable extinction of the species.
In fact, the launch of SpaceX could be seen as the ultimate act of
generativity. Musk says that when he founded the company, he knew the odds
were against him. The stakes were just too high. 'An engineered virus,
nuclear war, inadvertent creation of a micro black hole, or some
as-yet-unknown technology could spell the end of us,' he wrote in 2008.
'Sooner or later, we must expand life beyond our little blue mud ball - or
go extinct.'

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160502/dcc57b14/attachment.html>

From msd001 at gmail.com  Mon May  2 16:04:19 2016
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 12:04:19 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Global catastrophic risk report
In-Reply-To: <005f01d1a3c7$9b4736d0$d1d5a470$@att.net>
References: <CAAc1gFh7YGuQmtUmSV3p1iM4kwSb=zAT3NZhem-8sVYCDs1Tag@mail.gmail.com>
 <572613BF.2050906@aleph.se>
 <005f01d1a3c7$9b4736d0$d1d5a470$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAOJFdbJFWk4eA1RFFMUzKoLSQpGXF0c7t0vpitJLsod9T78dXg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 12:36 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> There must be ways to cash in on this belief by betting against it, by
> betting on climate non-change.  But we must act quickly, for a generation
> from now, I suspect plenty of these same students now grown will have an
> inherent distrust of the process that led them to believe a falsehood.
> Perhaps they will come to distrust any scientific research when politicians
> take it up at any level.  Children?s lives are filled with changes that are
> big and fast.  We older ones realize that big changes happen very slowly if
> they ever change at all.
> [...]
> It feels like money is being tragically left unmade here.

I think you should start buying/selling Canadian and Siberian
farmland.  Climate change is an opportunity to have more useful land.
Sure, the current coastal areas will be a little wetter, but think of
all those cold places that will be so much nicer.  Alaskan beachfront
can become the new Riviera.  Sounds hard to believe, but the current
build of Riviera Maya in Mexico didn't even exist 40 years ago.



From spike66 at att.net  Mon May  2 16:31:36 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 09:31:36 -0700
Subject: [ExI] thin cat capitalists: RE: [Bulk] Re: Global catastrophic risk
	report
Message-ID: <011701d1a490$193fea00$4bbfbe00$@att.net>

>... On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty
...
>...Sure, the current coastal areas will be a little wetter, but think of all those cold places that will be so much nicer.  Alaskan beachfront can become the new Riviera.  Sounds hard to believe, but the current build of Riviera Maya in Mexico didn't even exist 40 years ago.

_______________________________________________


Ja.  Mike I would like to see attention brought to this: there is a category of climate change thinkers who recognize the models do predict increasing temperatures, and so they are not the currently-fashionable bad guys called denialists, but rather those who focus on all the good things that go with a meter rise in sea level.  It creates some problems, but if we know it is coming, it solves a bunch of them too, and creates YUUUUGE opportunity.  Just redrawing the map of Florida alone is the thin-cat capitalist's playground.  We know in advance what land will need to be abandoned, where will be the new beachfront, where we need to set up desalination plants with plenty of seawater right there we no longer need to lift, that sorta thing.

Regarding Riviera Maya, we need to acknowledge that big piles of money can make good things happen, such as that resort, or beachfront property in places now too harsh to be valuable.  Concentrated wealth that can be controlled by visionaries such as Musk and others is a good thing.  Jobs are created.

Regarding Musk, he built a car factory up the street here, which caused a lot of changes right here in my neighborhood: plenty of Tesla engineers and executives are setting up camp here.  Beat-up old neglected properties were bought up, cleaned up, fixed up, lawn grass out, xeriscape in, which is good because we get less of the noisy and stinky mowers but more quiet, professional guys who come in, clean up, pull weeds, trim up, tidy up and leave unnoticed, with just a calm snip snip snip rather that the old familiar roar of the Briggs and Stratton.  

This kind of thing makes me a big Musk fan.  More than a decade ago, the controls engineers declared landing a first stage on its feet was practical.  Musk was the guy who bet it all they were right.  They were right.  We get to stop that appalling waste of dropping those expensive stages into the sea. So... he wins.  We win.  Capitalism makes us rich.  Technology makes us comfortable.  Life is good.  

spike 




From johnkclark at gmail.com  Tue May  3 01:28:17 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 21:28:17 -0400
Subject: [ExI] It looks like Craig Wright was Bitcoins creator
Message-ID: <CAJPayv2RJCSBvpQ9ZR29M-XxzNJRhv6awmSF83+yKB7SgVUOOA@mail.gmail.com>

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36168863

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160502/d3784bdc/attachment.html>

From ddraig at gmail.com  Tue May  3 01:59:22 2016
From: ddraig at gmail.com (ddraig)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 11:59:22 +1000
Subject: [ExI] It looks like Craig Wright was Bitcoins creator
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv2RJCSBvpQ9ZR29M-XxzNJRhv6awmSF83+yKB7SgVUOOA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv2RJCSBvpQ9ZR29M-XxzNJRhv6awmSF83+yKB7SgVUOOA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAGfkSy1aBtu6n5M=Z_g8y0o5zxqsq-b9f5W6bSS_W8n29fkX4A@mail.gmail.com>

On 3 May 2016 at 11:28, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36168863
>
>

Hah, he's a local guy.  The news here will be going crazy.


Hal Finney - isn't he on, or used to be on, this list?  The name looks
familiar...

Then again I sometimes feel a large proportion of the more interesting
people on the internet have been on this list at one point or another.

Dwayne
-- 
  ddraig at pobox.com irc.bluesphereweb.com #dna
         ...r.e.t.u.r.n....t.o....t.h.e....s.o.u.r.c.e...
        http://tinyurl.com/he-is-right-you-know-jpg
our aim is wakefulness,  our enemy is dreamless sleep
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160503/e7613bcd/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Tue May  3 02:51:31 2016
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 12:51:31 +1000
Subject: [ExI] It looks like Craig Wright was Bitcoins creator
In-Reply-To: <CAGfkSy1aBtu6n5M=Z_g8y0o5zxqsq-b9f5W6bSS_W8n29fkX4A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv2RJCSBvpQ9ZR29M-XxzNJRhv6awmSF83+yKB7SgVUOOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGfkSy1aBtu6n5M=Z_g8y0o5zxqsq-b9f5W6bSS_W8n29fkX4A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH=2ypWnGbwrBT+eu9=jJRvOE-q65SrfVLrWM8627m91b6tvLQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tuesday, 3 May 2016, ddraig <ddraig at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 3 May 2016 at 11:28, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','johnkclark at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>
>> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36168863
>>
>>
>
> Hah, he's a local guy.  The news here will be going crazy.
>
>
> Hal Finney - isn't he on, or used to be on, this list?  The name looks
> familiar...
>
> Then again I sometimes feel a large proportion of the more interesting
> people on the internet have been on this list at one point or another.
>

Hal Finney died  in 2014 from motor neurone disease. He was cryogenically
preserved.

Craig Wright is probably a clever fraudster:

https://www.nikcub.com/posts/craig-wright-is-not-satoshi-nakamoto/



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160503/a3542d0b/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Tue May  3 06:56:39 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 07:56:39 +0100
Subject: [ExI] It looks like Craig Wright was Bitcoins creator
In-Reply-To: <CAGfkSy1aBtu6n5M=Z_g8y0o5zxqsq-b9f5W6bSS_W8n29fkX4A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv2RJCSBvpQ9ZR29M-XxzNJRhv6awmSF83+yKB7SgVUOOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGfkSy1aBtu6n5M=Z_g8y0o5zxqsq-b9f5W6bSS_W8n29fkX4A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5c13504e-6ea0-a7a4-418f-c2f8805805e0@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-03 02:59, ddraig wrote:
>
> Hal Finney - isn't he on, or used to be on, this list? The name looks 
> familiar...

Yup, he was here. A good contributor, and his bitcoins actually paid for 
his cryosuspension.

> Then again I sometimes feel a large proportion of the more interesting 
> people on the internet have been on this list at one point or another.

I think that when the history of this era is written, this list will be 
mentioned as an important intellectual forum. And then people will all 
think we were standing around the salon in togas, having erudite 
conversations. Nobody will remember flamewars about gun rights or 
punfests. I suspect the same is true for our historical writing - the 
Greek symposia did leave hints in the form of messy drinking games 
(kottabos, anyone?)


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160503/e96d19c1/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Tue May  3 13:00:39 2016
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 14:00:39 +0100
Subject: [ExI] It looks like Craig Wright was Bitcoins creator
In-Reply-To: <5c13504e-6ea0-a7a4-418f-c2f8805805e0@aleph.se>
References: <CAJPayv2RJCSBvpQ9ZR29M-XxzNJRhv6awmSF83+yKB7SgVUOOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGfkSy1aBtu6n5M=Z_g8y0o5zxqsq-b9f5W6bSS_W8n29fkX4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <5c13504e-6ea0-a7a4-418f-c2f8805805e0@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAL_armg2BOuEnXXLgC26hgmWy6rc37FA6wN73PGKEmxfwN2XFg@mail.gmail.com>

On 3 May 2016 at 07:56, Anders Sandberg  wrote:
> I think that when the history of this era is written, this list will be
> mentioned as an important intellectual forum. And then people will all think
> we were standing around the salon in togas, having erudite conversations.
> Nobody will remember flamewars about gun rights or punfests. I suspect the
> same is true for our historical writing - the Greek symposia did leave hints
> in the form of messy drinking games (kottabos, anyone?)
>

Just checking - wearing a toga on the list is not actually forbidden, is it???

When I went to Merriam-webster to check the definition, it asked me -
'What made you want to look up a toga?'
That's rather a personal question, so I didn't reply.   :)


BillK


From anders at aleph.se  Tue May  3 07:08:11 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 08:08:11 +0100
Subject: [ExI] thin cat capitalists,
 was: RE: Global catastrophic risk report
In-Reply-To: <008901d1a480$8c4caf20$a4e60d60$@att.net>
References: <008901d1a480$8c4caf20$a4e60d60$@att.net>
Message-ID: <01479cca-b714-1189-ae14-c8d1423c6191@aleph.se>

I think Virginia Postrel nailed it with her division between dynamists 
and stasists. Either can be politically or culturally "right" or "left", 
but the difference is whether they believe in an open future. Stasists 
think that either we should avoid change because the past was better, or 
the future is dangerous so it must be regulated. Dynamists are 
optimistic and want to explore the different options.

Thin cat capitalists would be the dynamist free marketers (while many 
classical fat cats have vested interests that make them stasist indeed). 
And even many of the people who abhor markets are essentially thin cats 
- eager to disrupt the status quo, to freely explore new ways of doing 
things that might be better or are just curious.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/ipm/a_map_of_bay_area_memespace/

On 2016-05-02 15:40, spike wrote:
>
> >?(I wonder if one could make something like catnip for humans?
>
> Isn?t that marijuana?  Just askin?, I?m no guru in these matters. From 
> what I have seen, the hipsters hooting on reefers are of no more use 
> than a cat with her paws on the nip or the mare in the loco weed.
>

I think they work very differently; catnip seems to affect the social 
signalling and happiness networks rather than the cannabinoids. There 
are of course many nice changes to neurochemistry conceivable (some that 
even make you perform usefully...)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160503/aee0ca9b/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Tue May  3 14:15:32 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 16:15:32 +0200
Subject: [ExI] It looks like Craig Wright was Bitcoins creator
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armg2BOuEnXXLgC26hgmWy6rc37FA6wN73PGKEmxfwN2XFg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv2RJCSBvpQ9ZR29M-XxzNJRhv6awmSF83+yKB7SgVUOOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGfkSy1aBtu6n5M=Z_g8y0o5zxqsq-b9f5W6bSS_W8n29fkX4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <5c13504e-6ea0-a7a4-418f-c2f8805805e0@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armg2BOuEnXXLgC26hgmWy6rc37FA6wN73PGKEmxfwN2XFg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5728B284.7060307@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-03 15:00, BillK wrote:
> On 3 May 2016 at 07:56, Anders Sandberg  wrote:
>> I think that when the history of this era is written, this list will be
>> mentioned as an important intellectual forum. And then people will all think
>> we were standing around the salon in togas, having erudite conversations.
>> Nobody will remember flamewars about gun rights or punfests. I suspect the
>> same is true for our historical writing - the Greek symposia did leave hints
>> in the form of messy drinking games (kottabos, anyone?)
> Just checking - wearing a toga on the list is not actually forbidden, is it???

No, but people do get chitons and togas confused. The Romans used togas, 
but were way less erudite and interesting conversationalists than the 
ancient Greek, who used chitons. Usually the image is just bearded guys 
talking among white classical columns, mixing up the eras completely 
(ancient Greek marble was apparently often brightly painted too).

I don't think mailing lists are very good at enforcing dress codes. Or 
do we want a list where you have to scan your attire, and Spike gets to 
let you in? Might motivate interesting dress, or un-dress as the case 
might be :-)

> When I went to Merriam-webster to check the definition, it asked me -
> 'What made you want to look up a toga?'

Talk about chilling effects.

(Had a lunch conversation about cryonics in the park today, and heads 
turned when one of us loudly said "We all agree that it is totally 
rational to cut off the heads and freeze them, but...")

-- 
Anders Sandberg
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Oxford University



From spike66 at att.net  Tue May  3 14:23:04 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 07:23:04 -0700
Subject: [ExI] It looks like Craig Wright was Bitcoins creator
In-Reply-To: <5c13504e-6ea0-a7a4-418f-c2f8805805e0@aleph.se>
References: <CAJPayv2RJCSBvpQ9ZR29M-XxzNJRhv6awmSF83+yKB7SgVUOOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGfkSy1aBtu6n5M=Z_g8y0o5zxqsq-b9f5W6bSS_W8n29fkX4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <5c13504e-6ea0-a7a4-418f-c2f8805805e0@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <005f01d1a547$4ed136d0$ec73a470$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf
Of Anders Sandberg
.


>.I think that when the history of this era is written, this list will be
mentioned as an important intellectual forum. And then people will all think
we were standing around the salon in togas, having erudite conversations.
Nobody will remember flamewars about gun rights or punfests. I suspect the
same is true for our historical writing - the Greek symposia did leave hints
in the form of messy drinking games (kottabos, anyone?).Anders

 

 

I do disagree with one comment Anders made above: future beings will loooove
the ExI punfests.  They demonstrate that the smart guys had a sense of humor
too, an aspect often neglected.  What did Newton, Maxwell, Euler, Einstein,
and the other supernovae do to have fun?  We don't know.

Remember who it was who periodically reminded us about posting goofy stuff
that would embarrass us later in life?  That was Eliezer Yudkowsky.  I never
treated the old posts seriously, always posting any silly idea that popped
into my head, always treated it like a big raucous ongoing party, never
worrying a minute about the archives and Eliezer's comment that rings in my
eyes to this day: the internet never forgets.

spike





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160503/36f4f4dd/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Tue May  3 16:03:39 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 09:03:39 -0700
Subject: [ExI] togas: was: RE: It looks like Craig Wright was Bitcoins
	creator
Message-ID: <00a001d1a555$5bf6f710$13e4e530$@att.net>



-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf
Of BillK
...

>...Just checking - wearing a toga on the list is not actually forbidden, is
it???

>...When I went to Merriam-webster to check the definition, it asked me -
'What made you want to look up a toga?'
That's rather a personal question, so I didn't reply.   :)  BillK
_______________________________________________


Too late, BillK.  You asked, the internet never forgets.  Now they know your
toga ways.

I have to wonder about all those Google searches I made over the years.  The
internet was such a breakthrough for geeks.  We were never invited to those
kinds of parties, so we generally do not know the definitions of those
mysterious but intriguing terms.  So now we look them up on Google.  Google
has no way of knowing if I am just a curious nerd or if I am really doing
all this stuff.  So now I go over to the GooglePlex in Mountain View
occasionally for lectures and things.  I keep envisioning one day I will go
on the Google campus, someone will recognize me and IT'S SPIKE!  Grab him,
boys!  

They trundle me off to some horrifying hipster party where they actually
doing all this stuff I had to look up.  Recurring nightmare.

Google knows all.  It never forgets.  I worry.

Togas are allowed on ExI-chat.  But don't ask, don't tell.

spike



From spike66 at att.net  Tue May  3 16:25:09 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 09:25:09 -0700
Subject: [ExI] togas: was RE: It looks like Craig Wright was Bitcoins creator
Message-ID: <00a701d1a558$5d1dbc70$17593550$@att.net>



-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf
Of Anders Sandberg


>...I don't think mailing lists are very good at enforcing dress codes...

Geek parties have a strict dress code.  It's just that no one has ever
figured out what it is.

>... Or do we want a list where you have to scan your attire, and Spike gets
to let you in? 

You know it must have happened, we just don't know who or where: Exi-chat
people have posted nude.  Oh the humanity.

>...Might motivate interesting dress, or un-dress as the case might be :-)
-- Anders Sandberg

Ja, it could be one of those cross-undressing things.  Perhaps it was a
fantasy where some hipster is sneaking in, signs up pretending to be an
actual geek, in full costume, nobody notices.

I am old enough to have been a nerd before geek was chic.  We are talking
back before anyone heard of the holy trinity, Jobs, Wozniak and Gates.  It
was back before you really needed actual credentials.  But as the movement
progressed, it became more difficult and demanding.  Eventually the real
hardcore types became exclusive.  You could get up a really great geek
costume, go to a gathering even without all the requisite computer and math
knowledge, try to fake it and blend it.  

There were some closed societies which became impenetrable.  They would be
those guys (always all guys in those days) hanging around in the computer
lab while a major football game was in progress on campus.  You could get up
your costume, go in, immediately be spotted.  The real geeks would point and
shout "IMPOSTOR!"  

I had to learn actual computer skills just to convince them that I too had
gone over to the dork side of the force.

spike  


_______________________________________________





From spike66 at att.net  Tue May  3 17:13:57 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 10:13:57 -0700
Subject: [ExI] spray-on armor
Message-ID: <00b601d1a55f$2e13a2d0$8a3ae870$@att.net>

 

Is this cool or what?

 

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4874598460001/new-military-spray-on-product-makes
-things-unbreakable/?#sp=show-clips

 

{8^D

 

Linex.com

 

http://www.linex.com/

 

http://quote.linex.com/?
<http://quote.linex.com/?&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=linex.co
m&utm_content=!acq!v3!23448875248_kwd-7903871396__113032457008_g_c__&utm_cam
paign=Brand+-+Exact>
&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=linex.com&utm_content=!acq!v3!234
48875248_kwd-7903871396__113032457008_g_c__&utm_campaign=Brand+-+Exact

 

Let's have some good old ExI out of the box thinking on ways to use
something like this.

 

How about non-lethal crime deterrent: bad guy messing with your whatever is
important to you, dual nozzle attached to a remote control swivel camera,
aim, mix, SHOOM!  All over the sleazy bahstid.  Ewww, what's this shit,
gross!  Runs off. 

 

Hey, that's an idea: the dual nozzles mix the epoxy resin and hardener, so
we could make it to where it intentionally mixes the two-part epoxy with
excess hardener.  You guys who have used the stuff know what epoxy hardener
smells like (if you don't, get some.  One whiff you will grok immediately.)
Mixed two parts hardener to one part resin, the epoxy sets quickly (you
could even add an additional catalyst or a foaming agent) and also it stays
sticky and stinky for a long time and is very hard to wash off.  It is
neither water-based nor oil based.  A chemical reaction has taken place
(evidence, the excess heat) so a specific solvent is not clear.  No
permanent damage befalls the bad guy.  But we could arrange to solve that
problem too perhaps.  

 

Either way, the bad guy gets scarce forthwith, and it remains obvious for
some time afterwards that his actions were met with a sincere expression of
chemical disapproval.

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160503/eabe7730/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Tue May  3 17:26:31 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 12:26:31 -0500
Subject: [ExI] togas: was RE: It looks like Craig Wright was Bitcoins
	creator
In-Reply-To: <00a701d1a558$5d1dbc70$17593550$@att.net>
References: <00a701d1a558$5d1dbc70$17593550$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEYU358gCQSDdp8RzHZRvepdH=uPwoWKdOrUqPm6a8LbVQ@mail.gmail.com>

You know it must have happened, we just don't know who or where: Exi-chat
people have posted nude.  Oh the humanity.  spike

I had my chance when I taught Fundamentals of Human Sexuality,  When I got
in several texts to consider I noticed a strange difference:  ones (I was
told) that were marketed for the South had drawings; ones for the North had
pictures.  Yeah, it's still that way.

So I managed to obtain a slide of a vulva (you can't take a picture of a
hole, can you? It's something that's not there.  Any topologists in the
crowd?) and showed it to the class, hoping that no one would go to the
dean.  I told the class that I would do the same for the male.  I could not
find such a picture, so I thought of taking my own photo.  Then I thought:
 well Bill, you are just going to arouse the girls and intimidate and shame
the boys, so you'd better not.  Did not get any flak over the vulva.
 (yeah, you're right - I wimped out)

bill w

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:25 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On
> Behalf
> Of Anders Sandberg
>
>
> >...I don't think mailing lists are very good at enforcing dress codes...
>
> Geek parties have a strict dress code.  It's just that no one has ever
> figured out what it is.
>
> >... Or do we want a list where you have to scan your attire, and Spike
> gets
> to let you in?
>
> You know it must have happened, we just don't know who or where: Exi-chat
> people have posted nude.  Oh the humanity.
>
> >...Might motivate interesting dress, or un-dress as the case might be :-)
> -- Anders Sandberg
>
> Ja, it could be one of those cross-undressing things.  Perhaps it was a
> fantasy where some hipster is sneaking in, signs up pretending to be an
> actual geek, in full costume, nobody notices.
>
> I am old enough to have been a nerd before geek was chic.  We are talking
> back before anyone heard of the holy trinity, Jobs, Wozniak and Gates.  It
> was back before you really needed actual credentials.  But as the movement
> progressed, it became more difficult and demanding.  Eventually the real
> hardcore types became exclusive.  You could get up a really great geek
> costume, go to a gathering even without all the requisite computer and math
> knowledge, try to fake it and blend it.
>
> There were some closed societies which became impenetrable.  They would be
> those guys (always all guys in those days) hanging around in the computer
> lab while a major football game was in progress on campus.  You could get
> up
> your costume, go in, immediately be spotted.  The real geeks would point
> and
> shout "IMPOSTOR!"
>
> I had to learn actual computer skills just to convince them that I too had
> gone over to the dork side of the force.
>
> spike
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160503/2a3aee67/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Tue May  3 17:38:31 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 12:38:31 -0500
Subject: [ExI] clip
In-Reply-To: <00a801d1a559$e34b72a0$a9e257e0$@att.net>
References: <CAO+xQEYFCvm5_Fw4+KirdcpYbZ0K_m0CRk6cOT6sRg6y+dVdpg@mail.gmail.com>
 <00a801d1a559$e34b72a0$a9e257e0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEb3cQ_maMG9N9V+HSmbpmGF_RNYG_Xv05hS5VdznEU=HQ@mail.gmail.com>

 I am losing hope that some enlightened leader can convince everyone that
we can all live in peace on this planet.



spike


This is not going to happen.  For one thing, that person'a religion would
be viewed by many as wrong, and certainly no atheist could get that job
done.


Give the state of the world, I think it is astounding that someone hasn't
used a nuclear bomb before now.  That gives me hope.  I don't know if
sanctions have worked in suppressing nuclear development, but hurting one's
basic economy in a significant way strikes a mean blow.  I could see the
day where preemptive bombing, not nuclear, could stop any one from
developing plutonium, or what it is that is takes to make a bomb.


I also could see a UN force being much larger and much more active in
suppressing wars, mass kidnapping and such.  Send a message that if you
take these steps we will be there and we will defeat you asap.  For
radicals, force is all they understand.


Lastly, just improving third world economies will keep radicals from having
strong support, and that is part of what is wrong with the income
differential we have now.  "Take down the fat cats" is a theme that plays
well with a big proportion of the population.


bill w

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:36 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
> BillW, this feels to me like one of those ideas which should be thoroughly
> discussed from every point of view, then not done.
>
>
>
> It is analogous to posting those videos of guys sawing off the heads of
> infidels.  I get the rationale behind it: we need to know that it happens.
> I don?t think we need to see it being done.  I sure as hell don?t.
>
>
>
> Whether we like it or not, we are descending into World War 4, over the
> name of a sizeable population?s imaginary friend.  Such a profound tragedy
> is this.  But arguing over the name of an imaginary friend has cost
> innumerable lives, has ruined a sizeable portion of the globe, has
> destroyed the prospects of so many, and I sadly admit I can only envision
> it becoming worse for the rest of my natural life.  We have much of the
> western world quietly coming to the conclusion that in some way or another,
> that entire memeset must be completely exterminated.  Those who hold the
> memeset in question have largely concluded the western world must either be
> forced to buy in or be exterminated.  I am losing hope that some
> enlightened leader can convince everyone that we can all live in peace on
> this planet.
>
>
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* William Flynn Wallace [mailto:foozler83 at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 03, 2016 8:11 AM
> *To:* spike jones <spike66 at att.net>
> *Subject:* clip
>
>
>
> Now here's something you can grab and run with.  What could be next?
> Showing assassinations in local theaters and charging admission?  My
> creativity isn't up to this one.  bill w
>
>
>
> The only thing more bizarre than the CIA hiring a social media manager is
> a social media manager thinking it would be a good idea to "live tweet
> <http://dailypnut.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=e8d181bde02154228dd7d7c0a&id=9522a4dcbf&e=595a16146c>"
> the military raid that killed Osama bin Laden as if it were happening
> today. Despite widespread criticism
> <http://dailypnut.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=e8d181bde02154228dd7d7c0a&id=f466e03a8f&e=595a16146c> and
> a little mockery, the CIA stands by the notion that pretending to relive
> such a complicated time in American history is good for internet marketing.
> They even tried to get the hashtag #UBLRaid trending, which many found
> distasteful. Sure, it was wildly inappropriate, poorly executed and a
> little disturbing, but they did succeed in driving engagement.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160503/ed8631cb/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Tue May  3 17:54:09 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 10:54:09 -0700
Subject: [ExI] clip
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEb3cQ_maMG9N9V+HSmbpmGF_RNYG_Xv05hS5VdznEU=HQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEYFCvm5_Fw4+KirdcpYbZ0K_m0CRk6cOT6sRg6y+dVdpg@mail.gmail.com>
 <00a801d1a559$e34b72a0$a9e257e0$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEb3cQ_maMG9N9V+HSmbpmGF_RNYG_Xv05hS5VdznEU=HQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D3F8D6D7-9B09-4EC9-96B1-D23E0E0E1A3B@gmail.com>

On May 3, 2016, at 10:38 AM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
>  I am losing hope that some enlightened leader can convince everyone that we can all live in peace on this planet.
>  
> spike

Why does there need to be a leader for this? Simply grow up and stop fighting.

> This is not going to happen.  For one thing, that person'a religion would be viewed by many as wrong, and certainly no atheist could get that job done.
> 
> Give the state of the world, I think it is astounding that someone hasn't used a nuclear bomb before now.  That gives me hope. 

Ever consider that maybe the Hobbesian view of the world is actually inaccurate? Maybe that's why there haven't been more nuclear wars.

> I don't know if sanctions have worked in suppressing nuclear development, but hurting one's basic economy in a significant way strikes a mean blow.  I could see the day where preemptive bombing, not nuclear, could stop any one from developing plutonium, or what it is that is takes to make a bomb.

Actually, it might be the presence of nuclear weapons that stops anyone from using them. Makes it much harder for nuclear-armed states to coerce each other, no? Look at the South Asian example. 

> I also could see a UN force being much larger and much more active in suppressing wars, mass kidnapping and such.  Send a message that if you take these steps we will be there and we will defeat you asap.  For radicals, force is all they understand.

You conflate "radicals" with "militants." And all this would amount to is whoever controls the UN -- now the US and the Security Council -- gets to mold the world to their will. That might be peaceful, but it's the peace of a prison under lockdown.

> Lastly, just improving third world economies will keep radicals from having strong support, and that is part of what is wrong with the income differential we have now.  "Take down the fat cats" is a theme that plays well with a big proportion of the population.

A bigger thing that plays to them seems to be First World militaries running amok in the Third World and First World elites supporting out of touch Third World authoritarian regimes. But let's ignore that even though it's been going on for decades or centuries.

 Regards,

Dan
  Sample my Kindle books via:
http://author.to/DanUst
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160503/3a5fdb56/attachment.html>

From sparge at gmail.com  Tue May  3 19:25:30 2016
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 15:25:30 -0400
Subject: [ExI] spray-on armor
In-Reply-To: <00b601d1a55f$2e13a2d0$8a3ae870$@att.net>
References: <00b601d1a55f$2e13a2d0$8a3ae870$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAM5aL2f1cJ=WcKpmPnPipQUV8uvLFii_xNrJt8oLsSpy+FAvbw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 1:13 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
> Is this cool or what?
>
>
>
>
> http://video.foxnews.com/v/4874598460001/new-military-spray-on-product-makes-things-unbreakable/?#sp=show-clips
>
>
>
> {8^D
>
>
>
> Linex.com
>
>
>
> http://www.linex.com/
>

Yeah, it lines the bed of my truck. Incredibly tough. The downside of the
unbreakable melon and the bouncing egg is that you can't really get to the
food inside. :-)


> How about non-lethal crime deterrent: bad guy messing with your whatever
> is important to you, dual nozzle attached to a remote control swivel
> camera, aim, mix, SHOOM!  All over the sleazy bahstid.  Ewww, what?s this
> shit, gross!  Runs off.
>

There's already that super foul-smelling stuff used for crowd control:

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2015/08/20/latest-in-non-lethals-stink-bomb-for-crowd-control.html

it could also be used for home defense, I suppose.

Hey, that?s an idea: the dual nozzles mix the epoxy resin and hardener, so
> we could make it to where it intentionally mixes the two-part epoxy with
> excess hardener.  You guys who have used the stuff know what epoxy hardener
> smells like (if you don?t, get some.  One whiff you will grok
> immediately.)  Mixed two parts hardener to one part resin, the epoxy sets
> quickly (you could even add an additional catalyst or a foaming agent) and
> also it stays sticky and stinky for a long time and is very hard to wash
> off.  It is neither water-based nor oil based.  A chemical reaction has
> taken place (evidence, the excess heat) so a specific solvent is not
> clear.  No permanent damage befalls the bad guy.
>

Seems like suffication or eye damage would be potential downsides.

Either way, the bad guy gets scarce forthwith, and it remains obvious for
> some time afterwards that his actions were met with a sincere expression of
> chemical disapproval.
>

It's interesting, but I wonder what the legal implications are.

-Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160503/07b03b8a/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Tue May  3 20:05:36 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 15:05:36 -0500
Subject: [ExI] adhd, creativity, memory types
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEYc9K8pUEcTsedoxtKsKBcvA+NyyEBHa99Tzc0Zo+0b1g@mail.gmail.com>

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-creative-gifts-of-adhd/?WT.mc_id=SA_HLTH_20160503

My daughter thinks we all have it:  me, her, my two sons, and her son and
daughter.  Maybe borderline.  I never was sensation-seeking/ extrovert.

Anyway, interesting.  You might find a bit of yourself here as you were
back in school.  The way this diagnosis have grown it'd not be surprising
that some of us would have been diagnoses.

Anders, what's the situation in the UK?  Increasing diagnosis and treatment
of ADHD?  Many think it's just a fad and only the extreme need diagnosis
and treatment.

bill w
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160503/f95b2379/attachment.html>

From sparge at gmail.com  Tue May  3 20:13:34 2016
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 16:13:34 -0400
Subject: [ExI] adhd, creativity, memory types
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEYc9K8pUEcTsedoxtKsKBcvA+NyyEBHa99Tzc0Zo+0b1g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEYc9K8pUEcTsedoxtKsKBcvA+NyyEBHa99Tzc0Zo+0b1g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM5aL2eks1=zrsdjehUEhvDx1PsiV046UoV5atP6FoHhjzk-7A@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 4:05 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Many think it's just a fad and only the extreme need diagnosis and
> treatment.
>

I don't think it's a fad but I think it's overdiagnosed and overmedicated.

-Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160503/8e1145c3/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Tue May  3 21:12:54 2016
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 22:12:54 +0100
Subject: [ExI] spray-on armor
In-Reply-To: <00b601d1a55f$2e13a2d0$8a3ae870$@att.net>
References: <00b601d1a55f$2e13a2d0$8a3ae870$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAL_armgKnAcoqy2qwjVJg_+5ksM2VRT3n6K4CScJiTJ1N5US1w@mail.gmail.com>

On 3 May 2016 at 18:13, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> Is this cool or what?
> http://video.foxnews.com/v/4874598460001/new-military-spray-on-product-makes-things-unbreakable/?#sp=show-clips
>
<snip>
>
> spike


At first I thought you meant this new metal foam that vaporises bullets.....

Watch This Block Of Foam Utterly Vaporize A Bullet
<http://uproxx.com/gammasquad/composite-metal-foam/>

Metal foam obliterates bullets ? and that's just the beginning
<http://phys.org/news/2016-04-metal-foam-obliterates-bullets.html>

Iron Man gets nearer!

BillK



From ddraig at gmail.com  Wed May  4 00:31:07 2016
From: ddraig at gmail.com (ddraig)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 10:31:07 +1000
Subject: [ExI] It looks like Craig Wright was Bitcoins creator
In-Reply-To: <5c13504e-6ea0-a7a4-418f-c2f8805805e0@aleph.se>
References: <CAJPayv2RJCSBvpQ9ZR29M-XxzNJRhv6awmSF83+yKB7SgVUOOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGfkSy1aBtu6n5M=Z_g8y0o5zxqsq-b9f5W6bSS_W8n29fkX4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <5c13504e-6ea0-a7a4-418f-c2f8805805e0@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAGfkSy0v88XD8ybpTp8xWTbahZKs8=o7JUpbecGzZARHze462A@mail.gmail.com>

On 3 May 2016 at 16:56, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> On 2016-05-03 02:59, ddraig wrote:
>
>
> Then again I sometimes feel a large proportion of the more interesting
> people on the internet have been on this list at one point or another.
>
>
> I think that when the history of this era is written, this list will be
> mentioned as an important intellectual forum. And then people will all
> think we were standing around the salon in togas, having erudite
> conversations. Nobody will remember flamewars about gun rights or punfests.
> I suspect the same is true for our historical writing - the Greek symposia
> did leave hints in the form of messy drinking games (kottabos, anyone?)
>


Also you have to remember that very little of ancient history comes to us
directly, it comes via various recopyings and translations, with many
opportunities for fanboys to rewrite things to make the OP sound more
interesting, noble, etc. I was reading 'Black Swan' by Nassim Taleb this
morning, and he says "we only have a single contemporary reference to Jesus
of Nazareth - in 'The Jewish Wars of Josephus' - which may itself have been
added later by a devout copyist".


Who knows how impressive we will look to future internet historians?  I'm
hoping they'll clean up my grammar and include at least passing reference
to my habit of going out with supermodels.


Dwayne
-- 
  ddraig at pobox.com irc.bluesphereweb.com #dna
         ...r.e.t.u.r.n....t.o....t.h.e....s.o.u.r.c.e...
        http://tinyurl.com/he-is-right-you-know-jpg
our aim is wakefulness,  our enemy is dreamless sleep
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160504/065fbc29/attachment.html>

From col.hales at gmail.com  Wed May  4 00:51:57 2016
From: col.hales at gmail.com (Colin Hales)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 10:51:57 +1000
Subject: [ExI] It looks like Craig Wright was Bitcoins creator
In-Reply-To: <5c13504e-6ea0-a7a4-418f-c2f8805805e0@aleph.se>
References: <CAJPayv2RJCSBvpQ9ZR29M-XxzNJRhv6awmSF83+yKB7SgVUOOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGfkSy1aBtu6n5M=Z_g8y0o5zxqsq-b9f5W6bSS_W8n29fkX4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <5c13504e-6ea0-a7a4-418f-c2f8805805e0@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAGHyZJkV6uECCL_E_tdw82GmWTnuPgY7cKQBW8XepNXGnN6bnA@mail.gmail.com>

Hal Finney died? :-(
I remember him here.
The bitcoin connection ... wow.


On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> On 2016-05-03 02:59, ddraig wrote:
>
>
> Hal Finney - isn't he on, or used to be on, this list?  The name looks
> familiar...
>
>
> Yup, he was here. A good contributor, and his bitcoins actually paid for
> his cryosuspension.
>
> Then again I sometimes feel a large proportion of the more interesting
> people on the internet have been on this list at one point or another.
>
>
> I think that when the history of this era is written, this list will be
> mentioned as an important intellectual forum. And then people will all
> think we were standing around the salon in togas, having erudite
> conversations. Nobody will remember flamewars about gun rights or punfests.
> I suspect the same is true for our historical writing - the Greek symposia
> did leave hints in the form of messy drinking games (kottabos, anyone?)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160504/0afee44c/attachment.html>

From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Wed May  4 05:41:40 2016
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 22:41:40 -0700
Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 152, Issue 3
Message-ID: <CAPiwVB4JmiE9uNyaKkngtg4UwV-z+GJhTOEMDgW4P-mdpSZtmw@mail.gmail.com>

> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:36 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

snip

>> Whether we like it or not, we are descending into World War 4, over the
>> name of a sizeable population?s imaginary friend.  Such a profound tragedy
>> is this.  But arguing over the name of an imaginary friend has cost
>> innumerable lives, has ruined a sizeable portion of the globe, has
>> destroyed the prospects of so many, and I sadly admit I can only envision
>> it becoming worse for the rest of my natural life.  We have much of the
>> western world quietly coming to the conclusion that in some way or another,
>> that entire memeset must be completely exterminated.  Those who hold the
>> memeset in question have largely concluded the western world must either be
>> forced to buy in or be exterminated.  I am losing hope that some
>> enlightened leader can convince everyone that we can all live in peace on
>> this planet.

Spike, while there are evolutionary forces that cause people to select
irrational, no, batshit crazy, people for leaders in some situations,
there is nothing to cause people to select "enlightened leaders."

There is an obvious way for people to live in peace.  I would point
you to my article now several years old, but it was on a web site that
went down this last week and is not likely to come back.

It's really annoying to understand why things are looking so awful and
for that very understanding to block hope that things will get better.

Keith


From danust2012 at gmail.com  Wed May  4 07:10:07 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 00:10:07 -0700
Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 152, Issue 3
In-Reply-To: <CAPiwVB4JmiE9uNyaKkngtg4UwV-z+GJhTOEMDgW4P-mdpSZtmw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB4JmiE9uNyaKkngtg4UwV-z+GJhTOEMDgW4P-mdpSZtmw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <65269B6F-EBA6-4604-BCBF-1EF5F4F71C6D@gmail.com>

On May 3, 2016, at 10:41 PM, Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:36 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> 
> snip
> 
>>> Whether we like it or not, we are descending into World War 4, over the
>>> name of a sizeable population?s imaginary friend.  Such a profound tragedy
>>> is this.  But arguing over the name of an imaginary friend has cost
>>> innumerable lives, has ruined a sizeable portion of the globe, has
>>> destroyed the prospects of so many, and I sadly admit I can only envision
>>> it becoming worse for the rest of my natural life.  We have much of the
>>> western world quietly coming to the conclusion that in some way or another,
>>> that entire memeset must be completely exterminated.  Those who hold the
>>> memeset in question have largely concluded the western world must either be
>>> forced to buy in or be exterminated.  I am losing hope that some
>>> enlightened leader can convince everyone that we can all live in peace on
>>> this planet.
> 
> Spike, while there are evolutionary forces that cause people to select
> irrational, no, batshit crazy, people for leaders in some situations,
> there is nothing to cause people to select "enlightened leaders."
> 
> There is an obvious way for people to live in peace.  I would point
> you to my article now several years old, but it was on a web site that
> went down this last week and is not likely to come back.
> 
> It's really annoying to understand why things are looking so awful and
> for that very understanding to block hope that things will get better.

I don't see what Spike sees at all. Religious militants are a tiny subset and have very little power and a tiny ability to do harm. The harm they do dies grab headlines but it's incredibly small. World War 4?! This is minuscule compared to even the Cold War threat of a large scale nuclear exchange. The threat which never happened -- mainly it seems because the Soviets were more interesting in staying in power than risking it all on world revolution. (Similarly, most "enemy" regimes are fairly rational when it comes to survival.) Wake up! The world seems incredibly less dangerous today. You're far less likely to die a violent death of any kind -- and a terrorist attack is very low on the least of even these. (According to one source, you're more likely to be shot by a toddler than a terrorist in the US.;) Not totally safe, but from Spike's talk you'd think ISIS was sweeping through South California. (Not trying to pick on you here, Spike, but turn off the TV or stop reading the news feeds for a few weeks. And stop listening to chicken little colleagues who would do better to hide under the bed and shake if they're only going to spread fear for fear's sake.;)

Regards,

Dan
  Sample my Kindle books via:
http://author.to/DanUst
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160504/602dca6c/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Wed May  4 13:43:22 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 06:43:22 -0700
Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 152, Issue 3
In-Reply-To: <65269B6F-EBA6-4604-BCBF-1EF5F4F71C6D@gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB4JmiE9uNyaKkngtg4UwV-z+GJhTOEMDgW4P-mdpSZtmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <65269B6F-EBA6-4604-BCBF-1EF5F4F71C6D@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <004701d1a60a$edddb9b0$c9992d10$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan
?

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:36 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net> > wrote:


snip




>>?Whether we like it or not, we are descending into World War 4?destroyed the prospects of so many, and I sadly admit I can only envision it becoming worse ?

 

>?I don't see what Spike sees at all. Religious militants are a tiny subset and have very little power and a tiny ability to do harm. The harm they do dies grab headlines but it's incredibly small. World War 4?! ?Regards,  Dan

 

 

Dan I am looking out about 50 years when these memes are the voting majorities in several European states.  For now, we are OK.  Sure the minority is small, and we might be able to win the memetic battle.  But if it destroys schools starting where schools are easiest to destroy, Africa, then continues to pour into Europe while breeding there as well, it isn?t clear to me who wins.  

 

What happens when laws start passing which forbid alcohol in France?

 

spike  

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160504/0289e5de/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Wed May  4 15:43:20 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 08:43:20 -0700
Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 152, Issue 3
In-Reply-To: <004701d1a60a$edddb9b0$c9992d10$@att.net>
References: <CAPiwVB4JmiE9uNyaKkngtg4UwV-z+GJhTOEMDgW4P-mdpSZtmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <65269B6F-EBA6-4604-BCBF-1EF5F4F71C6D@gmail.com>
 <004701d1a60a$edddb9b0$c9992d10$@att.net>
Message-ID: <FA536C59-6D71-4C15-A016-688578A6F0F5@gmail.com>

On May 4, 2016, at 6:43 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote: 
> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan
> ?
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:36 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> 
> snip
> 
> 
> >>?Whether we like it or not, we are descending into World War 4?destroyed the prospects of so many, and I sadly admit I can only envision it becoming worse ?
>  
> >?I don't see what Spike sees at all. Religious militants are a tiny subset and have very little power and a tiny ability to do harm. The harm they do dies grab headlines but it's incredibly small. World War 4?! ?Regards,  Dan
>  
>  
> Dan I am looking out about 50 years when these memes are the voting majorities in several European states.  For now, we are OK.  Sure the minority is small, and we might be able to win the memetic battle.  But if it destroys schools starting where schools are easiest to destroy, Africa, then continues to pour into Europe while breeding there as well, it isn?t clear to me who wins. 
>  
> What happens when laws start passing which forbid alcohol in France?

How come Latinos, which have had decades of immigration into the US (let's not mention that a huge chunk of the US was once Mexico), haven't changed the legal system to the Civil Law one prevalent in Latin American countries? I find such fears unfounded.

All of this fear fits the pattern of previous immigration fears. In the US, for example, fear of Germans and Swedes (yes, and by Ben Franklin no less), the Irish, then Italians and Poles. The narrative was always this new group would move in, outbreed the good red blooded Americans, vote its way into control, and destroy the culture. (Heck, with alcohol in the US, it was fear of German and Irish drinking cultures, though American elites had a fear of anyone having fun dating back to Puritan times.) 

See also Bryan Caplan on the hardy weed that is Western civilization:

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/06/a_hardy_week_ho.html

Regards,

Dan
  Sample my Kindle books via:
http://author.to/DanUst
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160504/6cbcefa4/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Wed May  4 15:55:19 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 10:55:19 -0500
Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 152, Issue 3
In-Reply-To: <004701d1a60a$edddb9b0$c9992d10$@att.net>
References: <CAPiwVB4JmiE9uNyaKkngtg4UwV-z+GJhTOEMDgW4P-mdpSZtmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <65269B6F-EBA6-4604-BCBF-1EF5F4F71C6D@gmail.com>
 <004701d1a60a$edddb9b0$c9992d10$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEasS=VnBjU6dE5dopLSXte_1=RdWs3KiohD+9=9TDWSQQ@mail.gmail.com>

What happens when laws start passing which forbid alcohol in France?
spike

Just what happened when states or counties became dry - bootlegging.  Laws
against pot don't seem that effective, eh?  Biggest cash crop in many
places.

Here is the definitive answer and you need go no further:

We will be saved by business.  If China and the US would go to war it would
destroy each other's economy.  The more the world gets connected by
business, the internet, and so on, the more it will get less hostile.
Negative correlation.   I agree with the 'terrorism is a tiny part' of what
we are now.  Yes, they could explode an atom bomb, but that would not
change the power of business.

(One billion Muslims don't seem to be that interested in throwing their
weight around.)

So, while 'the love of money is the root of all evil' is true to a certain
extent, it is also the basis of all societies in some sense.  Who says you
can't buy happiness?  Or at least rent it for awhile?  (Remembering Terry
Pratchett's 'negotiable affection' here)

bill w

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 8:43 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Dan TheBookMan
> *?*
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:36 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
>
> snip
>
>
> >>?Whether we like it or not, we are descending into World War 4?destroyed
> the prospects of so many, and I sadly admit I can only envision it becoming
> worse ?
>
>
>
> >?I don't see what Spike sees at all. Religious militants are a tiny
> subset and have very little power and a tiny ability to do harm. The harm
> they do dies grab headlines but it's incredibly small. World War 4?!
> ?Regards,  Dan
>
>
>
>
>
> Dan I am looking out about 50 years when these memes are the voting
> majorities in several European states.  For now, we are OK.  Sure the
> minority is small, and we might be able to win the memetic battle.  But if
> it destroys schools starting where schools are easiest to destroy, Africa,
> then continues to pour into Europe while breeding there as well, it isn?t
> clear to me who wins.
>
>
>
> What happens when laws start passing which forbid alcohol in France?
>
>
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160504/6cdc320c/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Wed May  4 16:55:12 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 09:55:12 -0700
Subject: [ExI] relationships with money, was:  RE:  extropy-chat Digest,
	Vol 152, Issue 3
Message-ID: <004f01d1a625$b9d94600$2d8bd200$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace
?

 

So, while 'the love of money is the root of all evil' is true to a certain extent, it is also the basis of all societies in some sense.  Who says you can't buy happiness?  Or at least rent it for awhile?  (Remembering Terry Pratchett's 'negotiable affection' here)

 

bill w

 

 

 

BillW, that meme is the longest-standing typo in history.  It should have read ?The lack of money is the root of all evil.?

 

Think about it.  That version works better, ja?  I have always loved money, even before I had any.  Never made me the least bit evil.  Over the years as I have come to own more money, I have become a kinder, gentler, more generous sort.  The correlation is striking.

 

But ja, you damn sure can buy happiness (or at least a really good look-alike for it) you can rent it, you can buy it for others, we can create jobs, start businesses which make cool fun stuff, we can solve all kinds of problems with money.  When it comes to money in the right hands (such as? mine), some is good, more is better, too much is just right.

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160504/1d54ab58/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Wed May  4 17:34:06 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 12:34:06 -0500
Subject: [ExI] relationships with money, was: RE: extropy-chat Digest,
 Vol 152, Issue 3
In-Reply-To: <004f01d1a625$b9d94600$2d8bd200$@att.net>
References: <004f01d1a625$b9d94600$2d8bd200$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEYu3-4x2ycAT55CVFpVjoxnhFdV3BUJbUVRPAPtGxGfJg@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 11:55 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On
> Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace
> *?*
>
>
>
> So, while 'the love of money is the root of all evil' is true to a certain
> extent, it is also the basis of all societies in some sense.  Who says you
> can't buy happiness?  Or at least rent it for awhile?  (Remembering Terry
> Pratchett's 'negotiable affection' here)
>
>
>
> bill w
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> BillW, that meme is the longest-standing typo in history.  It should have
> read ?The lack of money is the root of all evil.?
>
>
>
> Think about it.  That version works better, ja?  I have always loved
> money, even before I had any.  Never made me the least bit evil.  Over the
> years as I have come to own more money, I have become a kinder, gentler,
> more generous sort.  The correlation is striking.
>
>
>
> But ja, you damn sure can buy happiness (or at least a really good
> look-alike for it) you can rent it, you can buy it for others, we can
> create jobs, start businesses which make cool fun stuff, we can solve all
> kinds of problems with money.  When it comes to money in the right hands
> (such as? mine), some is good, more is better, too much is just right.
>
>
>
> spike
>

?I dunno, I think the quote is from the Bible - not a typo.  Your version
works well, but a lot of evil comes from having too much.  It makes people
think that they are right and others are wrong just because of their
wealth.  They start to preach on social and moral issues, for instance.
And buy politicians.

bill w?


>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160504/25588c37/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Wed May  4 17:50:16 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 10:50:16 -0700
Subject: [ExI] relationships with money, was: RE: extropy-chat Digest,
	Vol 152, Issue 3
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEYu3-4x2ycAT55CVFpVjoxnhFdV3BUJbUVRPAPtGxGfJg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <004f01d1a625$b9d94600$2d8bd200$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEYu3-4x2ycAT55CVFpVjoxnhFdV3BUJbUVRPAPtGxGfJg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9820C1B2-61C2-44BC-95B7-A688F2B55206@gmail.com>

On May 4, 2016, at 10:34 AM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
> ?I dunno, I think the quote is from the Bible - not a typo. 

The Bible quote is usually translated as the _love_ of money is the root of all evil. But that's in one epistle. I would think Christian theologians wouldn't home in on money, but probably pride or denial of god -- or something like that being truly the root of all evil. (My guess. I'm neither a Christian or a theological expert.)

> Your version works well, but a lot of evil comes from having too much. 

How much is too much? One can simply give it away if one feels one has too much, but this too much is mostly a subjective judgment, no? Sure, some people wallow in consumption, but, again, how much is too much? How is that decided? What's the standard here? What happens if someone exceeds it? Do we take their money?

> It makes people think that they are right and others are wrong just because of their wealth. 

Sure, though preachy moralist types are not found only amongst the rich. I've met many a person of little wealth who is ready to tell me and everyone else how to live our lives and would seem not to mind dictating their preferences if they have the power.

> They start to preach on social and moral issues, for instance.  And buy politicians.  

The solution there seems painfully obvious: don't have politicians to be bought in the first place.

Regards,

Dan
  Sample my Kindle books via:
http://author.to/DanUst


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160504/ce793c65/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Wed May  4 18:04:22 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 11:04:22 -0700
Subject: [ExI] relationships with money, was: RE: extropy-chat Digest,
	Vol 152, Issue 3
In-Reply-To: <9820C1B2-61C2-44BC-95B7-A688F2B55206@gmail.com>
References: <004f01d1a625$b9d94600$2d8bd200$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEYu3-4x2ycAT55CVFpVjoxnhFdV3BUJbUVRPAPtGxGfJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <9820C1B2-61C2-44BC-95B7-A688F2B55206@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <002501d1a62f$63b0a610$2b11f230$@att.net>

 

 

On May 4, 2016, at 10:34 AM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com <mailto:foozler83 at gmail.com> > wrote:

?

>?I dunno, I think the quote is from the Bible - not a typo?

 

OK so it is more of write-o, since it predates keyboards and Microsloth?s autocorrect. 

 

>?They start to preach on social and moral issues, for instance.  And buy politicians.

 

Ja, that whole process kicks into high gear now.  We yanks have before us a clear demonstration how any politician can collect arbitrary sums from anyone for any purpose: set up a family ?charity,? funnel money through a Canadian ?charity? which removes the identity of individual donors and their nationality, then ?donates? the funds to the politician?s family ?charity? in the states.

 

This is all kinda sorta gray-area legal-ish once the politician gets high enough ranking, or has already gotten away with enough other stuff to establish immunity.

 

Ja?

 

spike

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160504/12dd9aea/attachment.html>

From sparge at gmail.com  Wed May  4 18:16:13 2016
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 14:16:13 -0400
Subject: [ExI] relationships with money, was: RE: extropy-chat Digest,
 Vol 152, Issue 3
In-Reply-To: <9820C1B2-61C2-44BC-95B7-A688F2B55206@gmail.com>
References: <004f01d1a625$b9d94600$2d8bd200$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEYu3-4x2ycAT55CVFpVjoxnhFdV3BUJbUVRPAPtGxGfJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <9820C1B2-61C2-44BC-95B7-A688F2B55206@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM5aL2edWC33_UfKizMtk5FWB3sT_KXj0=JaFtdp6dw=Oj_BWg@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 4, 2016, at 10:34 AM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Your version works well, but a lot of evil comes from having too much.
>
>
> How much is too much? One can simply give it away if one feels one has too
> much, but this too much is mostly a subjective judgment, no? Sure, some
> people wallow in consumption, but, again, how much is too much? How is that
> decided? What's the standard here? What happens if someone exceeds it? Do
> we take their money?
>

Money is power and power corrupts. No, I don't know the answer.

-Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160504/7f283343/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Wed May  4 18:32:12 2016
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 19:32:12 +0100
Subject: [ExI] relationships with money, was: RE: extropy-chat Digest,
 Vol 152, Issue 3
In-Reply-To: <9820C1B2-61C2-44BC-95B7-A688F2B55206@gmail.com>
References: <004f01d1a625$b9d94600$2d8bd200$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEYu3-4x2ycAT55CVFpVjoxnhFdV3BUJbUVRPAPtGxGfJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <9820C1B2-61C2-44BC-95B7-A688F2B55206@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAL_armgQTnb94zt_GhFLNvLK_nyX3OgXRE=ZKY9bdpGpaaOb0Q@mail.gmail.com>

On 4 May 2016 at 18:50, Dan TheBookMan  wrote:
> The Bible quote is usually translated as the _love_ of money is the root of
> all evil. But that's in one epistle. I would think Christian theologians
> wouldn't home in on money, but probably pride or denial of god -- or
> something like that being truly the root of all evil. (My guess. I'm neither
> a Christian or a theological expert.)
>

Best translation:-
1 Timothy 6:10    For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil.

As with all quotations (Bible, et al.) context is needed to get at the
original meaning.
Paul was giving advice to Timothy about early preachers who were
teaching that if you followed Christianity God would reward you and
make you wealthy in this life. Paul was opposing this teaching and
emphasising faith and love and spiritual rewards. Seeking money was
descriibed as leading people astray from the faith.


BillK


From spike66 at att.net  Wed May  4 18:55:56 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 11:55:56 -0700
Subject: [ExI] relationships with money, was: RE: extropy-chat Digest,
	Vol 152, Issue 3
In-Reply-To: <CAM5aL2edWC33_UfKizMtk5FWB3sT_KXj0=JaFtdp6dw=Oj_BWg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <004f01d1a625$b9d94600$2d8bd200$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEYu3-4x2ycAT55CVFpVjoxnhFdV3BUJbUVRPAPtGxGfJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <9820C1B2-61C2-44BC-95B7-A688F2B55206@gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2edWC33_UfKizMtk5FWB3sT_KXj0=JaFtdp6dw=Oj_BWg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <002c01d1a636$97df8cb0$c79ea610$@att.net>

 

 

 

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com <mailto:danust2012 at gmail.com> > wrote:

 

>?How much is too much? One can simply give it away if one feels one has too much, but this too much is mostly a subjective judgment, no? Sure, some people wallow in consumption, but, again, how much is too much? How is that decided? What's the standard here? What happens if someone exceeds it? Do we take their money?  Dan

 

 

 

Hi Dan, for those who live outside the USA, I perhaps should remind them of how of how our legal system works in the USA.  If a group of people participate in a felony as a group, then any person in that group is slain in the commission of that felony, (including perishing by gunshot wound fired by the victim) then every member of that group is charged and most likely convicted of murder 1.

 

In light of that fact, the answer to question:  Do we take their money? I would suggest, eh? no.  Definitely, no, unless every member of that ?we? is ready to do life in the big house.

 

spike

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160504/99d341b3/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Wed May  4 19:34:00 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 14:34:00 -0500
Subject: [ExI] relationships with money, was: RE: extropy-chat Digest,
 Vol 152, Issue 3
In-Reply-To: <002c01d1a636$97df8cb0$c79ea610$@att.net>
References: <004f01d1a625$b9d94600$2d8bd200$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEYu3-4x2ycAT55CVFpVjoxnhFdV3BUJbUVRPAPtGxGfJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <9820C1B2-61C2-44BC-95B7-A688F2B55206@gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2edWC33_UfKizMtk5FWB3sT_KXj0=JaFtdp6dw=Oj_BWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <002c01d1a636$97df8cb0$c79ea610$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEaDK44NJ=6hb3bWC=JKCyPqeNYtx6jBau__5s157gjh2g@mail.gmail.com>

In light of that fact, the answer to question:  Do we take their money? I
would suggest, eh? no.  Definitely, no, unless every member of that ?we? is
ready to do life in the big house.
spike

Oh we do take their money - progressive taxes.  As for Dan's 'solution',
stop having politicians that are bought, I beg answers to how to accomplish
that.  It seems that a bit of larceny is built into humans.  Will robots
running AI be as corruptible?  (what use does a robot have for money?  I
can think of many things and probably Spike a lot more!)

bill w

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 1:55 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >?How much is too much? One can simply give it away if one feels one has
> too much, but this too much is mostly a subjective judgment, no? Sure, some
> people wallow in consumption, but, again, how much is too much? How is that
> decided? What's the standard here? What happens if someone exceeds it? Do
> we take their money?  Dan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Dan, for those who live outside the USA, I perhaps should remind them
> of how of how our legal system works in the USA.  If a group of people
> participate in a felony as a group, then any person in that group is slain
> in the commission of that felony, (including perishing by gunshot wound
> fired by the victim) then every member of that group is charged and most
> likely convicted of murder 1.
>
>
>
> In light of that fact, the answer to question:  Do we take their money? I
> would suggest, eh? no.  Definitely, no, unless every member of that ?we? is
> ready to do life in the big house.
>
>
>
> spike
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160504/2a106876/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Wed May  4 20:27:23 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 13:27:23 -0700
Subject: [ExI] relationships with money, was: RE: extropy-chat Digest,
	Vol 152, Issue 3
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEaDK44NJ=6hb3bWC=JKCyPqeNYtx6jBau__5s157gjh2g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <004f01d1a625$b9d94600$2d8bd200$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEYu3-4x2ycAT55CVFpVjoxnhFdV3BUJbUVRPAPtGxGfJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <9820C1B2-61C2-44BC-95B7-A688F2B55206@gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2edWC33_UfKizMtk5FWB3sT_KXj0=JaFtdp6dw=Oj_BWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <002c01d1a636$97df8cb0$c79ea610$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEaDK44NJ=6hb3bWC=JKCyPqeNYtx6jBau__5s157gjh2g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <006801d1a643$5e6ee2c0$1b4ca840$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace
Subject: Re: [ExI] relationships with money, was: RE: extropy-chat Digest, Vol 152, Issue 3

 

>>?In light of that fact, the answer to question:  Do we take their money? I would suggest, eh? no.  Definitely, no, unless every member of that ?we? is ready to do life in the big house.

spike

 

>?Oh we do take their money - progressive taxes?

 

Ja, but this conflates two different concepts: money owned and money in the process of being made.  The way the US 16th amendment was intentionally structured, the Fed can only tax earnings, not what you have.  The question was asked about having a certain amount, which the Federal government doesn?t even get to know, never mind take.

 

In light of that, listen carefully to the rhetoric of our current leading US presidential candidates, while struggling to ignore the obvious question: Sheesh a third of a billion yanks, are these yahoos the REALLY the best we can do?  Can we have a do-over on the primaries if we throw out all the current contenders?

 

No.  OK, so listen to the rhetoric concerning the oft-repeated catch-phrase ?millionezzz and billionezzz? and ask yourself what has that to do with tax structures?  Nothing.  The tax code and those forms we fill out have no line asking what we own, only what we made last year.  

 

The constitutional amendment legalizing income taxation was specifically structured that way, to not take into account current possessions.  If that whole notion ever comes into question, capital flees in all directions at once, in completely unstoppable and undetectable ways.  We look around the next day and realize that everything is broke and in debt beyond all recognition.

 

 

>?As for Dan's 'solution', stop having politicians that are bought, I beg answers to how to accomplish that? bill w

 

That I may be able to answer once I see how this country deals with a glaring example of a politician setting up the infrastructure to be bought anonymously and legally (never mind the question of whether this particular politician was or was not bought, this particular politician set up everything needed to carry it out.)  

 

So what do we do there?  Is it analogous to that eccentric old guy down the street who has several hundred military-grade rifles, assault weapons as they are sometimes called, and half a million rounds of ammo?  That?s all legal (in most US states), he hasn?t committed any crime with that collection or arsenal.  But he damn sure could if he chose to, and we are wary of that guy, ja?  He has empowered himself.  We know he has enabled himself to go shoot up the local school or theatre.  Dare we ask what religion he follows, or is that too un-PC?  Would it matter?

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160504/7412f41c/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Wed May  4 20:46:59 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 15:46:59 -0500
Subject: [ExI] relationships with money, was: RE: extropy-chat Digest,
 Vol 152, Issue 3
In-Reply-To: <006801d1a643$5e6ee2c0$1b4ca840$@att.net>
References: <004f01d1a625$b9d94600$2d8bd200$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEYu3-4x2ycAT55CVFpVjoxnhFdV3BUJbUVRPAPtGxGfJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <9820C1B2-61C2-44BC-95B7-A688F2B55206@gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2edWC33_UfKizMtk5FWB3sT_KXj0=JaFtdp6dw=Oj_BWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <002c01d1a636$97df8cb0$c79ea610$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEaDK44NJ=6hb3bWC=JKCyPqeNYtx6jBau__5s157gjh2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <006801d1a643$5e6ee2c0$1b4ca840$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEYvnU44FAjerpBQ_Wbpdo6XRRvHHnTxjkXSyOUsO1pCZw@mail.gmail.com>

So what do we do there?  Is it analogous to that eccentric old guy down the
street who has several hundred military-grade rifles, assault weapons as
they are sometimes called, and half a million rounds of ammo?  That?s all
legal (in most US states), he hasn?t committed any crime with that
collection or arsenal.  But he damn sure could if he chose to, and we are
wary of that guy, ja?  He has empowered himself.  We know he has enabled
himself to go shoot up the local school or theatre.  Dare we ask what
religion he follows, or is that too un-PC?  Would it matter?
spike

I am not sure what point you are making here.  Certainly for the Southern
third of the country it's highly likely to be Christian and tending toward
skinhead white power KKK in addition to some real paranoids who expect
confiscation to happen any day now.

Given my ignorance of finances I wonder what would happen if the US passed
a law against using non-US banks?  Nowhere to hide money.  I know the feds
got some action from the Swiss on anonymous accounts held by Americans.

I also don't follow the capital fleeing idea, but it doesn't matter.

bill w

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 3:27 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On
> Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace
> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] relationships with money, was: RE: extropy-chat
> Digest, Vol 152, Issue 3
>
>
>
> >>?In light of that fact, the answer to question:  Do we take their
> money? I would suggest, eh? no.  Definitely, no, unless every member of
> that ?we? is ready to do life in the big house.
>
> spike
>
>
>
> >?Oh we do take their money - progressive taxes?
>
>
>
> Ja, but this conflates two different concepts: money owned and money in
> the process of being made.  The way the US 16th amendment was
> intentionally structured, the Fed can only tax earnings, not what you
> have.  The question was asked about having a certain amount, which the
> Federal government doesn?t even get to know, never mind take.
>
>
>
> In light of that, listen carefully to the rhetoric of our current leading
> US presidential candidates, while struggling to ignore the obvious
> question: Sheesh a third of a billion yanks, are these yahoos the REALLY
> the best we can do?  Can we have a do-over on the primaries if we throw out
> all the current contenders?
>
>
>
> No.  OK, so listen to the rhetoric concerning the oft-repeated
> catch-phrase ?millionezzz and billionezzz? and ask yourself what has that
> to do with tax structures?  Nothing.  The tax code and those forms we fill
> out have no line asking what we own, only what we made last year.
>
>
>
> The constitutional amendment legalizing income taxation was specifically
> structured that way, to not take into account current possessions.  If that
> whole notion ever comes into question, capital flees in all directions at
> once, in completely unstoppable and undetectable ways.  We look around the
> next day and realize that everything is broke and in debt beyond all
> recognition.
>
>
>
>
>
> >?As for Dan's 'solution', stop having politicians that are bought, I beg
> answers to how to accomplish that? bill w
>
>
>
> That I may be able to answer once I see how this country deals with a
> glaring example of a politician setting up the infrastructure to be bought
> anonymously and legally (never mind the question of whether this particular
> politician was or was not bought, this particular politician set up
> everything needed to carry it out.)
>
>
>
> So what do we do there?  Is it analogous to that eccentric old guy down
> the street who has several hundred military-grade rifles, assault weapons
> as they are sometimes called, and half a million rounds of ammo?  That?s
> all legal (in most US states), he hasn?t committed any crime with that
> collection or arsenal.  But he damn sure could if he chose to, and we are
> wary of that guy, ja?  He has empowered himself.  We know he has enabled
> himself to go shoot up the local school or theatre.  Dare we ask what
> religion he follows, or is that too un-PC?  Would it matter?
>
>
>
> spike
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160504/76625f26/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Wed May  4 22:28:15 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 15:28:15 -0700
Subject: [ExI] relationships with money
In-Reply-To: <002c01d1a636$97df8cb0$c79ea610$@att.net>
References: <004f01d1a625$b9d94600$2d8bd200$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEYu3-4x2ycAT55CVFpVjoxnhFdV3BUJbUVRPAPtGxGfJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <9820C1B2-61C2-44BC-95B7-A688F2B55206@gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2edWC33_UfKizMtk5FWB3sT_KXj0=JaFtdp6dw=Oj_BWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <002c01d1a636$97df8cb0$c79ea610$@att.net>
Message-ID: <7CED8837-1BAF-4C01-BF68-0EB6E23588BB@gmail.com>

On May 4, 2016, at 11:55 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:
>  
> >?How much is too much? One can simply give it away if one feels one has too much, but this too much is mostly a subjective judgment, no? Sure, some people wallow in consumption, but, again, how much is too much? How is that decided? What's the standard here? What happens if someone exceeds it? Do we take their money?  Dan
>  
> 
>  
> Hi Dan, for those who live outside the USA, I perhaps should remind them of how of how our legal system works in the USA.  If a group of people participate in a felony as a group, then any person in that group is slain in the commission of that felony, (including perishing by gunshot wound fired by the victim) then every member of that group is charged and most likely convicted of murder 1.
>  
> In light of that fact, the answer to question:  Do we take their money? I would suggest, eh? no.  Definitely, no, unless every member of that ?we? is ready to do life in the big house.

Actually, completely wrong. If the government or a group sanctioned by the government takes your money, then it works fine and loyal subjects will applaud and many will deploy "leave it if you don't love it."

My question was directed at more if Bill W. thought people who had too much money should be taxed or otherwise penalized. That, in fact, is already done (and most people do applaud saying the taxed owe it to the government), though there's no maximum amount of wealth one can have according to law.

Regards,

Dan
  Sample my Kindle books via:
http://author.to/DanUst
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160504/6103ec40/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Wed May  4 22:31:57 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 15:31:57 -0700
Subject: [ExI] relationships with money
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEaDK44NJ=6hb3bWC=JKCyPqeNYtx6jBau__5s157gjh2g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <004f01d1a625$b9d94600$2d8bd200$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEYu3-4x2ycAT55CVFpVjoxnhFdV3BUJbUVRPAPtGxGfJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <9820C1B2-61C2-44BC-95B7-A688F2B55206@gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2edWC33_UfKizMtk5FWB3sT_KXj0=JaFtdp6dw=Oj_BWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <002c01d1a636$97df8cb0$c79ea610$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEaDK44NJ=6hb3bWC=JKCyPqeNYtx6jBau__5s157gjh2g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <838AB0C8-82B9-441D-B0E9-2C2F039C1729@gmail.com>

On May 4, 2016, at 12:34 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> In light of that fact, the answer to question:  Do we take their money? I would suggest, eh? no.  Definitely, no, unless every member of that ?we? is ready to do life in the big house.
> spike
> 
> Oh we do take their money - progressive taxes.  As for Dan's 'solution', stop having politicians that are bought, I beg answers to how to accomplish that.  It seems that a bit of larceny is built into humans.  Will robots running AI be as corruptible?  (what use does a robot have for money?  I can think of many things and probably Spike a lot more!)

The answer is amazingly simple: persuade enough people that there's not right to rule over others and no duty to obey others. My guess is if about ten to twenty percent of the population ardently believed that, the ruling class would be hard pressed to do anything about it. It would be de facto stateless for most people at that point.

The alternatives offered by the ruling class itself are unlikely to change much -- save which faction of the ruling class gets to hold power, rake in the brides, and hand out the favors.

Regards,

Dan
  Sample my Kindle books via:
http://author.to/DanUst
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160504/d0411b60/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Wed May  4 22:19:50 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 15:19:50 -0700
Subject: [ExI] relationships with money, was: RE: extropy-chat Digest,
	Vol 152, Issue 3
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEYvnU44FAjerpBQ_Wbpdo6XRRvHHnTxjkXSyOUsO1pCZw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <004f01d1a625$b9d94600$2d8bd200$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEYu3-4x2ycAT55CVFpVjoxnhFdV3BUJbUVRPAPtGxGfJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <9820C1B2-61C2-44BC-95B7-A688F2B55206@gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2edWC33_UfKizMtk5FWB3sT_KXj0=JaFtdp6dw=Oj_BWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <002c01d1a636$97df8cb0$c79ea610$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEaDK44NJ=6hb3bWC=JKCyPqeNYtx6jBau__5s157gjh2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <006801d1a643$5e6ee2c0$1b4ca840$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEYvnU44FAjerpBQ_Wbpdo6XRRvHHnTxjkXSyOUsO1pCZw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00bf01d1a653$137c61b0$3a752510$@att.net>

 

 

>? On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace
Subject: Re: [ExI] relationships with money, was: RE: extropy-chat Digest, Vol 152, Issue 3

 

>>? several hundred military-grade rifles, assault weapons as they are sometimes called, and half a million rounds of ammo?  That?s all legal (in most US states), he hasn?t committed any crime with that collection or arsenal.  But he damn sure could if he chose to? spike

 

>?.I am not sure what point you are making here?

 

It wasn?t about guns actually.  What we have done is have a mainstream politician demonstrate to every other politician how a politician may legally empower oneself to accept pay for favors: set up a family charity with oneself as the head, funnel investments through a Canadian charity which removes the identity of the donor, then work out a means of communications which remain private.  This act is analogous to the guy with the huge arsenal who isn?t actually committing a crime; rather he has empowered himself to do so.  The politician has enabled himself or herself to accept pay for favors, which is not the same as actually doing so.  Now they all know exactly how to do it.

 

>?Given my ignorance of finances I wonder what would happen if the US passed a law against using non-US banks?  Nowhere to hide money?

 

On the contrary sir.  Buy things, such as precious metals, collectibles and such.  Banks aren?t paying much now, and non-US banks are not safe from confiscation.  I notice the government of Cyprus hasn?t been held accountable for massive theft.

 

>?  I know the feds got some action from the Swiss on anonymous accounts held by Americans?

 

Ja, anonymous Swiss bank accounts are already illegal, and unadvisable.  But arranging to stash physical assets of some kind in a foreign nation is OK, or just buying up assets likely to increase in value.

 

>?I also don't follow the capital fleeing idea, but it doesn't matter?bill w

 

If the US government began to indicate it intended to illegally seize US citizens? assets without due process (such as a criminal conviction) yanks would sell their holdings to foreigners and flee with the foreign currency.  The Fed has going for it that it has behaved as a law and order constitutional government for the most part.  As soon as it indicates it believes there is a legal means of seizing its own citizens? assets, we now have a rogue government heavily armed with nukes.  This is a bad thing.

 

spike

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160504/b2211c6e/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Wed May  4 22:44:05 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 15:44:05 -0700
Subject: [ExI] relationships with money
In-Reply-To: <006801d1a643$5e6ee2c0$1b4ca840$@att.net>
References: <004f01d1a625$b9d94600$2d8bd200$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEYu3-4x2ycAT55CVFpVjoxnhFdV3BUJbUVRPAPtGxGfJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <9820C1B2-61C2-44BC-95B7-A688F2B55206@gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2edWC33_UfKizMtk5FWB3sT_KXj0=JaFtdp6dw=Oj_BWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <002c01d1a636$97df8cb0$c79ea610$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEaDK44NJ=6hb3bWC=JKCyPqeNYtx6jBau__5s157gjh2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <006801d1a643$5e6ee2c0$1b4ca840$@att.net>
Message-ID: <0732FE5B-0CB6-483F-BC42-9F6CC056B128@gmail.com>

On May 4, 2016, at 1:27 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> 
>   
> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace
> Subject: Re: [ExI] relationships with money, was: RE: extropy-chat Digest, Vol 152, Issue 3
>  
> >>?In light of that fact, the answer to question:  Do we take their money? I would suggest, eh? no.  Definitely, no, unless every member of that ?we? is ready to do life in the big house.
> spike
>  
> >?Oh we do take their money - progressive taxes?
>  
> Ja, but this conflates two different concepts: money owned and money in the process of being made.  The way the US 16th amendment was intentionally structured, the Fed can only tax earnings, not what you have.  The question was asked about having a certain amount, which the Federal government doesn?t even get to know, never mind take.

Who interprets the COTUS? Government courts. Good luck with taking away or limiting their power to confiscate. 

> In light of that, listen carefully to the rhetoric of our current leading US presidential candidates, while struggling to ignore the obvious question: Sheesh a third of a billion yanks, are these yahoos the REALLY the best we can do?  Can we have a do-over on the primaries if we throw out all the current contenders?

You presume most people want a radically different system. No. They might be able to recite some liberty rhetoric, but most people don't mind the system. At best, they want minor tweaks or for their favored hero to rule. We're that not the case, we'd have a very different system and a very different set of worries.

(Why is it, too, that every election cycle people start to seriously believe that choosing between Frick and Frack is the most important decision in the history of the universe? It's not. Get over it. It's BS, a distraction, and Frick and Frack are neither saints nor demons.;)

> No.  OK, so listen to the rhetoric concerning the oft-repeated catch-phrase ?millionezzz and billionezzz? and ask yourself what has that to do with tax structures?  Nothing.  The tax code and those forms we fill out have no line asking what we own, only what we made last year. 

You're only looking at the federal government and one aspect of its taxing power.
 
> >?As for Dan's 'solution', stop having politicians that are bought, I beg answers to how to accomplish that? bill w
>  
> That I may be able to answer once I see how this country deals with a glaring example of a politician setting up the infrastructure to be bought anonymously and legally (never mind the question of whether this particular politician was or was not bought, this particular politician set up everything needed to carry it out.) 

Feature not bug. Having a strong national government -- i.e., COTUS -- setup a central power that could be so influenced. Tweaking around this is not going to do too much to change that or remove the temptation.

> So what do we do there?  Is it analogous to that eccentric old guy down the street who has several hundred military-grade rifles, assault weapons as they are sometimes called, and half a million rounds of ammo?  That?s all legal (in most US states), he hasn?t committed any crime with that collection or arsenal.  But he damn sure could if he chose to, and we are wary of that guy, ja?  He has empowered himself.  We know he has enabled himself to go shoot up the local school or theatre.  Dare we ask what religion he follows, or is that too un-PC?  Would it matter?

Why would his religion matter? If someone pointed a gun at you, would you care what their religion was?

Regards,

Dan
  Sample my Kindle books via:
http://author.to/DanUst
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160504/34a49307/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Thu May  5 00:32:41 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 19:32:41 -0500
Subject: [ExI] relationships with money
In-Reply-To: <0732FE5B-0CB6-483F-BC42-9F6CC056B128@gmail.com>
References: <004f01d1a625$b9d94600$2d8bd200$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEYu3-4x2ycAT55CVFpVjoxnhFdV3BUJbUVRPAPtGxGfJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <9820C1B2-61C2-44BC-95B7-A688F2B55206@gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2edWC33_UfKizMtk5FWB3sT_KXj0=JaFtdp6dw=Oj_BWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <002c01d1a636$97df8cb0$c79ea610$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEaDK44NJ=6hb3bWC=JKCyPqeNYtx6jBau__5s157gjh2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <006801d1a643$5e6ee2c0$1b4ca840$@att.net>
 <0732FE5B-0CB6-483F-BC42-9F6CC056B128@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZwKE2R5H=3K-g0aAWUV5E+2vgQWu4MznqpHWbyCNukfg@mail.gmail.com>

It's just fine with me if someone has 50 billion or 500 billion dollars.
No such thing as too much money.  As long as they do their civic duty, as
spelled out in laws, then more power to them.  In this sense I am not a
socialist who would confiscate money.  What their fair share is is always
debatable.

Something has to be done to stop billionaires from buying elections.  This
IS what they are doing, in addition to trying to raid my Alabama state
pension by paying off legislators.

I have no answer to that.  Something like donations to a pool of money that
candidates draw from not knowing who gave what, is probably full of errors
and foolishness, as is letting governments supply the money.  But maybe
it's not so different from what we have now;  parties put up their
candidates and independents need lots of signatures to get on the ballots.
Accounting would insure that the money was spent on election costs and none
could go to buy boats and visit strip joints.  Like it is now, that is.

Who gets to be an official party?  Well.........................

Another question I think all of us would like answered:  why can't we
confine elections to a month or so like the British?  That's what costs so
much.  And with hundreds of channels I'd require them to donate time for
candidates as a public service.  Or maybe you could just add another
channel............or............or.       And why does the winner get all
of the votes rather than a proportionate share?   And why don't we get rid
of the Electoral College?

bill w

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 4, 2016, at 1:27 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> <extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org>] *On Behalf Of *William Flynn
> Wallace
> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] relationships with money, was: RE: extropy-chat
> Digest, Vol 152, Issue 3
>
>
>
> >>?In light of that fact, the answer to question:  Do we take their
> money? I would suggest, eh? no.  Definitely, no, unless every member of
> that ?we? is ready to do life in the big house.
>
> spike
>
>
>
> >?Oh we do take their money - progressive taxes?
>
>
>
> Ja, but this conflates two different concepts: money owned and money in
> the process of being made.  The way the US 16th amendment was
> intentionally structured, the Fed can only tax earnings, not what you
> have.  The question was asked about having a certain amount, which the
> Federal government doesn?t even get to know, never mind take.
>
>
> Who interprets the COTUS? Government courts. Good luck with taking away or
> limiting their power to confiscate.
>
> In light of that, listen carefully to the rhetoric of our current leading
> US presidential candidates, while struggling to ignore the obvious
> question: Sheesh a third of a billion yanks, are these yahoos the REALLY
> the best we can do?  Can we have a do-over on the primaries if we throw out
> all the current contenders?
>
>
> You presume most people want a radically different system. No. They might
> be able to recite some liberty rhetoric, but most people don't mind the
> system. At best, they want minor tweaks or for their favored hero to rule.
> We're that not the case, we'd have a very different system and a very
> different set of worries.
>
> (Why is it, too, that every election cycle people start to seriously
> believe that choosing between Frick and Frack is the most important
> decision in the history of the universe? It's not. Get over it. It's BS, a
> distraction, and Frick and Frack are neither saints nor demons.;)
>
> No.  OK, so listen to the rhetoric concerning the oft-repeated
> catch-phrase ?millionezzz and billionezzz? and ask yourself what has that
> to do with tax structures?  Nothing.  The tax code and those forms we fill
> out have no line asking what we own, only what we made last year.
>
>
> You're only looking at the federal government and one aspect of its taxing
> power.
>
>
> >?As for Dan's 'solution', stop having politicians that are bought, I beg
> answers to how to accomplish that? bill w
>
>
>
> That I may be able to answer once I see how this country deals with a
> glaring example of a politician setting up the infrastructure to be bought
> anonymously and legally (never mind the question of whether this particular
> politician was or was not bought, this particular politician set up
> everything needed to carry it out.)
>
>
> Feature not bug. Having a strong national government -- i.e., COTUS --
> setup a central power that could be so influenced. Tweaking around this is
> not going to do too much to change that or remove the temptation.
>
> So what do we do there?  Is it analogous to that eccentric old guy down
> the street who has several hundred military-grade rifles, assault weapons
> as they are sometimes called, and half a million rounds of ammo?  That?s
> all legal (in most US states), he hasn?t committed any crime with that
> collection or arsenal.  But he damn sure could if he chose to, and we are
> wary of that guy, ja?  He has empowered himself.  We know he has enabled
> himself to go shoot up the local school or theatre.  Dare we ask what
> religion he follows, or is that too un-PC?  Would it matter?
>
>
> Why would his religion matter? If someone pointed a gun at you, would you
> care what their religion was?
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>   Sample my Kindle books via:
> http://author.to/DanUst
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160504/c484b8b1/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Thu May  5 00:36:26 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 19:36:26 -0500
Subject: [ExI] relationships with money, was: RE: extropy-chat Digest,
 Vol 152, Issue 3
In-Reply-To: <00bf01d1a653$137c61b0$3a752510$@att.net>
References: <004f01d1a625$b9d94600$2d8bd200$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEYu3-4x2ycAT55CVFpVjoxnhFdV3BUJbUVRPAPtGxGfJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <9820C1B2-61C2-44BC-95B7-A688F2B55206@gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2edWC33_UfKizMtk5FWB3sT_KXj0=JaFtdp6dw=Oj_BWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <002c01d1a636$97df8cb0$c79ea610$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEaDK44NJ=6hb3bWC=JKCyPqeNYtx6jBau__5s157gjh2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <006801d1a643$5e6ee2c0$1b4ca840$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEYvnU44FAjerpBQ_Wbpdo6XRRvHHnTxjkXSyOUsO1pCZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <00bf01d1a653$137c61b0$3a752510$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEbe1-mWwN24aEwu7_tdV-4h=218e6magkRTVCuQL1bXiA@mail.gmail.com>

If the US government began to indicate it intended to illegally seize US
citizens? assets without due process (such as a criminal conviction) yanks
would sell their holdings to foreigners and flee with the foreign
currency.  The Fed has going for it that it has behaved as a law and order
constitutional government for the most part.  As soon as it indicates it
believes there is a legal means of seizing its own citizens? assets, we now
have a rogue government heavily armed with nukes.  This is a bad thing.
spike

"Nuke my house.  Go ahead.  I was tired of it anyway."

But Spike, they already have the lawful means.  All they have to do is to
change the tax rates.  Remember 90%?

bill w

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:19 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *>?* *On Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace
> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] relationships with money, was: RE: extropy-chat
> Digest, Vol 152, Issue 3
>
>
>
> >>? several hundred military-grade rifles, assault weapons as they are
> sometimes called, and half a million rounds of ammo?  That?s all legal (in
> most US states), he hasn?t committed any crime with that collection or
> arsenal.  But he damn sure could if he chose to? spike
>
>
>
> >?.I am not sure what point you are making here?
>
>
>
> It wasn?t about guns actually.  What we have done is have a mainstream
> politician demonstrate to every other politician how a politician may
> legally empower oneself to accept pay for favors: set up a family charity
> with oneself as the head, funnel investments through a Canadian charity
> which removes the identity of the donor, then work out a means of
> communications which remain private.  This act is analogous to the guy with
> the huge arsenal who isn?t actually committing a crime; rather he has
> empowered himself to do so.  The politician has enabled himself or herself
> to accept pay for favors, which is not the same as actually doing so.  Now
> they all know exactly how to do it.
>
>
>
> >?Given my ignorance of finances I wonder what would happen if the US
> passed a law against using non-US banks?  Nowhere to hide money?
>
>
>
> On the contrary sir.  Buy things, such as precious metals, collectibles
> and such.  Banks aren?t paying much now, and non-US banks are not safe from
> confiscation.  I notice the government of Cyprus hasn?t been held
> accountable for massive theft.
>
>
>
> >?  I know the feds got some action from the Swiss on anonymous accounts
> held by Americans?
>
>
>
> Ja, anonymous Swiss bank accounts are already illegal, and unadvisable.
> But arranging to stash physical assets of some kind in a foreign nation is
> OK, or just buying up assets likely to increase in value.
>
>
>
> >?I also don't follow the capital fleeing idea, but it doesn't matter?bill
> w
>
>
>
> If the US government began to indicate it intended to illegally seize US
> citizens? assets without due process (such as a criminal conviction) yanks
> would sell their holdings to foreigners and flee with the foreign
> currency.  The Fed has going for it that it has behaved as a law and order
> constitutional government for the most part.  As soon as it indicates it
> believes there is a legal means of seizing its own citizens? assets, we now
> have a rogue government heavily armed with nukes.  This is a bad thing.
>
>
>
> spike
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160504/c2dbdf7b/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Thu May  5 00:53:25 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 17:53:25 -0700
Subject: [ExI] relationships with money, was: RE: extropy-chat Digest,
	Vol 152, Issue 3
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEbe1-mWwN24aEwu7_tdV-4h=218e6magkRTVCuQL1bXiA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <004f01d1a625$b9d94600$2d8bd200$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEYu3-4x2ycAT55CVFpVjoxnhFdV3BUJbUVRPAPtGxGfJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <9820C1B2-61C2-44BC-95B7-A688F2B55206@gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2edWC33_UfKizMtk5FWB3sT_KXj0=JaFtdp6dw=Oj_BWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <002c01d1a636$97df8cb0$c79ea610$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEaDK44NJ=6hb3bWC=JKCyPqeNYtx6jBau__5s157gjh2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <006801d1a643$5e6ee2c0$1b4ca840$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEYvnU44FAjerpBQ_Wbpdo6XRRvHHnTxjkXSyOUsO1pCZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <00bf01d1a653$137c61b0$3a752510$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEbe1-mWwN24aEwu7_tdV-4h=218e6magkRTVCuQL1bXiA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <014401d1a668$886ba2a0$9942e7e0$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 5:36 PM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] relationships with money, was: RE: extropy-chat Digest, Vol 152, Issue 3

 

>>?If the US government began to indicate it intended to illegally seize US citizens? assets without due process (such as a criminal conviction) yanks would sell their holdings to foreigners and flee with the foreign currency?

 

>?But Spike, they already have the lawful means.  All they have to do is to change the tax rates.  Remember 90%?  bill w 

 

 

Again, this conflates what we earn with what we own.  The Fed can tax every earning at 100%.  They would collect nothing, for no one would work.  The population would need to spend their time hunting and gathering.  But the Fed may not seize what we already own.  The Fed may not seize assets, only earnings.

 

There are plenty of examples of contemporary political rhetoric which ignores this distinction between what we earn and what we own.  Once we own, it is forever out of reach of the Fed (but not state governments.)

 

spike

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160504/1bcb110b/attachment.html>

From sparge at gmail.com  Thu May  5 01:19:02 2016
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 21:19:02 -0400
Subject: [ExI] relationships with money, was: RE: extropy-chat Digest,
 Vol 152, Issue 3
In-Reply-To: <014401d1a668$886ba2a0$9942e7e0$@att.net>
References: <004f01d1a625$b9d94600$2d8bd200$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEYu3-4x2ycAT55CVFpVjoxnhFdV3BUJbUVRPAPtGxGfJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <9820C1B2-61C2-44BC-95B7-A688F2B55206@gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2edWC33_UfKizMtk5FWB3sT_KXj0=JaFtdp6dw=Oj_BWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <002c01d1a636$97df8cb0$c79ea610$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEaDK44NJ=6hb3bWC=JKCyPqeNYtx6jBau__5s157gjh2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <006801d1a643$5e6ee2c0$1b4ca840$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEYvnU44FAjerpBQ_Wbpdo6XRRvHHnTxjkXSyOUsO1pCZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <00bf01d1a653$137c61b0$3a752510$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEbe1-mWwN24aEwu7_tdV-4h=218e6magkRTVCuQL1bXiA@mail.gmail.com>
 <014401d1a668$886ba2a0$9942e7e0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAM5aL2cu-gA+wpRz8yi2Z+=GDHHNz=VbEoEYBkd+uEj6pW3biA@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 8:53 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
> Again, this conflates what we earn with what we own.  The Fed can tax
> every earning at 100%.  They would collect nothing, for no one would work.
> The population would need to spend their time hunting and gathering.  But
> the Fed may not seize what we already own.  The Fed may not seize assets,
> only earnings.
>

By "The Fed" you mean "the US government", not the Federal Reserve, I take
it. Is there something in the constitution preventing seizing property?
Because I'm pretty sure they do that all the time, e.g., via asset
forfeiture or when they made private gold ownership illegal with the Gold
Reserve Act of 1934. Seems like they can do pretty much whatever they want.

-Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160504/153cae2e/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Thu May  5 01:21:20 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 21:21:20 -0400
Subject: [ExI] relationships with money, was: RE: extropy-chat Digest,
 Vol 152, Issue 3
In-Reply-To: <004f01d1a625$b9d94600$2d8bd200$@att.net>
References: <004f01d1a625$b9d94600$2d8bd200$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv3RqRMNzMuB=+rj4whDZ5LR9Q+_8zHWxc4t8m3eQx-_EQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 4, 2016  spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:


> ?>?
>  that meme is the longest-standing typo in history.  It should have read
> ?The lack of money is the root of all evil.?
>
>
?That would certainly make more sense, I think the presents of money is
always better than its absence;  but I wouldn't go as far as Donald Trump
who said "*The point is, you can never be too greedy*".

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160504/a65b9590/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Thu May  5 01:32:33 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 20:32:33 -0500
Subject: [ExI] relationships with money, was: RE: extropy-chat Digest,
 Vol 152, Issue 3
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv3RqRMNzMuB=+rj4whDZ5LR9Q+_8zHWxc4t8m3eQx-_EQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <004f01d1a625$b9d94600$2d8bd200$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3RqRMNzMuB=+rj4whDZ5LR9Q+_8zHWxc4t8m3eQx-_EQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEY2pdZApVvHkx_jnoROUZpO-Nsq1ZuzxzTQtkU=UoVsrQ@mail.gmail.com>

There are plenty of examples of contemporary political rhetoric which
ignores this distinction between what we earn and what we own.  Once we
own, it is forever out of reach of the Fed (but not state governments.)
spike

Forever meaning until they decide to change the laws.  I seem to recall
that the estate tax, essentially death tax, was eliminated.  Am I correct?
For myself, I see no other road to bringing down debt than to raise taxes -
a lot. Or we could learn to speak Mandarin so we'll be OK when the Chinese
call in the debts.

 One thing I do like about the Repubs - don't like spending, except for the
Pentagon.  But won't raise taxes even though Saint Reagan did.

bill w

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 8:21 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 4, 2016  spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
>
>> ?>?
>>  that meme is the longest-standing typo in history.  It should have read
>> ?The lack of money is the root of all evil.?
>>
>>
> ?That would certainly make more sense, I think the presents of money is
> always better than its absence;  but I wouldn't go as far as Donald Trump
> who said "*The point is, you can never be too greedy*".
>
>  John K Clark
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160504/dab1195e/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Thu May  5 03:53:15 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 20:53:15 -0700
Subject: [ExI] relationships with money, was: RE: extropy-chat Digest,
	Vol 152, Issue 3
In-Reply-To: <CAM5aL2cu-gA+wpRz8yi2Z+=GDHHNz=VbEoEYBkd+uEj6pW3biA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <004f01d1a625$b9d94600$2d8bd200$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEYu3-4x2ycAT55CVFpVjoxnhFdV3BUJbUVRPAPtGxGfJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <9820C1B2-61C2-44BC-95B7-A688F2B55206@gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2edWC33_UfKizMtk5FWB3sT_KXj0=JaFtdp6dw=Oj_BWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <002c01d1a636$97df8cb0$c79ea610$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEaDK44NJ=6hb3bWC=JKCyPqeNYtx6jBau__5s157gjh2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <006801d1a643$5e6ee2c0$1b4ca840$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEYvnU44FAjerpBQ_Wbpdo6XRRvHHnTxjkXSyOUsO1pCZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <00bf01d1a653$137c61b0$3a752510$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEbe1-mWwN24aEwu7_tdV-4h=218e6magkRTVCuQL1bXiA@mail.gmail.com>
 <014401d1a668$886ba2a0$9942e7e0$@att.net>
 <CAM5aL2cu-gA+wpRz8yi2Z+=GDHHNz=VbEoEYBkd+uEj6pW3biA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <007201d1a681$a7fc3210$f7f49630$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dave Sill
Subject: Re: [ExI] relationships with money, was: RE: extropy-chat Digest, Vol 152, Issue 3

 

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 8:53 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net> > wrote:

 

>>?  The Fed may not seize assets, only earnings.

 

>?By "The Fed" you mean "the US government", not the Federal Reserve, I take it.

Ja.

>? Is there something in the constitution preventing seizing property?

There is eminent domain, but that ordinarily applies only to land and buildings.  Wealth can be distributed and protected.

>? Because I'm pretty sure they do that all the time, e.g., via asset forfeiture or when they made private gold ownership illegal with the Gold Reserve Act of 1934. Seems like they can do pretty much whatever they want. -Dave

Ja, so it makes it attractive to store physical gold elsewhere.  I am pretty sure the Chinese are storing a lot of physical gold in the states.  The Federal government?s having seized gold in the past makes it a bit risky, but it the previous seizure did not apply to collectible gold coins.

Our 16th amendment was set up to make taxation by the Fed apply only to earnings.  If they could tax property, they would have a long time ago.

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160504/646f3683/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Thu May  5 17:46:17 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 13:46:17 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
Message-ID: <CAJPayv05+ooJ8x8g_jOxohuQzqxjm-ATGR7LWL9D-DWbM9ZfPg@mail.gmail.com>

Now that Donald Trump has won the nomination it looks like it's going to be
an interesting election for a number of reasons:

*Trump is the most anti free trade presidential candidate from a major
party in my lifetime.
*Trump wants to impose restrictions on freedom of the press especially when
they say things about him he doesn't like.
*Trump wants to give a religious test to everyone who enters the USA,
Christian imbecility is OK, Muslim imbecility is not.
*Trump says vaccination causes autism
despite overwhelming scientific evidence that it doesn't.
*Trump wants to build a enormously expensive structure (that Mexico will
NOT pay for) that will prove no more effective than China's great wall was.

*Trump says women who have had abortions should be punished, but the men
involved should not be.
*Trump believes that Barack Obama was born in Kenya despite a mountain
of evidence to the contrary.
*Trump believes that Ted Cruz's father killed president Kennedy.
*Trump wants to forcibly deport 11.3 million undocumented immigrants within
2 years, something that would cost between 400 and 600 billion dollars
assuming it could be done at all,  which it can't be.

Donald Trump would order the military not only to bring back waterboarding
(that was banned in 2009) but "I would bring back a hell of a lot worse
than waterboarding. *Even if it doesn?t work they deserve it anyway*?.  And
that would set the stage for the most serious confrontation between the
military and the presidency since the Civil War, because when asked about
this 4 star General Michael Hayden,  the only man ever to have been head of
both the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency, said
the CIA would flat out refuse to obey such a presidential order and "If
some future president is going to decide to waterboard, he?d better bring
his own bucket, because he?s going to have to do it himself". Trump would
also order soldiers to become war criminals and to kill the wives and
children of suspected terrorists, he said  ?You have to take out their
families. They say they don?t care about their lives so you have to take
out their families.?  When hundreds of military officers said they would
disobey such a illegal order from their commander in chief Trump said "They
won?t refuse. They?re not gonna refuse me. Believe me. I?m a leader, I?ve
always been a leader. I?ve never had any problem leading people. If I say
do it, they?re going to do it."

Donald Trump is a irrational sadistic nut with a hair trigger temper who
has demonstrated a propensity to act before he thinks, and yet millions of
people believe this would be the perfect man to hand the nuclear launch
codes to. I am afraid. Imagine what things would be like if Trump had been
president in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crises, today you and I wouldn't
be here and neither would civilization. It's true that Trump will probably
never be president, the betting market only gives him a 26.5% chance, but a
26.5%  chance that you will be shot would still be cause for concern.

  John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160505/19b8fe0f/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Thu May  5 16:39:27 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 19:39:27 +0300
Subject: [ExI] adhd, creativity, memory types
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEYc9K8pUEcTsedoxtKsKBcvA+NyyEBHa99Tzc0Zo+0b1g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEYc9K8pUEcTsedoxtKsKBcvA+NyyEBHa99Tzc0Zo+0b1g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <572B773F.1050606@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-03 23:05, William Flynn Wallace wrote:
> Anders, what's the situation in the UK? Increasing diagnosis and 
> treatment of ADHD?  Many think it's just a fad and only the extreme 
> need diagnosis and treatment.

Overdiagnosed and overmedicated, *and* underdiagnosed and 
undermedicated. There is a lot of inhomogenity in who gets the 
diagnosis, partially mediated by (parental) social capital.

Many of these traits are on a spectrum: we are all a bit paranoid, a bit 
scattered, a bit narcissitic, a bit unable to figure out others, and so 
on. So we can often recognize something of ourselves in people with a 
diagnosis, but the key thing is (1) do these things impair us enough 
that we need to change, and (2) would a medical gatekeeper recognize 
this as a proper, intervention requiring diagnosis?

In practice, people are fond of ascribing creativity to all sorts of 
mental conditions. The actual research data is much more equivocal.

-- 
Anders Sandberg
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Oxford University

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160505/9a27f97b/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Thu May  5 18:36:07 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 11:36:07 -0700
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
	was:  RE:  Donald Trump
Message-ID: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>

 

 

>? On Behalf Of John Clark
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump

 

>?Now that Donald Trump has won the nomination it looks like it's going to be an interesting election for a number of reasons:? a 26.5% chance, but a 26.5%  chance that you will be shot would still be cause for concern. ?John K Clark 

 

 

John that isn?t the worst of it.  Bernie Sanders: even when he wins, he loses.  So even if we think he is a decent guy and is qualified he still cannot win (don?t want to debate that (since it is irrelevant really (and my comments shouldn?t be interpreted as my saying he is either qualified or that I agree with anything he stands for (he?s way too commie-friendly for my taste (but he still cannot win, even if he wins))))).

 

So? Trump or Clinton.

 

Oy vey, sheesh, a third of a billion yanks, and this is the best we can do?  Indeed?

 

Now? Suppose Clinton gets indicted.  Should Americans go ahead and vote for her anyway?  Do we then acknowledge that we now think our own FBI is corrupt?  Or that criminal activity doesn?t matter once one ranks high enough in government?  Or that the crimes probably didn?t cause any serious harm?  Or that the risk is low that the leaks will be exploited?  Or that all those FBI agents somehow made a huge collective honest mistake?  (Hint:  no, to all the above.) 

 

And what of this Guccifer character, who offers a very plausible explanation for how he very easily hacked into Clinton?s email, but found the material there didn?t interest him, just yoga routines, wedding plans and a bunch of? like? state secrets and things, North Korean nuclear missile movements, Canadian charities, Saudi princes and so forth, Bond James Bond-y type stuff, nothing particularly interesting (such as Romanian officials having affairs) didn?t read much of it, downloaded everything, not sure where I stored it or the copies, but it was easy to do, etc.

 

OK, then what?  And is there some other way?  

 

OK now we get a whole pile of new legal questions, such as?  can a sitting president pardon herself for something she did before the election?  Where in the constitution does it actually say she cannot do that?  And if so, can a sitting president pardon herself for stuff she is doing currently?  (Don?t answer that one too quickly, in light of the current sitting president taking out American citizens abroad using drones.)  Is being elected while under indictment a de facto voter-level pardon?  Where does it say in the constitution what happens if the people elect either a known criminal or a suspect?

 

Computer security hipsters, is this Guccifer feller saying things that have the ring of truth?  And what of the counter-argument offered: there is no way he hacked Clinton because he would have leaked that.  He seemed a lot more interested in some Romanian bureaucrat than Clinton.  Clearly noooobody cares about some obscure Romanian official, she couldn?t really be important.  OK so Guccifer is Romanian, heh, coincidence, but never mind that, the USA is the center of the world and no one cares about Romanian officials, right?  Not even Romanians, move along citizens, nothing to see here. 

 

The stuff I have already seen causes me to think Guccifer really did hack Clinton, and really wasn?t particularly interested in her, but that if he did it, the commies did it too.  Where is Harvey Newsome these days?  He?s the grandfather of computer security hipsters, he would know, and has no particular political ax to grind as far as I know.  Anyone in contact with him?  Are ye there, me lad?  Help us Harvey wan Kenobi.

 

OK so what if Clinton gets indicted but the AG does nothing?  Are we ready to just go ahead and admit that our own government is corrupt to the core, but don?t worry, they will be fair and balanced with the nukes, etc.

 

Ja?

 

Perhaps this is the libertarian?s one single shining moment, a moment we will likely never see again, when both major parties are bitterly divided, where Gary Johnson could step out of the inky shadows and just tell like it is: Americans must choose now between a crazy demagogue or a criminal demagogue.  Or? Gary Johnson, libertarian.

 

That?s a pretty easy choice for me.  

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160505/4a577f06/attachment.html>

From protokol2020 at gmail.com  Thu May  5 19:18:18 2016
From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 21:18:18 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv05+ooJ8x8g_jOxohuQzqxjm-ATGR7LWL9D-DWbM9ZfPg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv05+ooJ8x8g_jOxohuQzqxjm-ATGR7LWL9D-DWbM9ZfPg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALMrAFST0C1AfFK7z3p8haeA=EDqJ4Mt1Hnt-nupEVVcvMiBpA@mail.gmail.com>

I still remember 1980 elections. Reagan this, Reagan that, he is a nutcase,
he will start the war, he has knowledge shortages ...

Thankfully, he was elected and not that "genius" Carter.



On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 7:46 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> Now that Donald Trump has won the nomination it looks like it's going to
> be an interesting election for a number of reasons:
>
> *Trump is the most anti free trade presidential candidate from a major
> party in my lifetime.
> *Trump wants to impose restrictions on freedom of the press especially
> when they say things about him he doesn't like.
> *Trump wants to give a religious test to everyone who enters the USA,
> Christian imbecility is OK, Muslim imbecility is not.
> *Trump says vaccination causes autism
> despite overwhelming scientific evidence that it doesn't.
> *Trump wants to build a enormously expensive structure (that Mexico will
> NOT pay for) that will prove no more effective than China's great wall was.
>
> *Trump says women who have had abortions should be punished, but the men
> involved should not be.
> *Trump believes that Barack Obama was born in Kenya despite a mountain
> of evidence to the contrary.
> *Trump believes that Ted Cruz's father killed president Kennedy.
> *Trump wants to forcibly deport 11.3 million undocumented immigrants
> within 2 years, something that would cost between 400 and 600 billion
> dollars assuming it could be done at all,  which it can't be.
>
> Donald Trump would order the military not only to bring back waterboarding
> (that was banned in 2009) but "I would bring back a hell of a lot worse
> than waterboarding. *Even if it doesn?t work they deserve it anyway*?.
> And that would set the stage for the most serious confrontation between the
> military and the presidency since the Civil War, because when asked about
> this 4 star General Michael Hayden,  the only man ever to have been head of
> both the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency, said
> the CIA would flat out refuse to obey such a presidential order and "If
> some future president is going to decide to waterboard, he?d better bring
> his own bucket, because he?s going to have to do it himself". Trump would
> also order soldiers to become war criminals and to kill the wives and
> children of suspected terrorists, he said  ?You have to take out their
> families. They say they don?t care about their lives so you have to take
> out their families.?  When hundreds of military officers said they would
> disobey such a illegal order from their commander in chief Trump said "They
> won?t refuse. They?re not gonna refuse me. Believe me. I?m a leader, I?ve
> always been a leader. I?ve never had any problem leading people. If I say
> do it, they?re going to do it."
>
> Donald Trump is a irrational sadistic nut with a hair trigger temper who
> has demonstrated a propensity to act before he thinks, and yet millions of
> people believe this would be the perfect man to hand the nuclear launch
> codes to. I am afraid. Imagine what things would be like if Trump had been
> president in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crises, today you and I wouldn't
> be here and neither would civilization. It's true that Trump will probably
> never be president, the betting market only gives him a 26.5% chance, but a
> 26.5%  chance that you will be shot would still be cause for concern.
>
>   John K Clark
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>


-- 
https://protokol2020.wordpress.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160505/afd5dc08/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Thu May  5 19:50:02 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 15:50:02 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CALMrAFST0C1AfFK7z3p8haeA=EDqJ4Mt1Hnt-nupEVVcvMiBpA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv05+ooJ8x8g_jOxohuQzqxjm-ATGR7LWL9D-DWbM9ZfPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALMrAFST0C1AfFK7z3p8haeA=EDqJ4Mt1Hnt-nupEVVcvMiBpA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv315g5VD04=YKAODpO5MamLeH2_3X7dben6gjk6N_H5hg@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Tomaz Kristan <protokol2020 at gmail.com>
wrote:

?> ?
> I still remember 1980 elections. Reagan this, Reagan that, he is a
> nutcase, he will start the war, he has knowledge shortages ...
> Thankfully, he was elected and not that "genius" Carter.
>

?
Yeah, we got "genius" Reagan who thought we could use 1983 technology to
make a X-Ray LASER  to shoot down all enemy missiles and "render
? ?
nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete" when the fact is we STILL can't do
it with 2016 technology. And Reagan wasn't as big a ignoramus as Trump nor
was he a sadist like Trump but I would still much prefer to have somebody
like Carter in charge during the next Cuban Missile Crises (the closest the
human race has come to extinction in 74,000 years) than somebody like
Reagan.

  John K Clark







>
>
>
> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 7:46 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Now that Donald Trump has won the nomination it looks like it's going to
>> be an interesting election for a number of reasons:
>>
>> *Trump is the most anti free trade presidential candidate from a major
>> party in my lifetime.
>> *Trump wants to impose restrictions on freedom of the press especially
>> when they say things about him he doesn't like.
>> *Trump wants to give a religious test to everyone who enters the USA,
>> Christian imbecility is OK, Muslim imbecility is not.
>> *Trump says vaccination causes autism
>> despite overwhelming scientific evidence that it doesn't.
>> *Trump wants to build a enormously expensive structure (that Mexico will
>> NOT pay for) that will prove no more effective than China's great wall was.
>>
>> *Trump says women who have had abortions should be punished, but the men
>> involved should not be.
>> *Trump believes that Barack Obama was born in Kenya despite a mountain
>> of evidence to the contrary.
>> *Trump believes that Ted Cruz's father killed president Kennedy.
>> *Trump wants to forcibly deport 11.3 million undocumented immigrants
>> within 2 years, something that would cost between 400 and 600 billion
>> dollars assuming it could be done at all,  which it can't be.
>>
>> Donald Trump would order the military not only to bring back
>> waterboarding (that was banned in 2009) but "I would bring back a hell
>> of a lot worse than waterboarding. *Even if it doesn?t work they deserve
>> it anyway*?.  And that would set the stage for the most serious
>> confrontation between the military and the presidency since the Civil War,
>> because when asked about this 4 star General Michael Hayden,  the only man
>> ever to have been head of both the National Security Agency and the Central
>> Intelligence Agency, said the CIA would flat out refuse to obey such a
>> presidential order and "If some future president is going to decide to
>> waterboard, he?d better bring his own bucket, because he?s going to have to
>> do it himself". Trump would also order soldiers to become war criminals and
>> to kill the wives and children of suspected terrorists, he said  ?You have
>> to take out their families. They say they don?t care about their lives so
>> you have to take out their families.?  When hundreds of military officers
>> said they would disobey such a illegal order from their commander in chief
>> Trump said "They won?t refuse. They?re not gonna refuse me. Believe me. I?m
>> a leader, I?ve always been a leader. I?ve never had any problem leading
>> people. If I say do it, they?re going to do it."
>>
>> Donald Trump is a irrational sadistic nut with a hair trigger temper who
>> has demonstrated a propensity to act before he thinks, and yet millions of
>> people believe this would be the perfect man to hand the nuclear launch
>> codes to. I am afraid. Imagine what things would be like if Trump had been
>> president in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crises, today you and I wouldn't
>> be here and neither would civilization. It's true that Trump will probably
>> never be president, the betting market only gives him a 26.5% chance, but a
>> 26.5%  chance that you will be shot would still be cause for concern.
>>
>>   John K Clark
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> https://protokol2020.wordpress.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160505/95cfbf85/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Thu May  5 20:37:57 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 16:37:57 -0400
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
 was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 2:36 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:


> ?> ?
> Bernie Sanders: even when he wins, he loses.
>
>
?Nobody is being unfair to Sanders, the fact is that Clinton has received
2.5 million more votes in total than Sanders.


> ?> ?
> Suppose Clinton gets indicted.
>
>
?The only way that could happen is if Trump wins and institutes a fascist
state that punishes his political rivals, but the betting markets only give
Trump a 26.1% chance of winning (it went down .4% since my last post).


> ?> ?
> Americans must choose now between a crazy demagogue or a criminal
> demagogue.
>

?All successful politicians are
demagogues?
? ?
?but ?
Trump is crazy and I'd much rather give the nuclear launch codes to a
criminal than a madman. And criminal? Even Sanders thought calling the
Clinton E-Mail server business criminal was silly.


> ?> ?
> Or? Gary Johnson, libertarian.
>

I'm
?not a member of the party but I'm very?
 libertarian
?in my views, ?and

?I know nothing about ?
?
?
Gary Johnson
?. That tells me the average person knows less than nothing about him and
the chances of him becoming president are about the same as me walking
through a brick wall by quantum tunneling; not zero but low, far too low
for the betting market to bother with.

? John K Clark?





>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160505/307125e5/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Thu May  5 20:50:51 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 13:50:51 -0700
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
 was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNRoSxJCb7EK48ninR9gOcw2Ajs32ufSMEuPE6gxdPit-A@mail.gmail.com>

On May 5, 2016 11:51 AM, "spike" <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> Now? Suppose Clinton gets indicted.  Should Americans go ahead and vote
for her anyway?

Her vs. Trump?  Yes...but third party is an even better answer.

> Do we then acknowledge that we now think our own FBI is corrupt?

Technically in this case it's not corruption, but just following orders.
It's Congress that is corrupt.

> Or that criminal activity doesn?t matter once one ranks high enough in
government?

As you say, nothing in the law prohibits a presidential self-pardon.

> Or that the crimes probably didn?t cause any serious harm?

In this case?  Yes, they probably didn't.

> Or that the risk is low that the leaks will be exploited?

Correct me if I'm wrong please, but she isn't being investigated for leaks
but just for using private email for government purposes, no?

> OK so what if Clinton gets indicted but the AG does nothing?  Are we
ready to just go ahead and admit that our own government is corrupt to the
core, but don?t worry, they will be fair and balanced with the nukes, etc.

That's pretty much the public perception of the status quo.

> Perhaps this is the libertarian?s one single shining moment, a moment we
will likely never see again, when both major parties are bitterly divided,
where Gary Johnson could step out of the inky shadows and just tell like it
is: Americans must choose now between a crazy demagogue or a criminal
demagogue.  Or? Gary Johnson, libertarian.

Is Gary on the ballot in all 50 states?  What Congressional and governor
allies does he have, to keep government from straight up shutting down when
neither Democrat nor Republican will work with him for being a threat to
their parties (as the Reps mostly unsuccessfully attempted with Obama for
being black)?  Third parties must build up those bases before they will
have a serious shot at the Presidency, no matter how dire and doofy the
choices the Ds and Rs give us.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160505/bbad9ca5/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Thu May  5 20:53:41 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 13:53:41 -0700
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
	was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark
 

?> >??Suppose Clinton gets indicted. 

 

?>?The only way that could happen is if Trump wins and institutes a fascist state?

 

Indeed?  I mean, what if the FBI concludes there were actual yoga routines, born classified, along with clear evidence the team intentionally erased those yoga routines, and that they may have leaked.  And if this happens in the next couple months, which is a plausible scenario, then what?  That would have nothing to do with Trump.

 

Perhaps I should have stated it thus: what if the FBI recommends indictment, then nothing happens.  We see that the AG clearly has a political agenda and the president has a political agenda, since he already said Mrs. Clinton did nothing wrong.  Indeed?  So what happens if the FBI disagrees?  Those were the ones who actually did the investigation, so they know.  What if they recommend the AG assemble a grand jury and press charges, then the AG does nothing?

 

 

>?I'd much rather give the nuclear launch codes to a criminal than a madman?

 

Indeed?  How can we be sure Trump is a madman?  Is there some kind of investigation?  Are we going to assume it based on crazy comments, when we already know that stuff is mostly Hollywood, uttered specifically to get news cycle coverage?  How do we know for sure Trump is a madman, vs how do we know Clinton is a criminal?

 

>? Even Sanders thought calling the Clinton E-Mail server business criminal was silly?

 

I see, so he is part of the FBI investigation now?  How does he know it is silly?  How does he know Guccifer is lying?

  

 

?> ?

Or? Gary Johnson, libertarian.

 

 

>?I know nothing about ?Gary Johnson? John K Clark?

 

Nor does anyone else.  His own close family have only a nodding familiarity.  This makes an important point.  Gary Johnson does not go around making crazy comments, so? the news people don?t cover him.  Trump gets that.  News coverage is free exposure.  What if? we find out Trump really is crazy (it isn?t just an act) and that Hillary really is a criminal (Guccifer is found to be telling the truth.)  Then in about August, Americans recognize what a deplorable choice faces them.  Johnson steps out of the shadows with the obvious message: Americans, don?t do it.  Vote libertarian.  This is the one crazy weird oddball time in our lifetimes, when it just might work.

 

spike

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160505/7e6d5543/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Thu May  5 23:33:07 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 18:33:07 -0500
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
 was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEaihasuqqQVp-0x+0aZjWa2wkRWf+JtmawfdorgDQfF9Q@mail.gmail.com>

 Vote libertarian.  This is the one crazy weird oddball time in our
lifetimes, when it just might work.  spike

The only way Trump wins is for people to get so disgusted with their
choices that they don't vote.  Trump supporters seem really gung ho,
whereas Clinton's aren't so much.

Add a strong third party candidate to this mix and you have a situation
where Trump could really get elected.  And the libertarian has about zero
chance, so to me if you vote that way you are, in effect, voting for Trump!

So I am voting for Clinton, though it is far more an anti-Trump vote than
an enthusiastic vote for Clinton.

bill w

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 3:53 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On
> Behalf Of *John Clark
>
>
> ?> >??Suppose Clinton gets indicted.
>
>
>
> ?>?The only way that could happen is if Trump wins and institutes a
> fascist state?
>
>
>
> Indeed?  I mean, what if the FBI concludes there were actual yoga
> routines, born classified, along with clear evidence the team intentionally
> erased those yoga routines, and that they may have leaked.  And if this
> happens in the next couple months, which is a plausible scenario, then
> what?  That would have nothing to do with Trump.
>
>
>
> Perhaps I should have stated it thus: what if the FBI recommends
> indictment, then nothing happens.  We see that the AG clearly has a
> political agenda and the president has a political agenda, since he already
> said Mrs. Clinton did nothing wrong.  Indeed?  So what happens if the FBI
> disagrees?  Those were the ones who actually did the investigation, so they
> know.  What if they recommend the AG assemble a grand jury and press
> charges, then the AG does nothing?
>
>
>
>
>
> >?I'd much rather give the nuclear launch codes to a criminal than a
> madman?
>
>
>
> Indeed?  How can we be sure Trump is a madman?  Is there some kind of
> investigation?  Are we going to assume it based on crazy comments, when we
> already know that stuff is mostly Hollywood, uttered specifically to get
> news cycle coverage?  How do we know for sure Trump is a madman, vs how do
> we know Clinton is a criminal?
>
>
>
> >? Even Sanders thought calling the Clinton E-Mail server business
> criminal was silly?
>
>
>
> I see, so he is part of the FBI investigation now?  How does he know it is
> silly?  How does he know Guccifer is lying?
>
>
>
>
>
> ?> ?
>
> Or? Gary Johnson, libertarian.
>
>
>
>
>
> >?I know nothing about ?Gary Johnson? John K Clark?
>
>
>
> Nor does anyone else.  His own close family have only a nodding
> familiarity.  This makes an important point.  Gary Johnson does not go
> around making crazy comments, so? the news people don?t cover him.  Trump
> gets that.  News coverage is free exposure.  What if? we find out Trump
> really is crazy (it isn?t just an act) and that Hillary really is a
> criminal (Guccifer is found to be telling the truth.)  Then in about
> August, Americans recognize what a deplorable choice faces them.  Johnson
> steps out of the shadows with the obvious message: Americans, don?t do it.
> Vote libertarian.  This is the one crazy weird oddball time in our
> lifetimes, when it just might work.
>
>
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160505/1042f0ac/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Fri May  6 01:04:15 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 21:04:15 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv05+ooJ8x8g_jOxohuQzqxjm-ATGR7LWL9D-DWbM9ZfPg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv05+ooJ8x8g_jOxohuQzqxjm-ATGR7LWL9D-DWbM9ZfPg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFhZ5b2uADQ2tuhy3-NF2s-dqWc+9LFiAmpOE0Ww_SP5dw@mail.gmail.com>

John, did you just forward a Clinton chain email?

Rafa?

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 1:46 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> Now that Donald Trump has won the nomination
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160505/d59343f6/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Fri May  6 01:12:04 2016
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 11:12:04 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CALMrAFST0C1AfFK7z3p8haeA=EDqJ4Mt1Hnt-nupEVVcvMiBpA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv05+ooJ8x8g_jOxohuQzqxjm-ATGR7LWL9D-DWbM9ZfPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALMrAFST0C1AfFK7z3p8haeA=EDqJ4Mt1Hnt-nupEVVcvMiBpA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH=2ypVFr403H4WtbDaiy9gm5TFeu6MS14y3fEUomKTkc_EZyA@mail.gmail.com>

On 6 May 2016 at 05:18, Tomaz Kristan <protokol2020 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I still remember 1980 elections. Reagan this, Reagan that, he is a
> nutcase, he will start the war, he has knowledge shortages ...
>
> Thankfully, he was elected and not that "genius" Carter.
>


Carter was the only US president who didn't kill anyone.

-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160506/3bc79fba/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Fri May  6 01:26:18 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 18:26:18 -0700
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
	was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEaihasuqqQVp-0x+0aZjWa2wkRWf+JtmawfdorgDQfF9Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEaihasuqqQVp-0x+0aZjWa2wkRWf+JtmawfdorgDQfF9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <02f401d1a736$4a67e350$df37a9f0$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 4:33 PM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters, was: RE: Donald Trump

 

>>? Vote libertarian.  This is the one crazy weird oddball time in our lifetimes, when it just might work.  spike

 

>?The only way Trump wins is for people to get so disgusted with their choices that they don't vote.  Trump supporters seem really gung ho, whereas Clinton's aren't so much?bill w

 

 

 

Hi BillW,

 

I am just not ready to accept that only two parties can ever be of any importance.  Consider this time: both parties had an epic fail.  We saw the federal debt go crazy, neither party even tried to do anything about it.  This ensures a default in the foreseeable.  Epic fail, both parties, just epic.

 

I have never voted for a Democrat for president.  In any other circumstances, this would have been the only time ever.  Then? the yahoos managed to find the exactly one person who appears worse than Donald Trump.  You know, maybe Jonathan Gruber would have also been worse, hard to say, but they must have had to dig deep to find anyone who could manage to win the Democrat nomination when we already know she broke the law with having classified email on a personal server.  I have already seen what material was leaked to the press.  I have heard contradictory remarks on the topic, some really glaring examples.

 

For instance, Mrs Clinton, when asked if she wiped the server, responded ?What, with a cloth??  

 

Everyone broke out not laughing.

 

The next comment was ?I don?t know how it works digitally at all??

 

OK then, now Mrs. Clinton is claiming her server wasn?t hacked.  When she erased the evidence of her innocence (the yoga routines) she took upon herself the burden of proving that none of that erased material contained anything that if revealed, is more serious than a charge of obstruction of justice.  I have seen zero evidence from Mrs. Clinton of the claim she wasn?t hacked.  Claims but no evidence.  I have seen pretty plausible evidence that it was hacked.

 

I must conclude that the FBI will come to a similar conclusion, and hand down a recommendation to the Attorney General to assemble a grand jury.  If she fails to do so, we know it is a clear example of a high crime or misdemeanor.  Recall, the FBI doesn?t have a party.

 

So? The Democrat party dug deep and managed to find the one person (ONE and ONLY PERSON!) who was less electable than (evolution help us) Donald Trump.

 

I can?t accept that there can only be two parties.  Now is the time for Gary Johnson to step out of the shadows and make his mark.

 

spike

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160505/4ebadd6e/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Fri May  6 02:07:35 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 19:07:35 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAH=2ypVFr403H4WtbDaiy9gm5TFeu6MS14y3fEUomKTkc_EZyA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv05+ooJ8x8g_jOxohuQzqxjm-ATGR7LWL9D-DWbM9ZfPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALMrAFST0C1AfFK7z3p8haeA=EDqJ4Mt1Hnt-nupEVVcvMiBpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH=2ypVFr403H4WtbDaiy9gm5TFeu6MS14y3fEUomKTkc_EZyA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2EC08A09-7CFF-48D4-91E1-4D14BF1AE348@gmail.com>

On May 5, 2016, at 6:12 PM, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6 May 2016 at 05:18, Tomaz Kristan <protokol2020 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I still remember 1980 elections. Reagan this, Reagan that, he is a nutcase, he will start the war, he has knowledge shortages ...
>> 
>> Thankfully, he was elected and not that "genius" Carter.
> 
> 
> Carter was the only US president who didn't kill anyone. 

Not directly -- but few presidents kill people directly. What about his support of Suharto in Indonesia and of the mujaheddin in Afghanistan? That said, probably has far less blood on his hands than most other presidents of the last hundred years -- certainly less than those who came after him.

Regards,

Dan
  Sample my Kindle books via:
http://author.to/DanUst
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160505/ce215d18/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Fri May  6 04:50:17 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 00:50:17 -0400
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
 was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:53 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:


> ?> ?
> Perhaps I should have stated it thus: what if the FBI recommends indictment
>
>
Let's make a bet , if the FBI
? ?
recommends a
? ?
indictment
??
ment of
? ?
Mrs. Clinton
? ?
before November 8 2016 I will give you $200, if they don't you only have to
give me $10.
?That's 20 to 1 odds. ?
The bet is off after
?November 8?
 because the betting market says there is a 26.1% chance
?Trump will win and if he does ?
Mrs. Clinton
? could very well end up in a ?
gulag
?.?

I have another prediction. For the last several elections the CIA has been
giving Top Secret briefings to the Republican and
Democratic presidential candidates, if they're foolish enough to continue
that practice with Trump one of two things will happen.

1) Trump will blurt out something he shouldn't in one of his
bombastic speeches.

2) Trump will say "I know something you don't and believe me it's bad! I
can't say what it is but it's really really bad, it's so bad you wouldn't
believe it. And they don't know what to do about it, they just don't, and
Hillary
? is in a total panic about it but then women tend to panic ?when things
get tough; but I'm very smart and I can fix it. It won't be easy but I have
a secret plan to fix this secret problem. Trust me."


> >
>> ?> ?
>> ?I'd much rather give the nuclear launch codes to a criminal than a
>> madman?
>
>
>
> ?> ?
> Indeed?  How can we be sure Trump is a madman?
>
>
?The same way you ?determine that anyone is a madman, by his actions. And
on the morning of the Indiana primary
it was not sane to call
Cruz "Lying Ted"

?and accuse his father of assassinating President Kennedy when he must have
known he already had the nomination in the bag but would need Cruz
supporters in the general election.  And only a madman would then less than
10 hours later say Cruz was a great guy who was very intelligent and had a
great future in politics. Trump also said he wasn't sure if Cruz liked him
or not, well I'm sure.

And if you don't like that example I can give you another one, and another,
and another, and another.  I would say the probability of Donald Trump
setting into motion events that lead to a civilization destroying war in
the next 4 years are far FAR higher than the odds of being hit by a
civilization destroying
? asteroid. ?
Spike, do you really want
?to ?
?place your life in ?
Donald Trump
?'s small hands??
  ?


> ?> ?
> What if? we find out Trump really is crazy (it isn?t just an act) and that
> Hillary really is a criminal
>
>
?
Then I'd still vote for Hillary
? ?
over Trump and like it or not one of them is going to get t
hose?
nuclear launch codes.
? ?
Gary Johnson
? is as irrelevant as Donald ?Duck.

?> ?
> Vote libertarian.


?I'm a libertarian but I think that's very bad advice. ?

?If you need heart surgery and can't get ?the world's best surgeon are you
then indifferent if the person who operates on you is the world's second
best surgeon or just somebody who flunked out of veterinary school?

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160506/17fa218f/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Fri May  6 05:01:38 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 22:01:38 -0700
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
	was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark



 

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:53 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net> > wrote:

 

?>>? ?Perhaps I should have stated it thus: what if the FBI recommends indictment

 

>?Let's make a bet , if the FBI recommends a indictment of Mrs. Clinton

before November 8 2016 I will give you $200, if they don't you only have to give me $10. 

?That's 20 to 1 odds? John K Clark

 

 

Well John, I am not a betting man, but sure I will take you up on that one.  I won?t even whine if I lose.  We have plenty of witnesses eager to jump my ass should I offer the slightest milli-whine.  {8^D

 

My speculation: the meme FBI will recommend indictment to the AG before 8 November 2016 is worth more than 5 cents today.  You are offering me 200 shares at $.05, I am buying them all.

 

This will be a new one: you have proposed bets in the forum before, but I don?t recall anyone ever taking you up on anything.  {8-]

 

spike

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160505/37d664e3/attachment.html>

From sjv2006 at gmail.com  Fri May  6 05:51:04 2016
From: sjv2006 at gmail.com (Stephen Van Sickle)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 22:51:04 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAH=2ypVFr403H4WtbDaiy9gm5TFeu6MS14y3fEUomKTkc_EZyA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv05+ooJ8x8g_jOxohuQzqxjm-ATGR7LWL9D-DWbM9ZfPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALMrAFST0C1AfFK7z3p8haeA=EDqJ4Mt1Hnt-nupEVVcvMiBpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH=2ypVFr403H4WtbDaiy9gm5TFeu6MS14y3fEUomKTkc_EZyA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADYziYANTmBrORmUwJ0MiegO6BKSV=_7FCi6bPTdk1QjjAu7rQ@mail.gmail.com>

On May 5, 2016 18:13, "Stathis Papaioannou" <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:

> Carter was the only US president who didn't kill anyone.

Tell that to the nine dead in Operation Eagle Claw.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw

And it's not like they were on their way to Tehran for a church picnic...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160505/48d77d54/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Fri May  6 06:09:40 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 23:09:40 -0700
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters
In-Reply-To: <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
Message-ID: <B58DB8FD-2A70-4F45-BAC4-008311FD56BB@gmail.com>

> On May 5, 2016, at 10:01 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote: 
>  
> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark
> 
>  
> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:53 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>  
> ?>>? ?Perhaps I should have stated it thus: what if the FBI recommends indictment
>  
> >?Let's make a bet , if the FBI recommends a indictment of Mrs. Clinton
> before November 8 2016 I will give you $200, if they don't you only have to give me $10.
> ?That's 20 to 1 odds? John K Clark
>  
>  
> Well John, I am not a betting man, but sure I will take you up on that one.  I won?t even whine if I lose.  We have plenty of witnesses eager to jump my ass should I offer the slightest milli-whine.  {8^D
>  
> My speculation: the meme FBI will recommend indictment to the AG before 8 November 2016 is worth more than 5 cents today.  You are offering me 200 shares at $.05, I am buying them all.
>  
> This will be a new one: you have proposed bets in the forum before, but I don?t recall anyone ever taking you up on anything.  {8-]

On betting, I believe economist Bryan Caplan has an interesting approach:

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/09/whats_libertari.html

I wouldn't take John's bet because I think he's right on that one. My speculation here -- which I won't bet on ;) -- is what's her name has enough dirt on many in the elite that she'll take them down with her should she be indicted. (I think George H. Smith first speculated thus. If so, I've been persuaded he's right.)

But how about betting here on things that aren't political -- such as particular scientific findings or technological outcomes?

Regards,

Dan
  Sample my Kindle books via:
http://author.to/DanUst

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160505/b975c476/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Fri May  6 15:07:28 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 10:07:28 -0500
Subject: [ExI] adhd, creativity, memory types
In-Reply-To: <572B773F.1050606@aleph.se>
References: <CAO+xQEYc9K8pUEcTsedoxtKsKBcvA+NyyEBHa99Tzc0Zo+0b1g@mail.gmail.com>
 <572B773F.1050606@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZE_xUUgP2VpKag6CH_X6Ox5as8yRECN9gVb5xceKe4vA@mail.gmail.com>

Many of these traits are on a spectrum: we are all a bit paranoid, a bit
scattered, a bit narcissitic, a bit unable to figure out others, and so on.
So we can often recognize something of ourselves in people with a
diagnosis, but the key thing is (1) do these things impair us enough that
we need to change, and (2) would a medical gatekeeper recognize this as a
proper, intervention requiring diagnosis?   anders

The problem with all of it is that the gatekeeper decides where the line
is, to try to reduce false positives or false negatives (can't reduce both
without improving diagnostic accuracy), and so often says "Well, if we
treat him he might not get better, but then he might, and if we don't he
might get worse, so let's treat."  This would be good thinking if the drugs
weren't so powerful and didn't have side effects that included suicide.
And then there are parents who push doctors to do something, and feel
ill-served if leaving a physician's office without pills.

I have seen perfectly normal boys get drugs that turned them into zombies.
It's always boys who get an 'overactive' rating.

bill w

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> On 2016-05-03 23:05, William Flynn Wallace wrote:
>
> Anders, what's the situation in the UK?  Increasing diagnosis and
> treatment of ADHD?  Many think it's just a fad and only the extreme need
> diagnosis and treatment.
>
>
> Overdiagnosed and overmedicated, *and* underdiagnosed and undermedicated.
> There is a lot of inhomogenity in who gets the diagnosis, partially
> mediated by (parental) social capital.
>
> Many of these traits are on a spectrum: we are all a bit paranoid, a bit
> scattered, a bit narcissitic, a bit unable to figure out others, and so on.
> So we can often recognize something of ourselves in people with a
> diagnosis, but the key thing is (1) do these things impair us enough that
> we need to change, and (2) would a medical gatekeeper recognize this as a
> proper, intervention requiring diagnosis?
>
> In practice, people are fond of ascribing creativity to all sorts of
> mental conditions. The actual research data is much more equivocal.
>
> --
> Anders Sandberg
> Future of Humanity Institute
> Oxford Martin School
> Oxford University
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160506/6064e6bd/attachment.html>

From cryptaxe at gmail.com  Wed May  4 00:57:14 2016
From: cryptaxe at gmail.com (CryptAxe)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 17:57:14 -0700
Subject: [ExI] It looks like Craig Wright was Bitcoins creator
In-Reply-To: <CAGHyZJkV6uECCL_E_tdw82GmWTnuPgY7cKQBW8XepNXGnN6bnA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv2RJCSBvpQ9ZR29M-XxzNJRhv6awmSF83+yKB7SgVUOOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGfkSy1aBtu6n5M=Z_g8y0o5zxqsq-b9f5W6bSS_W8n29fkX4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <5c13504e-6ea0-a7a4-418f-c2f8805805e0@aleph.se>
 <CAGHyZJkV6uECCL_E_tdw82GmWTnuPgY7cKQBW8XepNXGnN6bnA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAF5CFkiNqpsPSSaXd7dPz32_D5Y5d6jZFXeL7QZFyq50yyPRaw@mail.gmail.com>

Yes but he is being preserved by alcor!
http://www.alcor.org/blog/hal-finney-becomes-alcors-128th-patient/
On May 3, 2016 5:52 PM, "Colin Hales" <col.hales at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hal Finney died? :-(
> I remember him here.
> The bitcoin connection ... wow.
>
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-05-03 02:59, ddraig wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hal Finney - isn't he on, or used to be on, this list?  The name looks
>> familiar...
>>
>>
>> Yup, he was here. A good contributor, and his bitcoins actually paid for
>> his cryosuspension.
>>
>> Then again I sometimes feel a large proportion of the more interesting
>> people on the internet have been on this list at one point or another.
>>
>>
>> I think that when the history of this era is written, this list will be
>> mentioned as an important intellectual forum. And then people will all
>> think we were standing around the salon in togas, having erudite
>> conversations. Nobody will remember flamewars about gun rights or punfests.
>> I suspect the same is true for our historical writing - the Greek symposia
>> did leave hints in the form of messy drinking games (kottabos, anyone?)
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160503/6c254e15/attachment.html>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Fri May  6 15:38:55 2016
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 08:38:55 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Announcement re RAAD Festival 2016
Message-ID: <000b01d1a7ad$66f1d2c0$34d57840$@natasha.cc>






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160506/724684b7/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5609 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160506/724684b7/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 193021 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160506/724684b7/attachment.png>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Fri May  6 16:23:11 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 12:23:11 -0400
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
 was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv3pzfMEHfpLw3dxe=7C_B9breSpQSEq=YJ7oBoFj-tS7Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 1:01 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:53 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>> >
>> ?> ?
>> ?Let's make a bet , if the FBI recommends a indictment of Mrs. Clinton
>> before November 8 2016 I will give you $200, if they don't you only have
>> to give me $10.
>> ?That's 20 to 1 odds? John K Clark
>
>
>
>
> ?> ?
> Well John, I am not a betting man, but sure I will take you up on that
> one.
>
>
?OK Spike, you're on.

  John K Clark?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160506/c99561cf/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Fri May  6 16:27:02 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 12:27:02 -0400
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
 was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv0AHbF0LO0=ejQiB7FmxuHf02+3aAD_qeuee-SGCgfGHg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 1:01 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:



?> ?
> This will be a new one: you have proposed bets in the forum before, but I
> don?t recall anyone ever taking you up on anything.
>
>
?Not on this list but somebody did on another list. And I lost.

 John K Clark?




>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160506/bf710028/attachment.html>

From protokol2020 at gmail.com  Fri May  6 16:44:13 2016
From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 18:44:13 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CADYziYANTmBrORmUwJ0MiegO6BKSV=_7FCi6bPTdk1QjjAu7rQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv05+ooJ8x8g_jOxohuQzqxjm-ATGR7LWL9D-DWbM9ZfPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALMrAFST0C1AfFK7z3p8haeA=EDqJ4Mt1Hnt-nupEVVcvMiBpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH=2ypVFr403H4WtbDaiy9gm5TFeu6MS14y3fEUomKTkc_EZyA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADYziYANTmBrORmUwJ0MiegO6BKSV=_7FCi6bPTdk1QjjAu7rQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALMrAFQ5D4vWPSPxMxgomcdH7Zw1HKbmggSSdZBwPV97uwo7sg@mail.gmail.com>

> Carter was the only US president who didn't kill anyone.

Elect Dalai Lama if you want a president who is unable to kill anyone!

In four years, you can expect billion or more people dead as a consequence.

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Stephen Van Sickle <sjv2006 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On May 5, 2016 18:13, "Stathis Papaioannou" <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Carter was the only US president who didn't kill anyone.
>
> Tell that to the nine dead in Operation Eagle Claw.
>
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw
>
> And it's not like they were on their way to Tehran for a church picnic...
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>


-- 
https://protokol2020.wordpress.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160506/917b6823/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Fri May  6 16:32:14 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 09:32:14 -0700
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
	was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv0AHbF0LO0=ejQiB7FmxuHf02+3aAD_qeuee-SGCgfGHg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0AHbF0LO0=ejQiB7FmxuHf02+3aAD_qeuee-SGCgfGHg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00fa01d1a7b4$d9d19d00$8d74d700$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 9:27 AM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters, was: RE: Donald Trump

 

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 1:01 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net> > wrote:

 

 

?>>?

This will be a new one: you have proposed bets in the forum before, but I don?t recall anyone ever taking you up on anything. 

 

?>?Not on this list but somebody did on another list. And I lost? John K Clark?

 

 

Ja well, life is a gamble.  I have long been following PredictIt.  I am a flaming atheist, but I admit to struggling mightily to shake the old Methodist roots: gamblers and all other sinners you know.  My neighbors play the lottery when it gets big, but I have never been able to overpower the shame and embarrassment of buying a ticket, even when the theoretical after tax mathematical expectation of a ticket exceeds a dollar.

 

Deal: if I lose I will not whine, if I win I will not crow or boast.

 

Regarding your previous wager, I commend you on not whining over it.  Life is a gamble.  I ride motorcycles and occasionally even eat white bread.

 

spike

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160506/fad0ebbc/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Fri May  6 17:02:25 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 12:02:25 -0500
Subject: [ExI] power satellites again
In-Reply-To: <CAF5CFki-Y9vnf0U9SK-Zw64xAmdA1A1tUdojC0B2N=F7YppixQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB7fDX5EJyH-Q7TrAyFXZFnZErnu9dje8m3nO0iNFguGsQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF5CFki-Y9vnf0U9SK-Zw64xAmdA1A1tUdojC0B2N=F7YppixQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEYhhboa3Or9-ducJTK3fEHS5GjU5XeH+hehE7Gdm1GN9w@mail.gmail.com>

Just using this to power production in industrial areas of China etc could
really help with pollution that is directly effecting nearby populations
and inevitably all of us.
I read a book entitled Dust and was amazed at how much of it comes from Asia
bill w

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 1:00 PM, CryptAxe <cryptaxe at gmail.com> wrote:

> I didn't know that you could produce synthetic fuel or oil with solar
> panels that's very interesting. Zero carbon emissions might be a stretch
> but shoot for the stars I guess.
>
> Just using this to power production in industrial areas of China etc could
> really help with pollution that is directly effecting nearby populations
> and inevitably all of us.
>
> The timeline they give in the video makes it seem like this could happen
> somewhat quickly so I'm looking forward to progress. I wonder if spacex
> will help launch the satellites?
> On Apr 22, 2016 10:51 AM, "Keith Henson" <hkeithhenson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrcoD_vHzxU&feature=youtu.be
>>
>> Was shown as part of a briefing at the White House Wed.
>>
>> Keith
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160506/96e4d3c1/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Fri May  6 17:48:17 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 10:48:17 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CALMrAFQ5D4vWPSPxMxgomcdH7Zw1HKbmggSSdZBwPV97uwo7sg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv05+ooJ8x8g_jOxohuQzqxjm-ATGR7LWL9D-DWbM9ZfPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALMrAFST0C1AfFK7z3p8haeA=EDqJ4Mt1Hnt-nupEVVcvMiBpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH=2ypVFr403H4WtbDaiy9gm5TFeu6MS14y3fEUomKTkc_EZyA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADYziYANTmBrORmUwJ0MiegO6BKSV=_7FCi6bPTdk1QjjAu7rQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALMrAFQ5D4vWPSPxMxgomcdH7Zw1HKbmggSSdZBwPV97uwo7sg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5A136053-3E7F-4BE9-A111-8AC49C44D26E@gmail.com>

On May 6, 2016, at 9:44 AM, Tomaz Kristan <protokol2020 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Carter was the only US president who didn't kill anyone. 
> 
> Elect Dalai Lama if you want a president who is unable to kill anyone! 
> 
> In four years, you can expect billion or more people dead as a consequence.

From what does that follow?

Regards,

Dan
  Sample my Kindle books via:
http://author.to/DanUst
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160506/b94ac8e3/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Fri May  6 18:04:01 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 11:04:01 -0700
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
	was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv3pzfMEHfpLw3dxe=7C_B9breSpQSEq=YJ7oBoFj-tS7Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3pzfMEHfpLw3dxe=7C_B9breSpQSEq=YJ7oBoFj-tS7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <017401d1a7c1$abedcc30$03c96490$@att.net>

 

?> ?>?Well John, I am not a betting man, but sure I will take you up on that one. 

 

?>?OK Spike, you're on?John K Clark?

 

 

John this is a hell of a note man.  In 2000 we watched in appalled astonishment as a crazy scenario unfolded: the Supreme Court would choose the president.  Weirdest thing we ever saw.  Until now.  A mere 16 years later? the next US president will likely be chosen by the FBI.

 

spike

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160506/95cd14cb/attachment.html>

From protokol2020 at gmail.com  Fri May  6 18:31:33 2016
From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 20:31:33 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <5A136053-3E7F-4BE9-A111-8AC49C44D26E@gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv05+ooJ8x8g_jOxohuQzqxjm-ATGR7LWL9D-DWbM9ZfPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALMrAFST0C1AfFK7z3p8haeA=EDqJ4Mt1Hnt-nupEVVcvMiBpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH=2ypVFr403H4WtbDaiy9gm5TFeu6MS14y3fEUomKTkc_EZyA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADYziYANTmBrORmUwJ0MiegO6BKSV=_7FCi6bPTdk1QjjAu7rQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALMrAFQ5D4vWPSPxMxgomcdH7Zw1HKbmggSSdZBwPV97uwo7sg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5A136053-3E7F-4BE9-A111-8AC49C44D26E@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALMrAFSS8eyUFO0PTAv0UHzb2MX5bjSXUmRyYHTdnBzRrn+ojw@mail.gmail.com>

> From what does that follow?

Just remove your armed guards, police and military ... so that nobody who
is under the presidential chain of command can't  kill anyone, anymore.

Your country will be destroyed by mobs from all over the planet.

Isn't it obvious?


On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 7:48 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 6, 2016, at 9:44 AM, Tomaz Kristan <protokol2020 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Carter was the only US president who didn't kill anyone.
>
>
> Elect Dalai Lama if you want a president who is unable to kill anyone!
>
> In four years, you can expect billion or more people dead as a consequence.
>
>
> From what does that follow?
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>   Sample my Kindle books via:
> http://author.to/DanUst
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>


-- 
https://protokol2020.wordpress.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160506/1dab04b4/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Fri May  6 19:00:47 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 12:00:47 -0700
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
 was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <017401d1a7c1$abedcc30$03c96490$@att.net>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3pzfMEHfpLw3dxe=7C_B9breSpQSEq=YJ7oBoFj-tS7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <017401d1a7c1$abedcc30$03c96490$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNRT56VJaF34b3ne8cXuPsFJ32pMpj_iEKT29DrAbTvhWw@mail.gmail.com>

On May 6, 2016 11:19 AM, "spike" <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> the next US president will likely be chosen by the FBI.

If you're that convinced the email server bit is worth an indictment (signs
suggest otherwise), then what do you think the odds are that Trump's
bombast will, between now and the November election, cross the line into
criminalized speech (inciting a riot, say), resulting in his arrest?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160506/e19a825a/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Fri May  6 19:32:29 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 14:32:29 -0500
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
 was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNRT56VJaF34b3ne8cXuPsFJ32pMpj_iEKT29DrAbTvhWw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3pzfMEHfpLw3dxe=7C_B9breSpQSEq=YJ7oBoFj-tS7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <017401d1a7c1$abedcc30$03c96490$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNRT56VJaF34b3ne8cXuPsFJ32pMpj_iEKT29DrAbTvhWw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEY+Rg3jf9rnqY7jsd440+pOQe=kdE2ygCN1yFaXer=Hmw@mail.gmail.com>

If you're that convinced the email server bit is worth an indictment (signs
suggest otherwise), then what do you think the odds are that Trump's
bombast will, between now and the November election, cross the line into
criminalized speech (inciting a riot, say), resulting in his arrest?
adrian

I think that Trump is stunned that he won, and that he will cool his
rhetoric and get really serious and 'presidential'.  He may be crazy but
he's not dumb.  He has to know his disapproval rating of around 65%.  Just
guessing.

bill w

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 6, 2016 11:19 AM, "spike" <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> > the next US president will likely be chosen by the FBI.
>
> If you're that convinced the email server bit is worth an indictment
> (signs suggest otherwise), then what do you think the odds are that Trump's
> bombast will, between now and the November election, cross the line into
> criminalized speech (inciting a riot, say), resulting in his arrest?
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160506/b5c8396a/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Fri May  6 19:57:28 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 12:57:28 -0700
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
	was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNRT56VJaF34b3ne8cXuPsFJ32pMpj_iEKT29DrAbTvhWw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3pzfMEHfpLw3dxe=7C_B9breSpQSEq=YJ7oBoFj-tS7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <017401d1a7c1$abedcc30$03c96490$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNRT56VJaF34b3ne8cXuPsFJ32pMpj_iEKT29DrAbTvhWw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <01ef01d1a7d1$859da680$90d8f380$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 12:01 PM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters, was: RE: Donald Trump

 

On May 6, 2016 11:19 AM, "spike" <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net> > wrote:
>>? the next US president will likely be chosen by the FBI.

>?If you're that convinced the email server bit is worth an indictment (signs suggest otherwise), then what do you think the odds are that Trump's bombast will, between now and the November election, cross the line into criminalized speech (inciting a riot, say), resulting in his arrest?

 

Hard to say, but either way, the FBI makes the call, ja?  That would be one hell of a note: the FBI takes out the winner of both party?s primaries.  

Sheesh, how the hell did we get to the point where the federal-level cops choose the head of the executive branch?  Americans, how did this happen to us?  Did we do this to us?

Help us Gary Wan Kenobi.

spike

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160506/0e9a5d56/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Fri May  6 20:40:42 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 13:40:42 -0700
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
 was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <01ef01d1a7d1$859da680$90d8f380$@att.net>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3pzfMEHfpLw3dxe=7C_B9breSpQSEq=YJ7oBoFj-tS7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <017401d1a7c1$abedcc30$03c96490$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNRT56VJaF34b3ne8cXuPsFJ32pMpj_iEKT29DrAbTvhWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <01ef01d1a7d1$859da680$90d8f380$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNRKAxj4-ry9t3hY=KVYPXrO6qZTQx8ezsZ895_u300Sfw@mail.gmail.com>

On May 6, 2016 1:12 PM, "spike" <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> Hard to say, but either way, the FBI makes the call, ja?  That would be
one hell of a note: the FBI takes out the winner of both party?s primaries.

Definite flight risk: their announced plans have them travelling all over
the US.  And solitary confinement with no outside communication is at the
total discretion of the correctional facility, yes?

Not that it has a chance of happening.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160506/6bb4178b/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Fri May  6 20:27:09 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 13:27:09 -0700
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
	was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <01ef01d1a7d1$859da680$90d8f380$@att.net>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3pzfMEHfpLw3dxe=7C_B9breSpQSEq=YJ7oBoFj-tS7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <017401d1a7c1$abedcc30$03c96490$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNRT56VJaF34b3ne8cXuPsFJ32pMpj_iEKT29DrAbTvhWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <01ef01d1a7d1$859da680$90d8f380$@att.net>
Message-ID: <020101d1a7d5$aad25a00$00770e00$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike
?

>?Sheesh, how the hell did we get to the point where the federal-level cops choose the head of the executive branch?  Americans, how did this happen to us?  Did we do this to us?...spike

 

After pondering my own question, I fear we did this us.

Why doesn?t this sort of catastrophe ever happen to the saner nations, such as, like, Britain or Germany?

Oh wait, back up one.  It did happen once in Germany.  

OK then, Britain.  Why don?t the Brits ever find themselves in a spot where their two major parties nominate odious characters, then somehow convince themselves only those two parties can ever matter forever and ever amen?  And why did this happen to us?  And can we do anything?

spike

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160506/8b394112/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Fri May  6 20:50:12 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 16:50:12 -0400
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
 was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEY+Rg3jf9rnqY7jsd440+pOQe=kdE2ygCN1yFaXer=Hmw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3pzfMEHfpLw3dxe=7C_B9breSpQSEq=YJ7oBoFj-tS7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <017401d1a7c1$abedcc30$03c96490$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNRT56VJaF34b3ne8cXuPsFJ32pMpj_iEKT29DrAbTvhWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY+Rg3jf9rnqY7jsd440+pOQe=kdE2ygCN1yFaXer=Hmw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv0zS74wKquY9H7B3hpW_iVOieMvcLw0L8Gbooy-Rh-gFA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 3:32 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
wrote:

?> ?
> I think that Trump is stunned that he won, and that he will cool his
> rhetoric and get really serious and 'presidential'.
>

?I think he'll try, but I just don't think he's capable of it.?



> ?> ?
> He may be crazy but he's not dumb.
>

?I disagree, he's certainly crazy but his behavior on the morning of the
Indiana primary was more than that, it was *DUMB*. And yet millions of
people want to give this foolish unstable man the authority to ?tell the
commanders of 18 Trident submarines what to do; and each of the 18
submarines has 192 H-bombs 5 times as powerful as the one that destroyed
Hiroshima.

In the next 4 years something somewhere in the world is going to happen
that will make the President of the United States angry; if Donald Trump is
president ask yourself how he will react when that happens. Today when
Donald gets angry all he can do is send out a lunatic tweet, but if he's
president and has a red telephone on his bedside table he will have other
ways to vent his anger.

 John K Clark   ?








> He has to know his disapproval rating of around 65%.  Just guessing.
>
> bill w
>
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 6, 2016 11:19 AM, "spike" <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>> > the next US president will likely be chosen by the FBI.
>>
>> If you're that convinced the email server bit is worth an indictment
>> (signs suggest otherwise), then what do you think the odds are that Trump's
>> bombast will, between now and the November election, cross the line into
>> criminalized speech (inciting a riot, say), resulting in his arrest?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160506/f4a4ce6f/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Fri May  6 22:06:02 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 17:06:02 -0500
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
 was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv0zS74wKquY9H7B3hpW_iVOieMvcLw0L8Gbooy-Rh-gFA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3pzfMEHfpLw3dxe=7C_B9breSpQSEq=YJ7oBoFj-tS7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <017401d1a7c1$abedcc30$03c96490$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNRT56VJaF34b3ne8cXuPsFJ32pMpj_iEKT29DrAbTvhWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY+Rg3jf9rnqY7jsd440+pOQe=kdE2ygCN1yFaXer=Hmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0zS74wKquY9H7B3hpW_iVOieMvcLw0L8Gbooy-Rh-gFA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZWz3_V+2avY_pjVpY=T_1ytmX9+T3SceCwZFWsyb8k2w@mail.gmail.com>

In the next 4 years something somewhere in the world is going to happen
that will make the President of the United States angry; if Donald Trump is
president ask yourself how he will react when that happens. Today when
Donald gets angry all he can do is send out a lunatic tweet, but if he's
president and has a red telephone on his bedside table he will have other
ways to vent his anger.  clark

The office changes the man and the makeup of the Congress helps define the
role too.  But any way you look at it, Trump is a disaster.

bill w


On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 3:50 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 3:32 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> ?> ?
>> I think that Trump is stunned that he won, and that he will cool his
>> rhetoric and get really serious and 'presidential'.
>>
>
> ?I think he'll try, but I just don't think he's capable of it.?
>
>
>
>> ?> ?
>> He may be crazy but he's not dumb.
>>
>
> ?I disagree, he's certainly crazy but his behavior on the morning of the
> Indiana primary was more than that, it was *DUMB*. And yet millions of
> people want to give this foolish unstable man the authority to ?tell the
> commanders of 18 Trident submarines what to do; and each of the 18
> submarines has 192 H-bombs 5 times as powerful as the one that destroyed
> Hiroshima.
>
> In the next 4 years something somewhere in the world is going to happen
> that will make the President of the United States angry; if Donald Trump is
> president ask yourself how he will react when that happens. Today when
> Donald gets angry all he can do is send out a lunatic tweet, but if he's
> president and has a red telephone on his bedside table he will have other
> ways to vent his anger.
>
>  John K Clark   ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> He has to know his disapproval rating of around 65%.  Just guessing.
>>
>> bill w
>>
>> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On May 6, 2016 11:19 AM, "spike" <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>>> > the next US president will likely be chosen by the FBI.
>>>
>>> If you're that convinced the email server bit is worth an indictment
>>> (signs suggest otherwise), then what do you think the odds are that Trump's
>>> bombast will, between now and the November election, cross the line into
>>> criminalized speech (inciting a riot, say), resulting in his arrest?
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160506/22b0f292/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Fri May  6 22:30:01 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 15:30:01 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CALMrAFSS8eyUFO0PTAv0UHzb2MX5bjSXUmRyYHTdnBzRrn+ojw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv05+ooJ8x8g_jOxohuQzqxjm-ATGR7LWL9D-DWbM9ZfPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALMrAFST0C1AfFK7z3p8haeA=EDqJ4Mt1Hnt-nupEVVcvMiBpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH=2ypVFr403H4WtbDaiy9gm5TFeu6MS14y3fEUomKTkc_EZyA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADYziYANTmBrORmUwJ0MiegO6BKSV=_7FCi6bPTdk1QjjAu7rQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALMrAFQ5D4vWPSPxMxgomcdH7Zw1HKbmggSSdZBwPV97uwo7sg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5A136053-3E7F-4BE9-A111-8AC49C44D26E@gmail.com>
 <CALMrAFSS8eyUFO0PTAv0UHzb2MX5bjSXUmRyYHTdnBzRrn+ojw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <415F02D7-FB66-4DB5-AA9D-3EB265D918F5@gmail.com>

On May 6, 2016, at 11:31 AM, Tomaz Kristan <protokol2020 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > From what does that follow?
> 
> Just remove your armed guards, police and military ... so that nobody who is under the presidential chain of command can't kill anyone, anymore.
> 
> Your country will be destroyed by mobs from all over the planet.
> 
> Isn't it obvious?

That doesn't seem obvious to me. Why would 'mobs from all over the planet' even bother? Let's say they tried, how far would they be likely to get?

My guess is if the American empire stopped military engagement in the world, the rest of the world would pay much more attention to more local threats, real or imagined, rather than playing along with or against the foreign policy of US elites. Of course, my guess is unlikely to face the reality rest anytime soon since US elites are not even remotely interested in disengagement.

Regards,

Dan
  Sample my Kindle books via:
http://author.to/DanUst
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160506/53570f36/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Fri May  6 23:06:22 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 16:06:22 -0700
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
	was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEZWz3_V+2avY_pjVpY=T_1ytmX9+T3SceCwZFWsyb8k2w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3pzfMEHfpLw3dxe=7C_B9breSpQSEq=YJ7oBoFj-tS7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <017401d1a7c1$abedcc30$03c96490$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNRT56VJaF34b3ne8cXuPsFJ32pMpj_iEKT29DrAbTvhWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY+Rg3jf9rnqY7jsd440+pOQe=kdE2ygCN1yFaXer=Hmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0zS74wKquY9H7B3hpW_iVOieMvcLw0L8Gbooy-Rh-gFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZWz3_V+2avY_pjVpY=T_1ytmX9+T3SceCwZFWsyb8k2w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <003101d1a7eb$e8c82900$ba587b00$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace
?

 

>?The office changes the man and the makeup of the Congress helps define the role too?

bill w

 

 

In the quadrennial November election, the popular vote merely selects the membership of the electoral college.  In about half the states, the members of that assembly are not legally obligated to vote for the candidate who sent them; they can vote for someone else.  They seldom do, but in every election, we see one or more, for a total of a couple hundred examples of faithless electors all together.

 

So now, one version of American history holds that the unstated purpose of the electoral college is to limit damage if neither of candidates the proletariat selects are suitable.  But the constitution doesn?t actually say how suitability is determined, and it doesn?t say what happens if the college elects someone else besides one of the candidates, or if the same proletariat who gave us the dreadful choices doesn?t accept the third candidate.  

 

It isn?t clear to me what happens if they have two candidates and plenty of the members of the EC decide the one with the most votes is unsuitable but the one who came in second is almost equally unsuitable or even worse.

 

Now we pile irony upon irony: the strongest argument against a libertarian candidate is that libertarians can never win.  Even when both major parties select a candidate who is unsuitable and the entire process is thrown into chaos, we still hear the same argument.  So, here are the principles, as I understand them:

 

1.     The libertarian party cannot win.

2.    In those extremely rare circumstances when principle 1 is false, principle 1 is still true.

 

So the argument goes, there is no point in voting for a candidate who cannot win, for even if a perfect storm occurs and that candidate can win, that candidate cannot win, so there is no point voting for that candidate.

 

Another take: plenty of voters, perhaps even a majority, might say ?This weird year, the libertarian guy really is better than either of the majors, but we already know we must choose between one of the majors, since we already know we must choose one of the majors.  Only one of the majors can win, even if a majority realizes the third party candidate is superior to either of them.  So cut the fantasy crap and choose the least bad of the two majors??

 

Is this really what we are saying?

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160506/f06d0e71/attachment.html>

From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Fri May  6 23:39:30 2016
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 16:39:30 -0700
Subject: [ExI] power satellites again
Message-ID: <CAPiwVB4Asyim9EMtc3Bi6LceKKDWUGqLATLDtoMPC=UR2FkM-Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 9:02 AM,  CryptAxe <cryptaxe at gmail.com> wrote:

> I didn't know that you could produce synthetic fuel or oil with solar
> panels that's very interesting. Zero carbon emissions might be a stretch
> but shoot for the stars I guess.

The technology dates back to 1925.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process

> Just using this to power production in industrial areas of China etc could
> really help with pollution that is directly effecting nearby populations
> and inevitably all of us.
>
> The timeline they give in the video makes it seem like this could happen
> somewhat quickly so I'm looking forward to progress. I wonder if spacex
> will help launch the satellites?

Probably not.  The problem is cost.  Musk and Co will probably get the
cost to GEO down from the current $20,000/kg to $2000/kg.  That's
still ten times to much for power satellites to make economic sense.
Skylon can probably get the cost down far enough and deal with the
volume (a million flights per year).  The capacity of the aircraft
industry would have to about double to make enough of them.

Keith

> On Apr 22, 2016 10:51 AM, "Keith Henson" <hkeithhenson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrcoD_vHzxU&feature=youtu.be


From spike66 at att.net  Fri May  6 23:45:37 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 16:45:37 -0700
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
	was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <003101d1a7eb$e8c82900$ba587b00$@att.net>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3pzfMEHfpLw3dxe=7C_B9breSpQSEq=YJ7oBoFj-tS7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <017401d1a7c1$abedcc30$03c96490$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNRT56VJaF34b3ne8cXuPsFJ32pMpj_iEKT29DrAbTvhWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY+Rg3jf9rnqY7jsd440+pOQe=kdE2ygCN1yFaXer=Hmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0zS74wKquY9H7B3hpW_iVOieMvcLw0L8Gbooy-Rh-gFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZWz3_V+2avY_pjVpY=T_1ytmX9+T3SceCwZFWsyb8k2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <003101d1a7eb$e8c82900$ba587b00$@att.net>
Message-ID: <004b01d1a7f1$64aaff20$2e00fd60$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike
?

 

1.     The libertarian party cannot win.

2.    In those extremely rare circumstances when principle 1 is false, principle 1 is still true.

 

>?Is this really what we are saying?  Spike

 

 

Guys, do pardon my slow-motion freak-out.  I am reluctant to accept that American democracy is as fragile as it currently appears.

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160506/4a6bf2de/attachment.html>

From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Sat May  7 00:22:59 2016
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 17:22:59 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology was Donald Trump
Message-ID: <CAPiwVB57G3rf=L2jf-FT6+LZm5zDzGhAfXeGMQDzV8anMOktfw@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 1:50 PM,  "spike" <spike66 at att.net>

snip

> After pondering my own question, I fear we did this us.
>
> Why doesn?t this sort of catastrophe ever happen to the saner nations, such as, like, Britain or Germany?
>
> Oh wait, back up one.  It did happen once in Germany.

If you are into evolutionary psychology then you look into the ways
our ancestors lived as hunter-gatherers for an explanation as to what
happened in Germany in the 1920s and lots of other examples.

Humans have had the ability to reproduce to fill the environment to
capacity for a few million years.  But "capacity" is a variable as
weather can seriously reduce the capacity of a given environment to
feed people.  The solution, which worked just fine for millions of
years, was to go kill neighbors when facing starvation.

Now killing neighbors is a dangerous thing do to from your personal
viewpoint, they fight back and may kill you.  But from the gene's
viewpoint, it is substantially better than half the tribe starving.
(I have discussed the math behind this here several times.)  So what
evolution has done is bias us to follow crazy leaders when the future
is looking bleak.  The crazy leaders take us into wars, and from the
gene's viewpoint, honed over a million years, wars are better than
starving.

> OK then, Britain.  Why don?t the Brits ever find themselves in a spot where their two major parties nominate odious characters, then somehow convince themselves only those two parties can ever matter forever and ever amen?  And why did this happen to us?  And can we do anything?

That's the bleakest part of evolutionary psychology.  Probably not.

If there is anything we can do it is to change the population wide
perception and reality of the future to a more hopeful view.  That's
why I work on power satellites as a mechanism to solve energy and
improve population wide economics.

Keith



From atymes at gmail.com  Sat May  7 02:47:30 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 19:47:30 -0700
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
 was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <003101d1a7eb$e8c82900$ba587b00$@att.net>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3pzfMEHfpLw3dxe=7C_B9breSpQSEq=YJ7oBoFj-tS7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <017401d1a7c1$abedcc30$03c96490$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNRT56VJaF34b3ne8cXuPsFJ32pMpj_iEKT29DrAbTvhWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY+Rg3jf9rnqY7jsd440+pOQe=kdE2ygCN1yFaXer=Hmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0zS74wKquY9H7B3hpW_iVOieMvcLw0L8Gbooy-Rh-gFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZWz3_V+2avY_pjVpY=T_1ytmX9+T3SceCwZFWsyb8k2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <003101d1a7eb$e8c82900$ba587b00$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNS_oWFjV5yhuUTy209h+YZMgca9hOA9U=GceN3y8CWNyQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 4:06 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> Another take: plenty of voters, perhaps even a majority, might say ?This
> weird year, the libertarian guy really is better than either of the majors,
> but we already know we must choose between one of the majors, since we
> already know we must choose one of the majors.  Only one of the majors can
> win, even if a majority realizes the third party candidate is superior to
> either of them.  So cut the fantasy crap and choose the least bad of the
> two majors??
>
>
>
> Is this really what we are saying?
>

We're saying a majority of voters will not vote for a third party.  The
chain of logic you give applies to an unknown percentage of them, quite
possibly most of them.  Then you have die hard party loyalists, who will
not vote for anyone but the party they have been programmed (as in cults)
to vote for no matter how loathsome or detrimental to their own lives the
candidate is.

It is possible to break that to significant degrees, as Ross Perot and
Ralph Nader demonstrated.  No such third party candidate in this race has
yet to engage in the actions and strategies they engaged in.  Just
passively being a better candidate is not enough; they need to campaign,
including a serious amount of media advertising.  If they are unwilling or
unable to do that, they are as unable to win the presidential race as
someone on foot - even one of the world's best sprinters - could win a
stock car race.  It's not literally physics (unlike the stock car race) but
it might as well be.

If you wish for your libertarian candidate to take advantage of the
opportunity you perceive, you need to get him to start campaigning on a
scale similar to what Clinton and Trump are doing.  If he needs to spend
other peoples' money to do so, to afford the TV ads and travel budget -
well, that's what Clinton and Trump are largely doing; he doesn't need to
match their campaign budgets exactly but he will still need to go through
millions of dollars to have a chance.  (By contrast, Trump's campaign has
gone through roughly $50M so far - remarkably frugal for a major party
nomination winning effort - and Clinton's done a few times as much.  So
it's very likely that any successful third party will need well over $1M,
probably over $10M.  Again, though, that need not be - and probably
shouldn't be - mostly his money.)  If he refuses to raise or spend that
sort of money (say, if he thinks that spending a few hundred thousand or
less is enough), then he refuses to do anything but predictably waste what
time, energy, and money he and his supporters put in.

If he objects to taking money from large donors, he can take a page from
Bernie Sanders and get lots of people to donate small amounts.  (Copying
what works from your opponents is a basic politician skill.  It goes with
the basic political realization that almost nobody is complete scum;
everyone has good that can be salvaged.  Someone you rabidly oppose on one
issue today may be your best ally on another tomorrow.)

And...well, honestly?  Get him to do some serious research into what has,
and what has not, worked with regard to getting elected President.  If he
wants to skip the "get nominated by a major party" part, fine, but there's
way more to it than that (and, honestly, a lot of what goes into winning
such a nomination goes into winning the Presidency anyway).  Of the rest,
what has he been doing, and why isn't he doing the rest of it yet?

Answer that, and you have the likely real reason to why he's not going to
win.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160506/0e3d2b05/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Sat May  7 03:59:02 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 20:59:02 -0700
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
	was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNS_oWFjV5yhuUTy209h+YZMgca9hOA9U=GceN3y8CWNyQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3pzfMEHfpLw3dxe=7C_B9breSpQSEq=YJ7oBoFj-tS7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <017401d1a7c1$abedcc30$03c96490$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNRT56VJaF34b3ne8cXuPsFJ32pMpj_iEKT29DrAbTvhWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY+Rg3jf9rnqY7jsd440+pOQe=kdE2ygCN1yFaXer=Hmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0zS74wKquY9H7B3hpW_iVOieMvcLw0L8Gbooy-Rh-gFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZWz3_V+2avY_pjVpY=T_1ytmX9+T3SceCwZFWsyb8k2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <003101d1a7eb$e8c82900$ba587b00$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNS_oWFjV5yhuUTy209h+YZMgca9hOA9U=GceN3y8CWNyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <005101d1a814$cb0575c0$61106140$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 7:48 PM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters, was: RE: Donald Trump

 

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 4:06 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net> > wrote:

>>?Another take: plenty of voters, perhaps even a majority, might say ?This weird year, the libertarian guy really is better than either of the majors, but we already know we must choose between one of the majors, since we already know we must choose one of the majors?Is this really what we are saying?

 

>?We're saying a majority of voters will not vote for a third party.  ?  If he wants to skip the "get nominated by a major party" part, fine, but there's way more to it than that (and, honestly, a lot of what goes into winning such a nomination goes into winning the Presidency anyway).  Of the rest, what has he been doing, and why isn't he doing the rest of it yet?  Answer that, and you have the likely real reason to why he's not going to win? Adrian

 

OK infomercial time, thanks Adrian.  The Libertarian party gets to put a candidate on the ballot in all fifty states.  The Libertarian candidate has not yet been chosen: as with the two majors, that happens at their convention 26-30 May.  Johnson is the likely candidate to be nominated by the LP.  If anyone else wanted to be US president, even if they owned a trillion dollars and were willing to spend it all, could not at this point get themselves on the ballot in all 50 states.  They couldn?t even get on enough states to achieve a mathematical possibility of winning a majority of the electoral college, if they started now.  But the LP will nominate someone the end of this month who will appear on the ballot in all 50 states.

OK then.  In this one oddball year, both major parties are bitterly divided, the disapproval ratings of both major party?s presumptive nominees is higher than 50%, the disapproval rating of the presumptive nominee in that nominee?s own party approaches 50% in both majors.  How odd is that?  Both major presumptive nominees are widely perceived as megalomaniacal hot-tempered warhawks.  One has two simultaneous FBI investigations ongoing and a possibility of making her acceptance speech while under indictment, requiring a presidential pardon on the way in, which would set a completely unknown and dangerous precedent.  The other is being sued for running a flim-flam university.  Has this ever happened?  I sure as hell have never seen a pair of odious characters comparable to these two.  Had we lined up all the candidates for the two major parties last summer and had we been asked to choose the least desirable candidate from each party, we would have picked these two.

Yet somehow? they managed to win.  Sheesh.

Gary Johnson is the likely Libertarian nominee.  No one has ever heard of him outside his immediate family and a scattered few in New Mexico where he was a successful governor.  So he comes in as a neutral, when both of the others who will appear on the ballot in all fifty states are negative.  So? Zero vs negative and negative, yet we still are influenced by the argument that zero cannot win, so we somehow waste our vote unless we choose one of the negatives, absolutely regardless of how negative the majors are.  

Our brutal masters, our overlords have already placed our boundaries.  They have already told us we must choose from one of the majors.  We meekly obey.  We shamble along silently in sad orderly columns, like the tame and broken gray masses in that 1984 Superbowl ad for Apple Macintosh.  Ja, you remember that one, sure you do.  How could you ever forget?  Or if you were not yet born, you are googling on it right now, as the running footsteps of the young lady with the hammer are being heard approaching.

Think about it.

WHERE THE HELL IS OUR COLLECTIVE INNER GALT?

spike

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160506/ec8db303/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Sat May  7 05:06:50 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 22:06:50 -0700
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
 was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <005101d1a814$cb0575c0$61106140$@att.net>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3pzfMEHfpLw3dxe=7C_B9breSpQSEq=YJ7oBoFj-tS7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <017401d1a7c1$abedcc30$03c96490$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNRT56VJaF34b3ne8cXuPsFJ32pMpj_iEKT29DrAbTvhWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY+Rg3jf9rnqY7jsd440+pOQe=kdE2ygCN1yFaXer=Hmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0zS74wKquY9H7B3hpW_iVOieMvcLw0L8Gbooy-Rh-gFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZWz3_V+2avY_pjVpY=T_1ytmX9+T3SceCwZFWsyb8k2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <003101d1a7eb$e8c82900$ba587b00$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNS_oWFjV5yhuUTy209h+YZMgca9hOA9U=GceN3y8CWNyQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <005101d1a814$cb0575c0$61106140$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNQTB+TUZ2=R0vEjzRdFXyLB7veayPDWBUnRffdtF-Fdqw@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 8:59 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> So? Zero vs negative and negative, yet we still are influenced by the
> argument that zero cannot win
>

Remember, there are many dimensions here.

So long as the number of people who've heard of him is almost zero?  Yeah,
he can't win, no matter how good a President he'd make.

The onus is on him to fix that.  Until he does, we the voters bear no blame
for not voting for someone we've literally never heard of.

Literally.  They might see him on the ballot but that's it.  And they know
well that if that's the limit of their exposure, then that's the limit of
exposure of most voters, so therefore yes he won't win and the choice boils
down to the two they have heard of.

That needs to no longer be the case by the November election.  He must
change that.

If you want to be effective at spending energy on this topic, figure out
how to get him to change that.  Figure out how to get him to take actions
that will have anywhere approaching a useful amount of impact, as opposed
to just showing up at his sparsely attended convention, giving a few
speeches almost nobody listens to, and doing not much else.  Figure out how
to get him on nationwide TV (talk shows, as well as ads aired during prime
time on major networks).  Figure out how to get the press talking about
him.  Figure out how to get the major polling institutions to include him
on their polls, so that he can appear in the commonly cited poll results.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160506/75c7b422/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Sat May  7 05:48:24 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 01:48:24 -0400
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
 was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <004b01d1a7f1$64aaff20$2e00fd60$@att.net>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3pzfMEHfpLw3dxe=7C_B9breSpQSEq=YJ7oBoFj-tS7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <017401d1a7c1$abedcc30$03c96490$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNRT56VJaF34b3ne8cXuPsFJ32pMpj_iEKT29DrAbTvhWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY+Rg3jf9rnqY7jsd440+pOQe=kdE2ygCN1yFaXer=Hmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0zS74wKquY9H7B3hpW_iVOieMvcLw0L8Gbooy-Rh-gFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZWz3_V+2avY_pjVpY=T_1ytmX9+T3SceCwZFWsyb8k2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <003101d1a7eb$e8c82900$ba587b00$@att.net>
 <004b01d1a7f1$64aaff20$2e00fd60$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv15nbp5nA_VujJO42EDmr9QkO8AJNU2yHkdV2Esq6EMLA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 7:45 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

?> ?
1.     The libertarian party cannot win.2.    In those extremely rare
circumstances when principle 1 is false, principle 1 is still true. Is this
really what we are saying?


?The libertarian party can't win this time but ?in 4 years things could be
different. If Trump loses the general election the Republican Party will be
severely weakened, but if Trump wins the general election then in 4 years
the Republican Party will not be sick it will be as dead as the Whig Party.
So either way in 4 years we could still have a 2 party system, the
Democrats and something else; there will be a power vacuum just waiting to
be filled. This assumes that the USA would survive in some form after 4
years of Donald Trump,  and I think it probably would, I think there would
be a 85% chance that there would still be something around worth saving.

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160507/796e931a/attachment.html>

From protokol2020 at gmail.com  Sat May  7 06:10:25 2016
From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 08:10:25 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <415F02D7-FB66-4DB5-AA9D-3EB265D918F5@gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv05+ooJ8x8g_jOxohuQzqxjm-ATGR7LWL9D-DWbM9ZfPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALMrAFST0C1AfFK7z3p8haeA=EDqJ4Mt1Hnt-nupEVVcvMiBpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH=2ypVFr403H4WtbDaiy9gm5TFeu6MS14y3fEUomKTkc_EZyA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADYziYANTmBrORmUwJ0MiegO6BKSV=_7FCi6bPTdk1QjjAu7rQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALMrAFQ5D4vWPSPxMxgomcdH7Zw1HKbmggSSdZBwPV97uwo7sg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5A136053-3E7F-4BE9-A111-8AC49C44D26E@gmail.com>
 <CALMrAFSS8eyUFO0PTAv0UHzb2MX5bjSXUmRyYHTdnBzRrn+ojw@mail.gmail.com>
 <415F02D7-FB66-4DB5-AA9D-3EB265D918F5@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALMrAFSEhsg3=xO9gfMKHEChx60562qQXLwrp7SzUFf32T=aGg@mail.gmail.com>

>  Why would 'mobs from all over the planet' even bother?

Indeed, why? Think a little!


On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 12:30 AM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On May 6, 2016, at 11:31 AM, Tomaz Kristan <protokol2020 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > From what does that follow?
>
> Just remove your armed guards, police and military ... so that nobody who
> is under the presidential chain of command can't kill anyone, anymore.
>
> Your country will be destroyed by mobs from all over the planet.
>
> Isn't it obvious?
>
>
> That doesn't seem obvious to me. Why would 'mobs from all over the planet'
> even bother? Let's say they tried, how far would they be likely to get?
>
> My guess is if the American empire stopped military engagement in the
> world, the rest of the world would pay much more attention to more local
> threats, real or imagined, rather than playing along with or against the
> foreign policy of US elites. Of course, my guess is unlikely to face the
> reality rest anytime soon since US elites are not even remotely interested
> in disengagement.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>   Sample my Kindle books via:
> http://author.to/DanUst
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>


-- 
https://protokol2020.wordpress.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160507/05c96d0a/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Sat May  7 06:23:09 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 23:23:09 -0700
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
	was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv15nbp5nA_VujJO42EDmr9QkO8AJNU2yHkdV2Esq6EMLA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3pzfMEHfpLw3dxe=7C_B9breSpQSEq=YJ7oBoFj-tS7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <017401d1a7c1$abedcc30$03c96490$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNRT56VJaF34b3ne8cXuPsFJ32pMpj_iEKT29DrAbTvhWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY+Rg3jf9rnqY7jsd440+pOQe=kdE2ygCN1yFaXer=Hmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0zS74wKquY9H7B3hpW_iVOieMvcLw0L8Gbooy-Rh-gFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZWz3_V+2avY_pjVpY=T_1ytmX9+T3SceCwZFWsyb8k2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <003101d1a7eb$e8c82900$ba587b00$@att.net>
 <004b01d1a7f1$64aaff20$2e00fd60$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv15nbp5nA_VujJO42EDmr9QkO8AJNU2yHkdV2Esq6EMLA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00c101d1a828$eda8b5b0$c8fa2110$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 10:48 PM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters, was: RE: Donald Trump

 

 

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 7:45 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net> > wrote:

?> ?

>>1.     The libertarian party cannot win.2.    In those extremely rare circumstances when principle 1 is false, principle 1 is still true. Is this really what we are saying?  

 

?>?The libertarian party can't win this time but ?in 4 years things could be different. ,,, John K Clark

 

 

Well John you may be right.  However? my intuition is that it is now or never for the LP.  For Libertarians to even show up on the radar at all, it needs to be a really weird election year.  This one makes 2000 look mainstream.  The argument that the Republican party will destroy itself is laughable: it already has.  It isn?t getting behind its own nominee (well, imagine that.)  The Democrat party appears to be on the verge of nominating the head of a crime family.  Sheesh, do they really think we believe that family foundation thing was all about charity?  That is as believable as those 30,000 emails about yoga routines have anything to do with yoga.  We know what stuff was.  

 

We know what is going on here with Trump.  He is making the argument that he knows politicians are corrupt because he has personally bought influence.  So are we to believe the buyer of political favors is bad but is not as bad as the seller?  The Clinton crime family, sheesh.  It is so corrupt, Chelsea?s baby is wanting a cut of the action.  How weird is this year?  Trump is protected from his own gaffes by his own gaffes.  There is so many of them, this is just one more silly comment.  Clinton is protected from criminal indictment by her own list of previous criminal actions for which the family somehow managed to skate around prosecution.  And after all this, Trump continues to make outrageous comments, the press reports it all, demonstrating Trump?s notion that you can get free press just by making outrageous comments, and your numbers actually go up.  Jonathan Gruber was right!  We Americans really are stupid.  Meanwhile Clinton demonstrates there is a core of people who would vote for her even if she runs her campaign from inside a prison cell.  All legal prosecution is all a vast right-wing conspiracy dontchaknow.  This woman makes Richard Nixon look like the Dalai Lama with jowls.  Trump and Clinton, sheesh.

 

I have to think it is now or never.  This is the one weird enough year where by some bizarre twist of events, after we watched both parties in congress work together to create the most epic fail of American history, doing little or nothing about the runaway spending with little or nothing to show for all that debt we ran up in just 16 years, after seeing both parties shattered and in disarray, this is the year, the only chance.  These leading candidates are both weak, both in legal hot water, both with obvious character flaws even to their supporters.  We can beat this time, this one single time.  We can beat them.  

 

We need to drop the usual paradigms.  For instance, Californians.  Plenty of them here.  Most know what is in those yoga routines, but won?t vote libertarian for fear of helping Trump.  But think about it: if you are a Californian or a New Yorker, you are freeeeeee!  If the election in either state is close enough to where your vote matters, then it doesn?t matter: the Republican has already won by a landslide if it is close in either New York or California.  Texans: if it is even close in Texas, the Democrat has already won by a landslide.  You guys are free.  Repeat that for several of the big states always assumed to be the private property of one major party or the other: your vote doesn?t count, because if it is close in your state, the party that doesn?t own that state has already won.  You are free.  In most US states, you are free to vote for your favorite.

 

Now, if we can somehow get the press to pay attention, just a little, this might be the year.  But I think it will be our last chance to beat the biggies.

 

spike  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160506/1de171a9/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Sat May  7 07:38:02 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 10:38:02 +0300
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
 was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <020101d1a7d5$aad25a00$00770e00$@att.net>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3pzfMEHfpLw3dxe=7C_B9breSpQSEq=YJ7oBoFj-tS7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <017401d1a7c1$abedcc30$03c96490$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNRT56VJaF34b3ne8cXuPsFJ32pMpj_iEKT29DrAbTvhWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <01ef01d1a7d1$859da680$90d8f380$@att.net>
 <020101d1a7d5$aad25a00$00770e00$@att.net>
Message-ID: <572D9B5A.4080806@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-06 23:27, spike wrote:
>
> After pondering my own question, I fear we did this us.
>
> Why doesn?t this sort of catastrophe ever happen to the saner nations, 
> such as, like, Britain or Germany?
>
> Oh wait, back up one.  It did happen once in Germany.
>
> OK then, Britain.  Why don?t the Brits ever find themselves in a spot 
> where their two major parties nominate odious characters, then somehow 
> convince themselves only those two parties can ever matter forever and 
> ever amen?  And why did this happen to us?  And can we do anything?
>

Well, the Brits actually had a long-running Tory/Labour balance, with 
the concept of having the governing party supported by one or two small 
parties a weird hypothetical. Same in Sweden, where for much of the 
postwar era it was a constellation of the social democrats + leftists 
vs. the conservatives + two smaller parties. But in both cases shifts in 
voting patterns made these balances unstable. Shift happens.

The real issue you are pointing at is the rise of populism. Right now a 
lot of people in countries from Poland to Honduras are really upset at 
(1) things changing in ways they do not like, and (2) the political 
establishment being corrupt, inept or just behind it. People flail about 
for somebody who will do things differently, and that is why they elect 
naive leftists (Greece), comedians (Italy, Guatemala), nasty 
conservatives (Poland) or vote for various xenophobic parties (Sweden, 
Germany, etc.)

However, vanilla populists are not the main threat. They are 
know-nothings that will do damage of a particular style. It is the 
authoritarians that I fear. The difference is that authoritarians are 
populists that claim (1) they have the solution, the only solution, (2) 
outside epistemic standards are irrelevant, and (3) the solution 
involves following their dictates. Once they get into power dissent 
becomes threats to the government and all the good things it intends, so 
it must be suppressed by all right-thinking people. They are the ones 
that close societies.

My suggestion is that the key part is safeguarding the open society. 
Help build solid legal and technical protections for journalists, ensure 
that the judciary is independent, make sure name-and-shame mechanisms 
and whistleblowing makes corruption and misuse of power risky, spread a 
wider understanding of what the enlightenment achieved, and so on.


-- 
Anders Sandberg
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Oxford University

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160507/f00596f1/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Sat May  7 09:37:04 2016
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 10:37:04 +0100
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
 was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <572D9B5A.4080806@aleph.se>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3pzfMEHfpLw3dxe=7C_B9breSpQSEq=YJ7oBoFj-tS7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <017401d1a7c1$abedcc30$03c96490$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNRT56VJaF34b3ne8cXuPsFJ32pMpj_iEKT29DrAbTvhWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <01ef01d1a7d1$859da680$90d8f380$@att.net>
 <020101d1a7d5$aad25a00$00770e00$@att.net>
 <572D9B5A.4080806@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAL_armjhCa13-7zKAi8mpxYdqwnpiyVgN3dHctt_YZBbhNeQvg@mail.gmail.com>

On 7 May 2016 at 08:38, Anders Sandberg wrote:
> Well, the Brits actually had a long-running Tory/Labour balance, with the
> concept of having the governing party supported by one or two small parties
> a weird hypothetical. Same in Sweden, where for much of the postwar era it
> was a constellation of the social democrats + leftists vs. the conservatives
> + two smaller parties. But in both cases shifts in voting patterns made
> these balances unstable. Shift happens.
>
<snip>
> My suggestion is that the key part is safeguarding the open society. Help
> build solid legal and technical protections for journalists, ensure that the
> judciary is independent, make sure name-and-shame mechanisms and
> whistleblowing makes corruption and misuse of power risky, spread a wider
> understanding of what the enlightenment achieved, and so on.
>


Having an open society is a 'nice-to-have' option, but it isn't the
main problem.
Time and again in history, when the 'sensible' leaders fail, they get
thrown out and change happens. When a large proportion of the people
see deteriorating prospects for themselves and their children they
vote / revolt for a strong leader to sort the mess out. It's really
not that complicated. Successful leaders need to keep their followers
believing that life is getting better for everyone. 'Bread and
circuses' can distract a population for a while, but if conditions
continue to get worse, then revolt is inevitable.

BillK


From spike66 at att.net  Sat May  7 13:30:15 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 06:30:15 -0700
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
	was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <572D9B5A.4080806@aleph.se>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3pzfMEHfpLw3dxe=7C_B9breSpQSEq=YJ7oBoFj-tS7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <017401d1a7c1$abedcc30$03c96490$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNRT56VJaF34b3ne8cXuPsFJ32pMpj_iEKT29DrAbTvhWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <01ef01d1a7d1$859da680$90d8f380$@att.net>
 <020101d1a7d5$aad25a00$00770e00$@att.net> <572D9B5A.4080806@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <003301d1a864$97fb7490$c7f25db0$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf
Of Anders Sandberg
Subject: Re: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters, was: RE:
Donald Trump

 

On 2016-05-06 23:27, spike wrote:



>>.And why did this happen to us?  And can we do anything?


>.... It is the authoritarians that I fear.

 

Oy vey, me too Anders.

 

>. The difference is that authoritarians are populists that claim (1) they
have the solution, the only solution, (2) outside epistemic standards are
irrelevant, and (3) the solution involves following their dictates. .

 

Check, check and check, for both.

 

>.My suggestion is that the key part is safeguarding the open society. .

 

Ja squared.  Cubed.

 

>.Help build solid legal and technical protections for journalists.

 

Both our major candidates have expressed disdain for the news media in very
explicit terms.  One arranged for a guy on probation to go to prison for
posting a video to YouTube.  The quote, now denied but confirmed
independently by four witnesses was "We will find the guy who made that
video and punish him."

 

>. make sure name-and-shame mechanisms and whistleblowing makes corruption
and misuse of power risky.

 

At some point name and shame is useless.  Both major candidates appear
beyond shame.  Immune from it.  Any attempt to shame these two can be
declared a vast other-wing conspiracy.  Corruption and misuse of power
risky:  the candidate has gotten away with way worse than this before.  At
some point, the rap sheet is so long and without consequence, a candidate
might as well be declared immune to law.  A US president immune to law, with
the finger on the nuclear trigger and in command of enormous armies and
navies, oy vey.  This cannot end well.  

 

>.spread a wider understanding of what the enlightenment achieved, and so
on. -- Anders Sandberg

 

Anders, your idealism is refreshing sir.

 

spike

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160507/82121962/attachment.html>

From hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu  Sat May  7 14:52:01 2016
From: hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu (Henry Rivera)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 10:52:01 -0400
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
	was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armjhCa13-7zKAi8mpxYdqwnpiyVgN3dHctt_YZBbhNeQvg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3pzfMEHfpLw3dxe=7C_B9breSpQSEq=YJ7oBoFj-tS7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <017401d1a7c1$abedcc30$03c96490$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNRT56VJaF34b3ne8cXuPsFJ32pMpj_iEKT29DrAbTvhWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <01ef01d1a7d1$859da680$90d8f380$@att.net>
 <020101d1a7d5$aad25a00$00770e00$@att.net> <572D9B5A.4080806@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armjhCa13-7zKAi8mpxYdqwnpiyVgN3dHctt_YZBbhNeQvg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <36F15841-D963-4C3A-923D-75D2CB40F0DB@alumni.virginia.edu>


> On May 7, 2016, at 5:37 AM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
>  'Bread and
> circuses' can distract a population for a while, but if conditions
> continue to get worse, then revolt is inevitable.
> 
To bring this back to the technology realm, I'll add that a major problem at this point in time in counting on a revolt, vs other periods in history, is that politicians (regimes) with power now have the ability to oppress, suppress, and undermine their opposition via spying with technology, cracking secure systems, and controlling media with unprecedented degrees of access and a large degree of social sanctioning. Think North Korea, China, Russia, and Turkey among others. The odds of opposition displacing those in power there seems increasingly unlikely without assistance from forces outside those countries. Technology can be used to fight such oppression too (although we all know those in power are trying to detract from this capability), but the power differential (access to armies and firepower) favors those in power already. It's the brutal combination of that power plus the technology now that is the biggest threat to "opposition" parties regardless of who is in power at a given time, IMHO. Organizing a revolt discretely will become increasingly harder. Again, abusive regimes in power have always tried to eliminate opposing forces, 1 person at a time if necessary, and now the ability to locate and eliminate such "radicals" well before they pick up a rifle is greatly enhanced. This is not an insurmountable disadvantage (there is power in numbers), but it is a significant one. 
-Henry


From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sat May  7 16:23:37 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 12:23:37 -0400
Subject: [ExI] (no subject)
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFgJLT0KLJRF3LsE5B=bhTvsYdN0vDOt3tXStXeOHad+pg@mail.gmail.com>

Evil attacked again:

http://www.empr.com/news/new-fda-rule-extends-regulation-to-e-cigs-hookah-cigars/article/494629/?DCMP=EMC-MPR_DailyDose_rd&cpn=Copaxone69726&hmSubId=&hmEmail=dgaoEN5eY-8KzeZ5fFb0Xi0gb47GIyfLMhkOjt7-LyE1&NID=1841350915&c_id=&dl=0&spMailingID=14410983&spUserID=MjQzMDE0MjAxMDIxS0&spJobID=780377744&spReportId=NzgwMzc3NzQ0S0

Note how they lie - they say "tobacco" products in relation to things that
have absolutely no connection to tobacco at all.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160507/1055a7e4/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sat May  7 16:56:13 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 12:56:13 -0400
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
 was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <020101d1a7d5$aad25a00$00770e00$@att.net>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3pzfMEHfpLw3dxe=7C_B9breSpQSEq=YJ7oBoFj-tS7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <017401d1a7c1$abedcc30$03c96490$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNRT56VJaF34b3ne8cXuPsFJ32pMpj_iEKT29DrAbTvhWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <01ef01d1a7d1$859da680$90d8f380$@att.net>
 <020101d1a7d5$aad25a00$00770e00$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFh4Axfs3KyskxkCWLUDLBWaLPrEXH_Hh9ZuwAyeaus1pQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 4:27 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On
> Behalf Of *spike
> *?*
>
> >?Sheesh, how the hell did we get to the point where the federal-level
> cops choose the head of the executive branch?  Americans, how did this
> happen to us?  Did we do this to us?...spike
>
>
>
> After pondering my own question, I fear we did this us.
>

### Well, they (voters) did it. I never vote so I am not guilty but after
all it is the voters who are responsible for the deplorable choices
presented in this and in all previous elections. If representative focus
groups reacted unanimously with disgust to the idea of voting for a
treasonous felon, the Democratic party would not have her on the ballot. If
there were fewer idiots willing to cheer for a far-left nutcase, Mr Sanders
would be pontificating on a street corner, not in the Senate.

In society making, as in purse-sewing, materials matter. Pigs don't make
fine silk purses. While you can use the finest silk to make an ugly purse,
or smush the best people into a corrupt system, if you want to built
something truly magnificent you need magnificent people.

In 50 years, assuming there is no AI singularity and assuming humans are
still the source of power in society (a debatable assumption, I know), we
will have the first generations of CRSPRed humans trying their hand at
politics. Imagine a society where the Anderses are not 1/10 000 but 20%.

In the meantime, don't vote. Treat this as a sad circus you won't spend
your ticket money on.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160507/47d5ddc6/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Sat May  7 17:23:49 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 10:23:49 -0700
Subject: [ExI] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFgJLT0KLJRF3LsE5B=bhTvsYdN0vDOt3tXStXeOHad+pg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFgJLT0KLJRF3LsE5B=bhTvsYdN0vDOt3tXStXeOHad+pg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNRr3YzLbWtXSXfEQWY6+d7e2jt1YbnGV1AdfKT23vxrKQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Evil attacked again:
>
>
> http://www.empr.com/news/new-fda-rule-extends-regulation-to-e-cigs-hookah-cigars/article/494629/?DCMP=EMC-MPR_DailyDose_rd&cpn=Copaxone69726&hmSubId=&hmEmail=dgaoEN5eY-8KzeZ5fFb0Xi0gb47GIyfLMhkOjt7-LyE1&NID=1841350915&c_id=&dl=0&spMailingID=14410983&spUserID=MjQzMDE0MjAxMDIxS0&spJobID=780377744&spReportId=NzgwMzc3NzQ0S0
>
> Note how they lie - they say "tobacco" products in relation to things that
> have absolutely no connection to tobacco at all.
>

They're targeting nicotine, not just tobacco.  Though everything listed in
that article that they're targeting either is tobacco or has the
detrimental health effects of tobacco (having been distilled from/adapted
from tobacco to be "honest it's not tobacco" when it basically is).

Besides, "smoke in your lungs" is bad enough, tobacco or no tobacco.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160507/91361a0f/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Sat May  7 17:25:43 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 13:25:43 -0400
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
 was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <00c101d1a828$eda8b5b0$c8fa2110$@att.net>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3pzfMEHfpLw3dxe=7C_B9breSpQSEq=YJ7oBoFj-tS7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <017401d1a7c1$abedcc30$03c96490$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNRT56VJaF34b3ne8cXuPsFJ32pMpj_iEKT29DrAbTvhWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY+Rg3jf9rnqY7jsd440+pOQe=kdE2ygCN1yFaXer=Hmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0zS74wKquY9H7B3hpW_iVOieMvcLw0L8Gbooy-Rh-gFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZWz3_V+2avY_pjVpY=T_1ytmX9+T3SceCwZFWsyb8k2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <003101d1a7eb$e8c82900$ba587b00$@att.net>
 <004b01d1a7f1$64aaff20$2e00fd60$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv15nbp5nA_VujJO42EDmr9QkO8AJNU2yHkdV2Esq6EMLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c101d1a828$eda8b5b0$c8fa2110$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv3kXqRiikN7EuwHVDCxAKr=9XutqQcUTNtd7MEu7h2WdA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 2:23 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

?> ?
> The Democrat party appears to be on the verge of nominating the head of a
> crime family.
>

Crime family
?? Spike, I think you've been watching too much Fox News. Yes Bill got a
blowjob, and yes ?
Hillary
? was sloppy with her E-mail server, but I think you need more than ?that
to get into
Don Vito Corleone
?'s crime family. Actually I think Bill Clinton was one of the better
presidents of the last 50 years and would have gotten the highest IQ score;
granted that may be setting the bar rather low but still...  ?

I think a rational person with finite resources would do better trying to
lower the possibility of a Trump presidency rather than go on a quixotic
and doomed crusade for
Gary Johnson
? or whatever his name is. ?
?
Hillary
? might not be the best president in the world but I think we can survive 4
years of her; however Dumb Donald (
Saudi Arabia
?, Israel, ?Japan, South Korea and Germany should all have
nuclear weapons
?, and defaulting on the national debt wouldn't be so bad?
?)?
could kill us all.

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160507/80bea675/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Sat May  7 17:26:56 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 10:26:56 -0700
Subject: [ExI] disruptive technologies and tobacco products: was RE: (no
	subject)
Message-ID: <00a401d1a885$a8780650$f96812f0$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2016 9:24 AM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: [ExI] (no subject)

 

Evil attacked again:

 

http://www.empr.com/news/new-fda-rule-extends-regulation-to-e-cigs-hookah-cigars/article/494629/?DCMP=EMC-MPR_DailyDose_rd <http://www.empr.com/news/new-fda-rule-extends-regulation-to-e-cigs-hookah-cigars/article/494629/?DCMP=EMC-MPR_DailyDose_rd&cpn=Copaxone69726&hmSubId=&hmEmail=dgaoEN5eY-8KzeZ5fFb0Xi0gb47GIyfLMhkOjt7-LyE1&NID=1841350915&c_id=&dl=0&spMailingID=14410983&spUserID=MjQzMDE0MjAxMDIxS0&spJobID=780377744&spReportId=NzgwMzc3NzQ0S0> &cpn=Copaxone69726&hmSubId=&hmEmail=dgaoEN5eY-8KzeZ5fFb0Xi0gb47GIyfLMhkOjt7-LyE1&NID=1841350915&c_id=&dl=0&spMailingID=14410983&spUserID=MjQzMDE0MjAxMDIxS0&spJobID=780377744&spReportId=NzgwMzc3NzQ0S0


 

>?Note how they lie - they say "tobacco" products in relation to things that have absolutely no connection to tobacco at all.

 

 

Dr. Rafal, note carefully sir: the ?hookah? regulations apply only if it contains tobacco.  In California and a growing number of states, hookahs are fine, welcome even, so long as they contain marijuana.  As dope drifts towards legality, tobacco is meeting it coming the other way.

 

Sheesh how did we get here?  Is this really the government we deserve?  What did we do?

 

Think on this, my disruptive technology friends: are not we all guilty of cheering for every disruptive technology?  We don?t really even think all that much about whether it is good or bad, just so long as it is disruptive.  I plead guilty.  I love the smell of disruptive technology in the morning.  It smells like PROGRESS!  Woohoo!

 

OK fine, but disrupting has its consequences and not all of them are good.  One day we wake up and simultaneously exclaim in appalled exasperation: Wait, what?

 

Think about it, all of us who were openness advocates, those tempted by that catchy phrase: information wants to be free.

 

Cool!  Sure, so now anything anyone does or makes, any intellectual property, any performance, can be copied and posted to the internet, so anyone can access it free.  So now, we must say goodbye to all those big polished corporate efforts at entertainment, such as? the big headline rock groups from the 1970s for instance.  You couldn?t really have anything analogous to Fleetwood Mac today.  Reason: those big productions were paid for by album sales.  Now? they couldn?t create a credible business model from that.  So, all these new entertainment forms have a common requirement: they must cost almost nothing to make.

 

OK then, that gives us rap, hip-hop and reality TV.  Pretty soon, we get a reality TV star running for high office, which ordinarily would be OK since it would laughed away and forgotten? except when his opponent is the head of a crime family.  Then we get the classic alarming Wait What moment, when we realize that disruptive technologies disrupt things, and there are consequences.

 

You bring up the hookah business.  It has never been at all clear to me that the Fed has the constitutional authority to regulate plants.  I can?t read that authority into anything in the enumerated powers.  Anyone?  I don?t easily see where I can even derive a constitution-based law against hacking by guessing passwords.  That secure in letters and effects business refers to what the government may not do, not what hackers may not do.  Ja?  Dr. Rafal?

 

Stop, think please: we have this Romanian hacker guy who is serving hard prison time for guessing passwords.  Prison, for guessing passwords!  One of our own leading POTUS candidates is arguing that we should not believe his very plausible comments because he is in prison for guessing and exploiting a security weakness created by the victim.  At the same time, this candidate says we should believe her, after she offers one silly contradiction after another, such as: ??I don?t know how it works digitally at all?? while simultaneously assuring us her unsecured server was never hacked.  Simultaneously, those who really do know exactly how it works digitally at all tell us this non-intrusion cannot be determined, while this Romanian guy who knows how it works digitally at all tells us he did hack it, that it was easy, that anyone could do it, even without any particular motive or special training.

 

Meanwhile? the person who ?does not know how it works digitally at all? assures us by offering evidence the hacked didn?t get in: he didn?t leak anything.  But he offered a perfectly plausible explanation for why he didn?t leak anything: he wasn?t interested in that, it was just political junk, no bikini photos of hot Romanian bureaucrats.  The person who doesn?t know how it works digitally at all has been telling us about vast other-wing conspiracies for so long it is just inconceivable that everything really isn?t about some vast conspiracy.  Indeed?

 

Oh evolution, the next follows the next, and there are no exit ramps here that I can find.  A former Secretary of State did state business on an unsecured server while not knowing how it works digitally at all, the server was apparently hacked by any amateur and most probably multiple foreign military IT teams who damn sure do know how it works digitally at all, in such a way that leaves no footprints, or if so, the footprints were intentionally wiped while under subpoena, which is destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice.  And yet? our reality TV voter base still doesn?t get why this is such a threat.

 

How hard is it to imagine a 3am call:  POTUS, I need a little favor over here that will require a couple of good divisions of US Marines, no make it three, and an air wing, and toss in a carrier please.  I have a neighbor state bugging me with yooooga routines and wedding plans, that sort of thing, you know, really private stuff.  I need some of your best troops on the ground to deal with that. Now.

 

How did we get here?  Is this scenario so implausible?  Why?  Do reassure me please, those of you who do know how it works digitally at all.

 

Congratulations disruptive technology fans.  We did this to us.  Disruption is cool.  But it has its consequences.

 

spike

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160507/7621416c/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Sat May  7 17:54:47 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 10:54:47 -0700
Subject: [ExI] disruptive technologies and tobacco products: was RE: (no
	subject)
In-Reply-To: <00a401d1a885$a8780650$f96812f0$@att.net>
References: <00a401d1a885$a8780650$f96812f0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNQ3zoJOsvZWwyMRHfJrbcScgGjBURxrZDXv-3jK5o_-pQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 10:26 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>  Think on this, my disruptive technology friends: are not we all guilty
> of cheering for every disruptive technology?  We don?t really even think
> all that much about whether it is good or bad, just so long as it is
> disruptive.  I plead guilty.  I love the smell of disruptive technology in
> the morning.  It smells like PROGRESS!  Woohoo!
>

Nope.  The most iconic counter-example I can think of: very few people
actually cheered for the nuclear bomb, even if it (arguably and probably)
saved many millions more lives than it claimed.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160507/12d82095/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Sat May  7 17:53:32 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 10:53:32 -0700
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
	was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv3kXqRiikN7EuwHVDCxAKr=9XutqQcUTNtd7MEu7h2WdA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3pzfMEHfpLw3dxe=7C_B9breSpQSEq=YJ7oBoFj-tS7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <017401d1a7c1$abedcc30$03c96490$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNRT56VJaF34b3ne8cXuPsFJ32pMpj_iEKT29DrAbTvhWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY+Rg3jf9rnqY7jsd440+pOQe=kdE2ygCN1yFaXer=Hmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0zS74wKquY9H7B3hpW_iVOieMvcLw0L8Gbooy-Rh-gFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZWz3_V+2avY_pjVpY=T_1ytmX9+T3SceCwZFWsyb8k2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <003101d1a7eb$e8c82900$ba587b00$@att.net>
 <004b01d1a7f1$64aaff20$2e00fd60$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv15nbp5nA_VujJO42EDmr9QkO8AJNU2yHkdV2Esq6EMLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c101d1a828$eda8b5b0$c8fa2110$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3kXqRiikN7EuwHVDCxAKr=9XutqQcUTNtd7MEu7h2WdA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00dc01d1a889$5f415c80$1dc41580$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2016 10:26 AM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters, was: RE: Donald Trump

 

 

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 2:23 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net> > wrote:

?> ?

The Democrat party appears to be on the verge of nominating the head of a crime family. 

 
>?Crime family? Spike, I think you've been watching too much Fox News. Yes Bill got a blowjob, and yes ?Hillary was sloppy with her E-mail server? John K Clark 

 

It isn?t just a game John, it isn?t just a blowjob.  We don?t know who has copies of those yoga routines, but we know those of us who are voting do not know what was in those yoga routines and we are not allowed to know.  We do not know what hoops some foreign power might make the US jump thru in exchange for not exposing those yoga routines, what armies will be deployed, who we will be ordered to kill.

 

There is no law against a politician getting a blowjob, but there damn sure is a law against covering it up.  It causes that politician to be vulnerable to blackmail.  Note that Monica did attempt to blackmail Bill.  He refused to cave, she carried out her threat.  Otherwise we never would have heard of that infamous blue dress.

 

Fast forward.  We have 30,000 emails intentionally erased.  Compare that to Nixon?s 18 minutes of erased audiotape, and note that Nixon didn?t bother insulting our collective intelligence by suggesting those 18 minutes were just yoga routines, wedding plans or love notes to then-governor Bill Clinton.  We don?t know what was on those 18 minutes but we have a strong enough suspicion to satisfy us: whatever that was is worse than conspiracy to destroy evidence, obstruction of justice etc.  It was bad enough that Nixon risked having it look like what it looks like, just to get rid of it.  He threw the dice and lost.

 

So why do we have a different standard, a far different standard today?  We do not admit the obvious: that Clinton Family Charity business is what it appears to be, at very best an enabler of corruption, a glaring conflict of interest, a quasi-legal vehicle to get around all those political donor laws, enables donors to cover their identities by funnelling the funds through a Canadian charity, all of which quasi-legalizes money laundering and sets a most dangerous precedent.  Now all politicians will simply establish a family charity, funnel money through Canada, and money which once secretly controlled government will pretty much openly control government.

 

Meanwhile the other guy sets an equally dangerous precedent: just make crazy outlandish comments, get free press, proof of the longstanding notion that in politics and entertainment, there is no bad publicity.  Bad publicity is better than no publicity, and the scary corollary to that: in some ways, bad publicity is better than good publicity.  It travels faster and farther.

 

Sheesh. 

 

I am ashamed of us.

 

spike

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160507/f3067be4/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Sat May  7 18:17:52 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 11:17:52 -0700
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
 was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <003301d1a864$97fb7490$c7f25db0$@att.net>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3pzfMEHfpLw3dxe=7C_B9breSpQSEq=YJ7oBoFj-tS7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <017401d1a7c1$abedcc30$03c96490$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNRT56VJaF34b3ne8cXuPsFJ32pMpj_iEKT29DrAbTvhWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <01ef01d1a7d1$859da680$90d8f380$@att.net>
 <020101d1a7d5$aad25a00$00770e00$@att.net>
 <572D9B5A.4080806@aleph.se>
 <003301d1a864$97fb7490$c7f25db0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNQtJ9pBhf1rhs3FschqG2ttiZgMTyuTr3=3hVqth7EGcA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 6:30 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>  *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Anders Sandberg
> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters, was:
> RE: Donald Trump
>
>
>
> >?My suggestion is that the key part is safeguarding the open society. ?
>
>
>
> Ja squared.  Cubed.
>
>
>
> >?Help build solid legal and technical protections for journalists?
>
>
>
> Both our major candidates have expressed disdain for the news media in
> very explicit terms.  One arranged for a guy on probation to go to prison
> for posting a video to YouTube.  The quote, now denied but confirmed
> independently by four witnesses was ?We will find the guy who made that
> video and punish him.?
>

I wonder...what if some high political candidate, such as that John fellow
that Spike keeps pushing, were to adopt as a platform plank, "I can not
trust the government I would rule any more than you have been able to trust
them.  So for my own operations' sake, I would establish greater freedoms
for the press, and trust them to keep my cronies honest because keeping
them in line is a much bigger job than I could do by myself."

Aside from its effects if implemented (assuming the guy won), how much free
press would such a candidate get from journalists looking out for their own
interests?

Spike, do you think you could get John to start promoting this?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160507/4e5401a8/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Sat May  7 18:35:57 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 11:35:57 -0700
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
	was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNQtJ9pBhf1rhs3FschqG2ttiZgMTyuTr3=3hVqth7EGcA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3pzfMEHfpLw3dxe=7C_B9breSpQSEq=YJ7oBoFj-tS7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <017401d1a7c1$abedcc30$03c96490$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNRT56VJaF34b3ne8cXuPsFJ32pMpj_iEKT29DrAbTvhWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <01ef01d1a7d1$859da680$90d8f380$@att.net>
 <020101d1a7d5$aad25a00$00770e00$@att.net> <572D9B5A.4080806@aleph.se>
 <003301d1a864$97fb7490$c7f25db0$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNQtJ9pBhf1rhs3FschqG2ttiZgMTyuTr3=3hVqth7EGcA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <012201d1a88f$4c4428a0$e4cc79e0$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2016 11:18 AM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters, was: RE: Donald Trump

 

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 6:30 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net> > wrote:

 From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org <mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org> ] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg
Subject: Re: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters, was: RE: Donald Trump

 

>>>?My suggestion is that the key part is safeguarding the open society. ?

 

>>?Ja squared.  Cubed.

 ?

>?Aside from its effects if implemented (assuming the guy won), how much free press would such a candidate get from journalists looking out for their own interests?  Spike, do you think you could get John to start promoting this?

 

Hi Adrian, if you meant Gary Johnson, he is already a hardcore openness advocate.  

Our current government espoused transparency but turned out to be the least transparent of any in memory, with the apparent successor still less transparent, intentionally so.  Johnson advocates the notion that sunshine is the best disinfectant.  

I am assuming you have heard of the former insider Ben Rhodes explaining that it wasn?t just covert behavior, it was intentional deception in some cases, taking advantage of the news media hiring children to do political coverage, no political experience required, easily misled by a carefully crafted echo chamber:

http://www.businessinsider.com/ben-rhodes-obama-foreign-policy-interview-2016-5

I have already posted enough on this topic to be a risk to me.  Considering that business about pressing charges against a guy who made a silly YouTube video, it is now conceivable that some kinds of speech on the internet could become retroactively illegal.  The evidence would be there for all time, no escape.  

Now, both major candidates are First Amendment opponents in some way.  That comment about prosecuting the YouTube blasphemer was the most overt anti-first amendment comment I have ever heard come out of a politician.  If that comment does not worry you, I want some of whatever is in your hookah.

I need to let this rest.  Oh wait, I already did that, plenty of us did.  That?s how we got here to start with.

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160507/1134e3ee/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Sat May  7 19:03:11 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 12:03:11 -0700
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
 was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <012201d1a88f$4c4428a0$e4cc79e0$@att.net>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3pzfMEHfpLw3dxe=7C_B9breSpQSEq=YJ7oBoFj-tS7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <017401d1a7c1$abedcc30$03c96490$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNRT56VJaF34b3ne8cXuPsFJ32pMpj_iEKT29DrAbTvhWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <01ef01d1a7d1$859da680$90d8f380$@att.net>
 <020101d1a7d5$aad25a00$00770e00$@att.net>
 <572D9B5A.4080806@aleph.se>
 <003301d1a864$97fb7490$c7f25db0$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNQtJ9pBhf1rhs3FschqG2ttiZgMTyuTr3=3hVqth7EGcA@mail.gmail.com>
 <012201d1a88f$4c4428a0$e4cc79e0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNQoQo9AhVNBm6B_HeD=AUhiZMuE8mHx5URoeFwi2UxGyg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 11:35 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>  Hi Adrian, if you meant Gary Johnson, he is already a hardcore openness
> advocate.
>

Yes, but will he make any serious effort to work with the press, and to get
the press working with him?


> Our current government espoused transparency but turned out to be the
> least transparent of any in memory
>
That's not what I was talking about.  I'm talking about using the press as
the curators of openness, rather than exclusively relying on government
folks to decide what should and should not be published.  Granted, there
are some legit national security things that shouldn't be sent to the
press, but perhaps make that decision not entirely up to those who would be
embarrassed or jailed if the information went public.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160507/81ecc746/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Sat May  7 19:26:41 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 22:26:41 +0300
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
 was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armjhCa13-7zKAi8mpxYdqwnpiyVgN3dHctt_YZBbhNeQvg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3pzfMEHfpLw3dxe=7C_B9breSpQSEq=YJ7oBoFj-tS7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <017401d1a7c1$abedcc30$03c96490$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNRT56VJaF34b3ne8cXuPsFJ32pMpj_iEKT29DrAbTvhWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <01ef01d1a7d1$859da680$90d8f380$@att.net>
 <020101d1a7d5$aad25a00$00770e00$@att.net> <572D9B5A.4080806@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armjhCa13-7zKAi8mpxYdqwnpiyVgN3dHctt_YZBbhNeQvg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <572E4171.1030606@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-07 12:37, BillK wrote:
> Having an open society is a 'nice-to-have' option, but it isn't the
> main problem.

Sorry, but I think you are totally wrong here. That leaders get replaced 
is a feature, not a problem.

Sometimes good leaders get replaced too quickly, but bad leaders (as 
defined by authoritarianism scores and the Archigos database) tend to 
stay around for a lot longer. Open societies allow citizens to point out 
problems, and if enough agree they are problems the society can change 
the system. Note that this includes pointing out that candidate promises 
are full of it, and telling others not to trust them.

Open societies can also invent new institutions to fix recognized problems.

-- 
Anders Sandberg
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Oxford University



From test at ssec.wisc.edu  Sat May  7 21:04:58 2016
From: test at ssec.wisc.edu (Bill Hibbard)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 16:04:58 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>

A lot of interesting comments on this list about Trump.

He is one of many symptoms of a global phenomenon of
social disruption caused by technological change. In
particular, lots of people are not needed by the
market, or no longer needed at the price they used to
get (this also applies in planned economies, which
ultimately must respond to some sort of "market forces"
in order to remain viable internationally). Not being
needed really hurts and makes people crazy.

Trump is against free trade that replaced many people
with cheaper, foreign workers. Trump is against cuts
in Social Security and Medicare, whereas many elites
want to cut these support programs for retired and
hence unnecessary people. Trump is against immigration,
like many politicians all over the world, that devalues
many native-born citizens (at least, they see it that
way).

Meanwhile, progress in artificial intellgence is
accelerating. Biotech too. So in terms of technological
change and social disruption, you ain't seen nothin'
yet. My bet is that the world will survive the Trump
vs Clinton election. But Trump is just a symptom and
the underlying cause is becoming more serious. I fear
that the politics will get much worse.

Echoing a sentiment expressed by Anders, the best
response I can think of is transparency so that more
people can better understand the true nature of what
is happening to them. I especally want as much
transparency as possible for artificial intelligence.

Bill


From johnkclark at gmail.com  Sat May  7 21:17:10 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 17:17:10 -0400
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
 was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <00dc01d1a889$5f415c80$1dc41580$@att.net>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3pzfMEHfpLw3dxe=7C_B9breSpQSEq=YJ7oBoFj-tS7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <017401d1a7c1$abedcc30$03c96490$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNRT56VJaF34b3ne8cXuPsFJ32pMpj_iEKT29DrAbTvhWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY+Rg3jf9rnqY7jsd440+pOQe=kdE2ygCN1yFaXer=Hmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0zS74wKquY9H7B3hpW_iVOieMvcLw0L8Gbooy-Rh-gFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZWz3_V+2avY_pjVpY=T_1ytmX9+T3SceCwZFWsyb8k2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <003101d1a7eb$e8c82900$ba587b00$@att.net>
 <004b01d1a7f1$64aaff20$2e00fd60$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv15nbp5nA_VujJO42EDmr9QkO8AJNU2yHkdV2Esq6EMLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c101d1a828$eda8b5b0$c8fa2110$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3kXqRiikN7EuwHVDCxAKr=9XutqQcUTNtd7MEu7h2WdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00dc01d1a889$5f415c80$1dc41580$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv2=uopnDrCGEqUros4-o=7RJesFgYOC3PDRVhs=YvkHJQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 1:53 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

?> ?
> There is no law against a politician getting a blowjob, but there damn
> sure is a law against covering it up.


?But I'm a libertarian so I think there damn sure SHOULDN'T be such a law.
  ?


?> ?
> We have 30,000 emails intentionally erased.  Compare that to Nixon?s 18
> minutes of erased audiotape, and note that Nixon didn?t bother insulting
> our collective intelligence by suggesting those 18 minutes were just yoga
> routines, wedding plans or love notes to then-governor Bill Clinton.
>
>
?In the middle of the worst political scandal of the last century it wold
be expected that when the president meets with his chief political adviser
they would discus it, especially when we know for a fact they talked about
it just before and just after the 18 minute gap. But Mrs. Clinton was
involved in no scandal at the time and I can see nothing ridiculous about
somebody's personal E-mail server having E-mails about yoga or wedding
plans or love notes.

And if I did have access to a top secret E-mail server with the best
security the NSA can provide (and she did) then I'd use that to discuss all
my deep dark nefarious secrets not my personal E-mail server. All I can see
evidence of is she was sloppy with security, a sloppiness that never caused
the country any harm as far as anyone knows.

If of all people
Bernie Sanders
?, a person who would have ?every reason to blow it up out of all
proportion, thinks that calling the Clinton E-mail server business a
"scandal" is just silly then I see no reason to disagree with him.

?> ?
> So why do we have a different standard, a far different standard today?
>
> Because one involved the people's business and one did not. One involved
the president ordering the burglary of the offices and home of political
opponents and burglarizing their psychiatrists to try to get dirt on them;
and the other involved the president getting a blowjob.


> ?>?
>  It causes that politician to be vulnerable to blackmail.


?That was the same lame excuse that was used for decades to keep gay people
from getting government jobs. I guess Bill's crime wasn't ?getting a
blowjob but for failing to keep it secret.


? John K Clark?


? ?

?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160507/d41f1b77/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Sat May  7 22:21:41 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 18:21:41 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Bill Hibbard <test at ssec.wisc.edu> wrote:

?> ?
> He
> ? [Dumb Donald]?
> is one of many symptoms of a global phenomenon of
> social disruption caused by technological change. In
> ?
> particular, lots of people are not needed by the
> ?
> market, or no longer needed at the price they used to
> get


?Yes.?

?There are 7 billion people on the Earth and in 2014 the richest 85 people
had as much money as the poorest 3.5 billion did, ?in 2015 the richest 80
did, in 2016 the richest 62 did. This trend does not promote social
cohesion or stability and if the Libertarian Party wishes to gain power its
going to have to address it. I'm not making a moral judgement just stating
a fact.

?> ?
> Trump is just a symptom


?Dumb Donald?
 is more than that,
?T?
rump is a
?
existential threat
?.?

?> ?
> My bet is that the world will survive the Trump
> ?
> vs Clinton election.


?I agree, we'll probably survive, the betting market only gives Trump a
23.5% chance of winning.?

? John K Clark?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160507/ebe6c0a2/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Sat May  7 22:31:07 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 15:31:07 -0700
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
	was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv2=uopnDrCGEqUros4-o=7RJesFgYOC3PDRVhs=YvkHJQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3pzfMEHfpLw3dxe=7C_B9breSpQSEq=YJ7oBoFj-tS7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <017401d1a7c1$abedcc30$03c96490$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNRT56VJaF34b3ne8cXuPsFJ32pMpj_iEKT29DrAbTvhWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY+Rg3jf9rnqY7jsd440+pOQe=kdE2ygCN1yFaXer=Hmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0zS74wKquY9H7B3hpW_iVOieMvcLw0L8Gbooy-Rh-gFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZWz3_V+2avY_pjVpY=T_1ytmX9+T3SceCwZFWsyb8k2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <003101d1a7eb$e8c82900$ba587b00$@att.net>
 <004b01d1a7f1$64aaff20$2e00fd60$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv15nbp5nA_VujJO42EDmr9QkO8AJNU2yHkdV2Esq6EMLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c101d1a828$eda8b5b0$c8fa2110$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3kXqRiikN7EuwHVDCxAKr=9XutqQcUTNtd7MEu7h2WdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00dc01d1a889$5f415c80$1dc41580$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv2=uopnDrCGEqUros4-o=7RJesFgYOC3PDRV
 hs=YvkHJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00a601d1a8b0$26596bc0$730c4340$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2016 2:17 PM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters, was: RE: Donald Trump

 

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 1:53 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net> > wrote:

 

?> ?>?There is no law against a politician getting a blowjob, but there damn sure is a law against covering it up. 

 

?>?But I'm a libertarian so I think there damn sure SHOULDN'T be such a law?

 

Libertarian is about freeing the proles and restricting the leadership.  Anyone in a position to be blackmailed should have an open video link to the world.  Being open is the best protection against blackmail.

    ?

 

?> >?We have 30,000 emails intentionally erased.  Compare that to Nixon?s 18 minutes of erased audiotape, and note that Nixon didn?t bother insulting our collective intelligence by suggesting those 18 minutes were just yoga routines, wedding plans or love notes to then-governor Bill Clinton.

 

?>?In the middle of the worst political scandal of the last century it wold be expected that when the president meets with his chief political adviser they would discus it, especially when we know for a fact they talked about it just before and just after the 18 minute gap. But Mrs. Clinton was involved in no scandal at the time and I can see nothing ridiculous about somebody's personal E-mail server having E-mails about yoga or wedding plans or love notes?

 

John, Mrs. Clinton has never been free of scandal in my memory.  That Clinton Foundation drips with suspicion.  It enables anyone to ?donate? while removing their identity.  It enables money laundering and outright purchase of government influence.  

 

When Mrs. Clinton erased that material, she appears as guilty as did Nixon, or more so.  She erased the evidence of her innocence.  Why?  In doing so, she took on the burden of proof that the erased material had nothing in there about how much she would accept in exchange for what deals by the State Department.  Any judge could see that was destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice.  It transforms presumed innocence into presumed guilt.  The defendant guilty of destruction of evidence now has the far more difficult task of proving innocence.

 

If it really was only yoga and wedding plans, there was an easy way to maintain privacy while not implicating herself: choose some non-political credible witnesses, such as a former surgeon general and a head of a hospital, doctors, perhaps add a couple yoga instructors.  They get to review the yoga.  Nothing there they haven?t seen.  Wedding plans: get a retired wedding planner or three, someone with no particular political agenda, get one from France, one from England, one from Romania, where they scarcely ever heard of Mrs. Clinton or Chelsea.  The love notes to Bill, get three or four marriage counselors.  Have them review the emails in question, then write reports that simply verify that which no one seriously believes: that those 30,000 messages were about yoga, weddings and love notes.  We knew what that stuff was as soon as Mrs. Clinton risked prison to get rid of it: there were sneaky deals trading State Department influence for speaker fees and donations to the Clinton family ?charity.?  Everyone who didn?t guzzle the old koolaid knows what she erased.

 

Now however? we find out that Guccifer and probably others have those 30,000 emails.  We know that if she is given command of the military, those grunts will be constantly on the move, killing and being killed by those whose business is none of ours.

 

>?And if I did have access to a top secret E-mail server with the best security the NSA can provide (and she did) then I'd use that to discuss all my deep dark nefarious secrets not my personal E-mail server?

 

On the contrary sir.  That information on the government secret email server is carefully archived and can be accessed by the government.  Mrs. Clinton could not erase that.  It is useless for doing the kinds of deals Mrs. Clinton erased.  No need to even activate the account.  Oh wait? she didn?t.  

 

>?All I can see evidence of is she was sloppy with security?

 

On the contrary, she was very careful to set up security so that she was the gatekeeper of everything.  She wanted to ensure that was never subject to FOIA.  Incidentally, when one has a security clearance, they repeat over and over that sloppiness with security will land your ass in prison.

 

>?a sloppiness that never caused the country any harm as far as anyone knows?

 

As far as anyone knows, ja, but we have no way to prove that.  When Mrs. Clinton wiped that server (what, with a cloth or something?) she took on herself the burden of proof that none of that ever leaked, proof we have never seen.  When she uttered the comment ?I don?t know how it works digitally at all?? she took upon herself the responsibility to prove she didn?t get hacked.  We have now very plausible reasons to doubt her word that none of it leaked.  We have further reasons to doubt none of it is harmful if leaked.  We risk electing a president who would be a puppet, with a dozen hostile world leaders pulling the strings.

 

?>>? ?So why do we have a different standard, a far different standard today?

 

>?Because one involved the people's business and one did not?

 

Proof please?  Failing proof, even a trace of evidence?  Selling State Department favors is the people?s business.

 

>? One involved the president ordering the burglary of the offices and home of political opponents and burglarizing their psychiatrists to try to get dirt on them; and the other involved the president getting a blowjob?

 

Heh.  John, the other involved making deals to trade State Department influence for untraceable cash.  That is a bit more serious than a blowjob.

 

 >>?? It causes that politician to be vulnerable to blackmail.

 

?>?That was the same lame excuse that was used for decades to keep gay people from getting government jobs?

 

No again.  Gay people could get clearances way back (I knew an openly gay clearance holder in 1989 who had already held a top level clearance for years.)  But gays could only be cleared if they were open and everyone knew, including their grandparents, their dog, everybody.  It was all about the risk of blackmail.  It still is, both for gay and straight.

 

>? I guess Bill's crime wasn't ?getting a blowjob but for failing to keep it secret?John K Clark?

 

No John, the crime was neither of these.  The crime was lying under oath.  The other isn?t illegal.  The Bill?s girlfriend made a demand, he took a chance, failed to deliver.  She carried out the threat.  He was deposed.  He lied under oath.  That is illegal as all hell.  By letting him skate, we set a dangerous precedent.

 

spike

 

 

? ?

 

?

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160507/b3667176/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Sat May  7 23:24:50 2016
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 00:24:50 +0100
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
 was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <572E4171.1030606@aleph.se>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3pzfMEHfpLw3dxe=7C_B9breSpQSEq=YJ7oBoFj-tS7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <017401d1a7c1$abedcc30$03c96490$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNRT56VJaF34b3ne8cXuPsFJ32pMpj_iEKT29DrAbTvhWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <01ef01d1a7d1$859da680$90d8f380$@att.net>
 <020101d1a7d5$aad25a00$00770e00$@att.net>
 <572D9B5A.4080806@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armjhCa13-7zKAi8mpxYdqwnpiyVgN3dHctt_YZBbhNeQvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <572E4171.1030606@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAL_armgcfYrfge0kZJY1dZzEZT46G-pP486-mKWCER6Eq+whuw@mail.gmail.com>

On 7 May 2016 at 20:26, Anders Sandberg  wrote:
> Sorry, but I think you are totally wrong here. That leaders get replaced is
> a feature, not a problem.
>
> Sometimes good leaders get replaced too quickly, but bad leaders (as defined
> by authoritarianism scores and the Archigos database) tend to stay around
> for a lot longer. Open societies allow citizens to point out problems, and
> if enough agree they are problems the society can change the system. Note
> that this includes pointing out that candidate promises are full of it, and
> telling others not to trust them.
>
> Open societies can also invent new institutions to fix recognized problems.
>

I agreed that an open society was a 'good thing', but it is far too
utopian for the current state of humanity.

By definition half of humanity is below average intelligence and if
you include (lack of) education, probably more than half are not very
capable. Of course intelligent people also often believe rubbish and
make wrong decisions, But everyone in an open society would have an
equal vote. Trump has many supporters and many dictators are / were
(at least initially) popular.

The best we can hope for is to enforce the rule of law for everyone,
regardless of wealth, connections, power, etc. That alone would be a
huge improvement on our present condition.

BillK


From pharos at gmail.com  Sat May  7 23:47:53 2016
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 00:47:53 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
Message-ID: <CAL_armj5Bg6WKOMiT=Fy+CKQzYT0wV+RQE4e2wXci_q_pb_+Bw@mail.gmail.com>

On 7 May 2016 at 22:04, Bill Hibbard  wrote:
> A lot of interesting comments on this list about Trump.
>
> He is one of many symptoms of a global phenomenon of
> social disruption caused by technological change. In
> particular, lots of people are not needed by the
> market, or no longer needed at the price they used to
> get (this also applies in planned economies, which
> ultimately must respond to some sort of "market forces"
> in order to remain viable internationally). Not being
> needed really hurts and makes people crazy.
>
>

Dilbert on 'Why Trump will win by a landslide'.

<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2016/03/21/donald-trump-will-win-in-a-landslide-the-mind-behind-dilbert-explains-why/>

Bullet points:

1. Trump knows people are basically irrational.
2. Knowing that people are irrational, Trump aims to appeal on an
emotional level.
3. By running on emotion, facts don?t matter.
4. If facts don?t matter, you can?t really be ?wrong.?
5. With fewer facts in play, it?s easier to bend reality.
6. To bend reality, Trump is a master of identity politics ? and
identity is the strongest persuader.


BillK



From johnkclark at gmail.com  Sun May  8 00:56:59 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 20:56:59 -0400
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
 was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <00a601d1a8b0$26596bc0$730c4340$@att.net>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3pzfMEHfpLw3dxe=7C_B9breSpQSEq=YJ7oBoFj-tS7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <017401d1a7c1$abedcc30$03c96490$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNRT56VJaF34b3ne8cXuPsFJ32pMpj_iEKT29DrAbTvhWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY+Rg3jf9rnqY7jsd440+pOQe=kdE2ygCN1yFaXer=Hmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0zS74wKquY9H7B3hpW_iVOieMvcLw0L8Gbooy-Rh-gFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZWz3_V+2avY_pjVpY=T_1ytmX9+T3SceCwZFWsyb8k2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <003101d1a7eb$e8c82900$ba587b00$@att.net>
 <004b01d1a7f1$64aaff20$2e00fd60$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv15nbp5nA_VujJO42EDmr9QkO8AJNU2yHkdV2Esq6EMLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c101d1a828$eda8b5b0$c8fa2110$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3kXqRiikN7EuwHVDCxAKr=9XutqQcUTNtd7MEu7h2WdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00dc01d1a889$5f415c80$1dc41580$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv2=uopnDrCGEqUros4-o=7RJesFgYOC3PDRVhs=YvkHJQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <00a601d1a8b0$26596bc0$730c4340$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv3Wc+WW20NTV9KMHHN1jN=Lx1CeJ4BHVvC3Ak5j8oJThg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 6:31 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:



> ?> ?
> That Clinton Foundation drips with suspicion.  It enables anyone to
> ?donate? while removing their identity.
>
>
?Does the Libertarian Party refuse to accept anonymous donations? What law
would it violate if they did? And if they've removed their identity how
would the Clintons know who to bestow these unspecified "favors" to?


> ?> ?
> Any judge could see that was destruction of evidence and obstruction of
> justice.
>
>
?Then why hasn't some judge done so??



>> ?>?
>> >?And if I did have access to a top secret E-mail server with the best
>> security the NSA can provide (and she did) then I'd use that to discuss all
>> my deep dark nefarious secrets not my personal E-mail server?
>
>
>
> ?> ?
> On the contrary sir.  That information on the government secret email
> server is carefully archived and can be accessed by the government.
>
>
?Who cares if it's archived if its sealed until the 23'rd century? The
government has documents from the first world war that can't be seen
because they're still Top Secret. And when Hillary wanted to give
instructions to her drug mules or sell organs from aborted fetuses to ISIS
why did she go through all this mail server stuff, why didn't she just open
a Gmail account with a phony name? Why did she use an account that was
clearly marked as coming from the Secretary Of State of the United States?

I think Hillary was guilty of security laziness, that's not a
insignificant oversight and she deserves criticism for it but with
Dumb Donald on the rampage we need to get a little perspective.

>?a sloppiness that never caused the country any harm as far as anyone
>> knows?
>
>
>
> ?> ?
> As far as anyone knows, ja, but we have no way to prove that.
>
>
?Can you prove you didn't murder somebody last year? I can't prove I
didn't.?

?You don't know if "The Secret" was revealed or who "The Secret" was
revealed to, and you don't know what "The Secret" is or even that "The
Secret" ever existed.?


> ?> ?
> We have now very plausible reasons to doubt her word that none of it
> leaked.
>
>
?None of what leaked? Who was it leaked to? Exactly what information are we
talking about??



> ?> ?
> Selling State Department favors is the people?s business.
>
>
?What favors were sold? Who were they sold to? How much did they cost??

Look Spike I'm not the world's biggest Clinton family fan either and I
don't want to come off sounding like a apologist for Hillary, but when were
faced with Donald babbling about building a wall, deporting 11 million
people, encouraging Saudi Arabia to develop Nuclear Weapons and defaulting
on the national debt I just can't get outraged over a blowjob and some
silly mail server.


> ?>?
>  The crime was lying under oath.
>
>
?
The real crime was asking
?Bill ?
if he ever got a blowjob
?;
he should never
?have been
asked because i
?t?
was none of
?
Kenneth
?
Starr's
?damn ?
business. Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies.

? John K Clark?




>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160507/f3261290/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Sun May  8 01:11:52 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 20:11:52 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armj5Bg6WKOMiT=Fy+CKQzYT0wV+RQE4e2wXci_q_pb_+Bw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAL_armj5Bg6WKOMiT=Fy+CKQzYT0wV+RQE4e2wXci_q_pb_+Bw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZ88d8N3k81qkDYS4Q1pjcHXrZ-zc+_=hEeJau=hEej0g@mail.gmail.com>

1. Trump knows people are basically irrational.
2. Knowing that people are irrational, Trump aims to appeal on an
emotional level.
3. By running on emotion, facts don?t matter.
4. If facts don?t matter, you can?t really be ?wrong.?
5. With fewer facts in play, it?s easier to bend reality.
6. To bend reality, Trump is a master of identity politics ? and
identity is the strongest persuader.

bill k

Among many other things, here's why he won't:  she will chew him up and
spit him out in the debates   bill w

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 6:47 PM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 7 May 2016 at 22:04, Bill Hibbard  wrote:
> > A lot of interesting comments on this list about Trump.
> >
> > He is one of many symptoms of a global phenomenon of
> > social disruption caused by technological change. In
> > particular, lots of people are not needed by the
> > market, or no longer needed at the price they used to
> > get (this also applies in planned economies, which
> > ultimately must respond to some sort of "market forces"
> > in order to remain viable internationally). Not being
> > needed really hurts and makes people crazy.
> >
> >
>
> Dilbert on 'Why Trump will win by a landslide'.
>
> <
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2016/03/21/donald-trump-will-win-in-a-landslide-the-mind-behind-dilbert-explains-why/
> >
>
> Bullet points:
>
> 1. Trump knows people are basically irrational.
> 2. Knowing that people are irrational, Trump aims to appeal on an
> emotional level.
> 3. By running on emotion, facts don?t matter.
> 4. If facts don?t matter, you can?t really be ?wrong.?
> 5. With fewer facts in play, it?s easier to bend reality.
> 6. To bend reality, Trump is a master of identity politics ? and
> identity is the strongest persuader.
>
>
> BillK
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160507/03d844b7/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at gmail.com  Sun May  8 01:35:17 2016
From: sjatkins at gmail.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 18:35:17 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Study Links Disparities in Pain Management to Racial Bias
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEa8fT1YO2oyG4EHVoG6Fg1b7HA7oTebeYfWPi4DSmtvLg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <09877B4E-1A1C-41F4-AC47-8A4E4E79F58E@gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEYxDFpptzsM8xyRoFjfQ-_tcgCZtSPS12u0biHgw3cszg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armg464g3xH9yLcQyiLs==jSVuNeXRL2FbDxoC+x3oxewqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEa8fT1YO2oyG4EHVoG6Fg1b7HA7oTebeYfWPi4DSmtvLg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <572E97D5.2090902@gmail.com>



On 04/06/2016 02:52 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote:
>
>     Studies have shown many times that just presenting people with facts
>     will rarely cause them to change previously held beliefs. It might
>     even strengthen the wrong belief. It's called the Backfire effect.
>
>     There are several factors involved. People don't like to be told that
>     they are wrong as they 'lose face' and don't want lower status. When a
>     belief is wrong, people need help to build a new story in their brain
>     to store the new facts.
>

Why do they "need help"?  Perhaps it is "good old days" fallacy but it
seems to me that people have more fragile egos now than they used to. 
Actually it is not that the egos seem more fragile but there is more
belief that ego fragility is to be coddled instead of telling the person
to embrace the rational approach and get over their mere feelings enough
to admit the new evidence.    It used to be more the norm that bringing
up feelings in an intellectual conversation was frowned upon.   

Is it just me or as the world changed where we want to be real careful
not to upset anyone's pre-existing prejudice?

Extropians in particular held to pancritical rationalism - question
everything and take no feeling prisoners.

People may need a "new story" but it is not up to anyone else to weave
one for them.  That is their own job.   I have had the experience of
trying to do the weaving for another person.  Then they get really upset
because they fill like you are "trying to cram it down their throats" or
seeking to reach in and reprogram their brain. 

You can lead a horse to water..


- samantha
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160507/010988e4/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at gmail.com  Sun May  8 01:40:00 2016
From: sjatkins at gmail.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 18:40:00 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEZ88d8N3k81qkDYS4Q1pjcHXrZ-zc+_=hEeJau=hEej0g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAL_armj5Bg6WKOMiT=Fy+CKQzYT0wV+RQE4e2wXci_q_pb_+Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZ88d8N3k81qkDYS4Q1pjcHXrZ-zc+_=hEeJau=hEej0g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <572E98F0.9030609@gmail.com>

You may be right.  But I will not vote for Trump as I have no real idea
what he does stand for behind all the games.  I have read some of his
books as well.  He seems to be a quite mixed bag politically and very
paranoid on the subject of terrorism in particular.    That is not a
good mix. 

And I will throw in an analogy although I generally despise analogies. 
If on a first date your date is rude and obnoxious and denigrates entire
classes of people, would you assume your date is actually a good
person?   If when they are most likely to put their best foot forward
they act like this I would run like hell.  :P

- samantha

On 05/07/2016 06:11 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote:
> 1. Trump knows people are basically irrational.
> 2. Knowing that people are irrational, Trump aims to appeal on an
> emotional level.
> 3. By running on emotion, facts don?t matter.
> 4. If facts don?t matter, you can?t really be ?wrong.?
> 5. With fewer facts in play, it?s easier to bend reality.
> 6. To bend reality, Trump is a master of identity politics ? and
> identity is the strongest persuader.
>
> bill k
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160507/24fff982/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at gmail.com  Sun May  8 01:41:49 2016
From: sjatkins at gmail.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 18:41:49 -0700
Subject: [ExI] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNRr3YzLbWtXSXfEQWY6+d7e2jt1YbnGV1AdfKT23vxrKQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFgJLT0KLJRF3LsE5B=bhTvsYdN0vDOt3tXStXeOHad+pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRr3YzLbWtXSXfEQWY6+d7e2jt1YbnGV1AdfKT23vxrKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <572E995D.6000109@gmail.com>

I want to end and utterly oppose the government telling anyone what they
can and cannot put in their own body.  That is the core principle, not
whether e-cigs are bad or as bad as tobacco or not.

- samantha

On 05/07/2016 10:23 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki
> <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com <mailto:rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Evil attacked again:
>
>     http://www.empr.com/news/new-fda-rule-extends-regulation-to-e-cigs-hookah-cigars/article/494629/?DCMP=EMC-MPR_DailyDose_rd&cpn=Copaxone69726&hmSubId=&hmEmail=dgaoEN5eY-8KzeZ5fFb0Xi0gb47GIyfLMhkOjt7-LyE1&NID=1841350915&c_id=&dl=0&spMailingID=14410983&spUserID=MjQzMDE0MjAxMDIxS0&spJobID=780377744&spReportId=NzgwMzc3NzQ0S0
>
>     Note how they lie - they say "tobacco" products in relation to
>     things that have absolutely no connection to tobacco at all.
>
>
> They're targeting nicotine, not just tobacco.  Though everything
> listed in that article that they're targeting either is tobacco or has
> the detrimental health effects of tobacco (having been distilled
> from/adapted from tobacco to be "honest it's not tobacco" when it
> basically is).
>
> Besides, "smoke in your lungs" is bad enough, tobacco or no tobacco.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160507/8005281c/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Sun May  8 01:37:22 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 18:37:22 -0700
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
	was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv3Wc+WW20NTV9KMHHN1jN=Lx1CeJ4BHVvC3Ak5j8oJThg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3pzfMEHfpLw3dxe=7C_B9breSpQSEq=YJ7oBoFj-tS7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <017401d1a7c1$abedcc30$03c96490$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNRT56VJaF34b3ne8cXuPsFJ32pMpj_iEKT29DrAbTvhWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY+Rg3jf9rnqY7jsd440+pOQe=kdE2ygCN1yFaXer=Hmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0zS74wKquY9H7B3hpW_iVOieMvcLw0L8Gbooy-Rh-gFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZWz3_V+2avY_pjVpY=T_1ytmX9+T3SceCwZFWsyb8k2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <003101d1a7eb$e8c82900$ba587b00$@att.net>
 <004b01d1a7f1$64aaff20$2e00fd60$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv15nbp5nA_VujJO42EDmr9QkO8AJNU2yHkdV2Esq6EMLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c101d1a828$eda8b5b0$c8fa2110$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3kXqRiikN7EuwHVDCxAKr=9XutqQcUTNtd7MEu7h2WdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00dc01d1a889$5f415c80$1dc41580$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv2=uopnDrCGEqUros4-o=7RJesFgYOC3PDRV
 hs=YvkHJQ@mail.gmail.com> <00a601d1a8b0$26596bc0$730c4340$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3Wc+WW20NTV9KMHHN1jN=Lx1CeJ4BHVvC3Ak5j8oJThg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <013f01d1a8ca$2be652f0$83b2f8d0$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2016 5:57 PM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters, was: RE: Donald Trump

 

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 6:31 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net> > wrote:

 

?> ?>?That Clinton Foundation drips with suspicion.  It enables anyone to ?donate? while removing their identity.  

 

?>?Does the Libertarian Party refuse to accept anonymous donations? What law would it violate if they did? And if they've removed their identity how would the Clintons know who to bestow these unspecified "favors" to? 

 

 

The Clintons do know: it?s in the yoga routines.  The problem is we don?t know.  So we don?t know who our presumptive president owes.  We suspect the Saudis, but who knows who else.  That?s what campaign gift law is for.  It limits foreign influence on US elections.

 

 

?> >? Any judge could see that was destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice.

 

?>?Then why hasn't some judge done so??

 

Heh.  The Clintons are immune from law.  What would happen if you and I had our home servers subpoenaed and we just said no?  What would happen if we were ordered to hand it over, and we did so after erasing over half of the contents?  What if we tried to say any attempt to prosecute us was all a down-wing conspiracy?  Shall we ask Jeffrey Sterling? 

 

 

?> ?>?On the contrary sir.  That information on the government secret email server is carefully archived and can be accessed by the government. 

 

?>?Who cares if it's archived if its sealed until the 23'rd century? 

 

It comes out of the archive in the early 21st if you are found doing anything suspicious.  Reference former CIA officer Sterling.  That secured server would have been very convenient for those who had to communicate with the Secretary of State.  They could have just mailed her material, rather than trying to figure out how to get it across the gap to the unsecured server (which requires someone to commit a felony.)  But it would have been useless for yoga routines, because the security team would have caught it.  So? Mrs. Clinton couldn?t use it.  She never did.  Never even activated the account.

 

 

>?The government has documents from the first world war that can't be seen because they're still Top Secret?

 

People with top secret clearances catch you.

 

>?And when Hillary wanted to give instructions to her drug mules or sell organs from aborted fetuses to ISIS why did she go through all this mail server stuff, why didn't she just open a Gmail account with a phony name?

 

Because the Feds watch foreign suspects?

 

>?Why did she use an account that was clearly marked as coming from the Secretary Of State of the United States?  

 

She thought she was immune to hacking.  She thought the hackers would need to physically access the server.  She was the one who said in a rare moment of honesty ??I don?t know how it works digitally at all??  I guess she assumed it was safe.  She assumed wrong.

 

>?I think Hillary was guilty of security laziness?

 

This I agree with, however, when you have those clearances working with that level of information, security laziness is a felony.  They remind you of that fact every day, every time you long on.

 

>? that's not a insignificant oversight and she deserves criticism for it?

 

I see.  Would you and I deserve criticism if we committed a felony?  Perhaps by our cellmate Bubba, the lonely car thief who carried away a Volkswagen on his back?  Ja.

 

>?but with Dumb Donald on the rampage we need to get a little perspective?

 

Indeed sir.  This is all I am offering: there are more than two choices.  

 

 

?>?Can you prove you didn't murder somebody last year? I can't prove I didn't.?..

 

You don?t need to, nor do I.  When you destroy evidence which is under subpoena however, a judge is going to conclude you did it, or you are trying to cover for whoever did.

 

  

?> ?We have now very plausible reasons to doubt her word that none of it leaked. 

 

?>?None of what leaked?

 

The 30,000 yoga routines John!  We don?t even know what that was!  Mrs. Clinton broke the law to get rid of it, and convinced staffers to risk prison to aid and abet that action.

 

>? Who was it leaked to?

 

We don?t know.  That?s the point of all this.

 

>? Exactly what information are we talking about??

 

We who are being asked to vote for this person are not allowed to have that info.  But the bad guys might already have it.  But we don?t know which bad guys, or what they intend to do with it.

 

 

?>>? ?Selling State Department favors is the people?s business.

 

?>?What favors were sold?

 

We don?t know.  That?s the point.  The information was destroyed.

 

>? Who were they sold to?

 

We don?t know.

 

>? How much did they cost?? 

 

Yoga routines John.  We don?t know any of this stuff.  We are told to shut up and vote.

 

>?Look Spike I'm not the world's biggest Clinton family fan either and I don't want to come off sounding like a apologist for Hillary, but when were faced with Donald babbling about building a wall, deporting 11 million people, encouraging Saudi Arabia to develop Nuclear Weapons and defaulting on the national debt I just can't get outraged over a blowjob and some silly mail server?

 

Ja me too man, ja to all.  I am still in utter shock that we ended up with these two as our major party choices.  I am stunned.  I just wasn?t paying attention, and had one of those reverse nightmare experiences.  Sometimes you wake up with a jolt from a really scary dream, and oh, OK no problem.  This time there was nothing wrong with the dream, but I woke up to a really terrifying reality.

 

spike

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160507/0fad38e9/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at gmail.com  Sun May  8 01:53:53 2016
From: sjatkins at gmail.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 18:53:53 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <572E9C31.30200@gmail.com>

Income inequality is a complete non-problem.  There is no reason in
reality that the relative income of intelligent agents (people for now)
should be confined to some arbitrary narrow range relative to one
another.  Wealth is created, it is not static.  So if Elon Musk creates
$billions in value we should cheer like mad because that much more value
now exist in the world we share.  And the $billions that are counted as
his personal net worth are a small fraction of the actual value he
created.   Do we want to limit an Elon Musk to no more value creation
than some arbitrary factor times the average value created by persons of
his generation and society?   What for?

Or do we want to limit the amount of the wealth he produced that he can
personally control?  Who would we rather control some resources, someone
who has shown they have the Midas touch turning a given quantity of
resources into the gold of more resources or someone that has shown no
such thing and seems to somehow always consume approximately as much as
they produce?   I would want rationally to see that person expert in
increasing value/wealth to have as much of it to multiply as
possible.    And of course the private space program and the real viable
electric car would not exist without some real wealth in the hands of a
few with sufficient vision and skill. 

Under accelerating change I would expect and increase in income/wealth
inequality.   Technology is a force multiplier.  Those who avail
themselves of it earlier and/or better will have their efforts
multiplied more, including efforts that have economic consequences.

In reality unequal actions do not produce equal results.   This is
nothing to cry over and certainly nothing to impose limitations on
anyone over.

Or is the perceived "problem" that more money might buy more political
favor?  Well the answer to that is that government's should have no
favors to sell as legitimate government is severely limited in what it
can exert major power over.     It is not the fault of the wealthy that
government has so gotten out of hand that it controls aspects of about
everything in our lives.   Nor that it has so drained the economy that
despite how much it has taken for so long it has put (US) us nearly $20
trillion in debt as well and over $100 trillion if you counted unfunded
liabilities (promise of bread and circuses tomorrow).  

- samantha

On 05/07/2016 03:21 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Bill Hibbard <test at ssec.wisc.edu
> <mailto:test at ssec.wisc.edu>>wrote:
>
>     ? > ?
>     He
>     ? [Dumb Donald]?
>     is one of many symptoms of a global phenomenon of
>     social disruption caused by technological change. In
>     ?  
>     particular, lots of people are not needed by the
>     ?  
>     market, or no longer needed at the price they used to
>     get
>
>
> ?Yes.?
>  
> ? There are 7 billion people on the Earth and in 2014 the richest 85
> people had as much money as the poorest 3.5 billion did, ?in 2015 the
> richest 80 did, in 2016 the richest 62 did. This trend does not
> promote social cohesion or stability and if the Libertarian Party
> wishes to gain power its going to have to address it. I'm not making a
> moral judgement just stating a fact.
>
>     ? > ?
>     Trump is just a symptom 
>
>
> ? Dumb Donald?
>  is more than that,
> ? T?
> rump is a
> ?  
> existential threat
> ? .?
>
>     ? > ?
>     My bet is that the world will survive the Trump
>     ?  
>     vs Clinton election.
>
>
> ?I agree, we'll probably survive, the betting market only gives Trump
> a 23.5% chance of winning.?
>
> ? John K Clark?
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160507/5dda7eb0/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Sun May  8 02:32:59 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 22:32:59 -0400
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
 was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <013f01d1a8ca$2be652f0$83b2f8d0$@att.net>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3pzfMEHfpLw3dxe=7C_B9breSpQSEq=YJ7oBoFj-tS7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <017401d1a7c1$abedcc30$03c96490$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNRT56VJaF34b3ne8cXuPsFJ32pMpj_iEKT29DrAbTvhWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY+Rg3jf9rnqY7jsd440+pOQe=kdE2ygCN1yFaXer=Hmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0zS74wKquY9H7B3hpW_iVOieMvcLw0L8Gbooy-Rh-gFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZWz3_V+2avY_pjVpY=T_1ytmX9+T3SceCwZFWsyb8k2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <003101d1a7eb$e8c82900$ba587b00$@att.net>
 <004b01d1a7f1$64aaff20$2e00fd60$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv15nbp5nA_VujJO42EDmr9QkO8AJNU2yHkdV2Esq6EMLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c101d1a828$eda8b5b0$c8fa2110$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3kXqRiikN7EuwHVDCxAKr=9XutqQcUTNtd7MEu7h2WdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00dc01d1a889$5f415c80$1dc41580$@att.net>
 <00a601d1a8b0$26596bc0$730c4340$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3Wc+WW20NTV9KMHHN1jN=Lx1CeJ4BHVvC3Ak5j8oJThg@mail.gmail.com>
 <013f01d1a8ca$2be652f0$83b2f8d0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv193hgT2RSs6zPYPiHJswWKC5peY9R_RxH-GC1GxU0pyw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 9:37 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>> ?>?
>> ?Why did she use an account that was clearly marked as coming from the
>> Secretary Of State of the United States?
>>
>
> ?> ?
> She thought she was immune to hacking.  She thought the hackers would need
> to physically access the server.  She was the one who said in a rare moment
> of honesty ??I don?t know how it works digitally at all??  I guess she
> assumed it was safe.  She assumed wrong.


I'm not talking about hacking. She didn't just receive E-mail
?s?
she sent them too. When she wrote to her pals at ISIS offering them those
aborted fetus organs why in the world would she want them to come from a
server that had   clintonemail.com as the domain name?? When you can set up
a E-mail account at Gmail or a thousand other places under a phony name in
about 5 minutes it just makes no sense
?.?


?  John K Clark?












>
>
>
> *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On
> Behalf Of *John Clark
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 07, 2016 5:57 PM
> *To:* ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters, was:
> RE: Donald Trump
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 6:31 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> ?> ?>?That Clinton Foundation drips with suspicion.  It enables anyone to
> ?donate? while removing their identity.
>
>
>
> ?>?Does the Libertarian Party refuse to accept anonymous donations? What
> law would it violate if they did? And if they've removed their identity how
> would the Clintons know who to bestow these unspecified "favors" to?
>
>
>
>
>
> The Clintons do know: it?s in the yoga routines.  The problem is we don?t
> know.  So we don?t know who our presumptive president owes.  We suspect the
> Saudis, but who knows who else.  That?s what campaign gift law is for.  It
> limits foreign influence on US elections.
>
>
>
>
>
> ?> >? Any judge could see that was destruction of evidence and
> obstruction of justice.
>
>
>
> ?>?Then why hasn't some judge done so??
>
>
>
> Heh.  The Clintons are immune from law.  What would happen if you and I
> had our home servers subpoenaed and we just said no?  What would happen if
> we were ordered to hand it over, and we did so after erasing over half of
> the contents?  What if we tried to say any attempt to prosecute us was all
> a down-wing conspiracy?  Shall we ask Jeffrey Sterling?
>
>
>
>
>
> ?> ?>?On the contrary sir.  That information on the government secret
> email server is carefully archived and can be accessed by the government.
>
>
>
> ?>?Who cares if it's archived if its sealed until the 23'rd century?
>
>
>
> It comes out of the archive in the early 21st if you are found doing
> anything suspicious.  Reference former CIA officer Sterling.  That secured
> server would have been very convenient for those who had to communicate
> with the Secretary of State.  They could have just mailed her material,
> rather than trying to figure out how to get it across the gap to the
> unsecured server (which requires someone to commit a felony.)  But it would
> have been useless for yoga routines, because the security team would have
> caught it.  So? Mrs. Clinton couldn?t use it.  She never did.  Never even
> activated the account.
>
>
>
>
>
> >?The government has documents from the first world war that can't be
> seen because they're still Top Secret?
>
>
>
> People with top secret clearances catch you.
>
>
>
> >?And when Hillary wanted to give instructions to her drug mules or sell
> organs from aborted fetuses to ISIS why did she go through all this mail
> server stuff, why didn't she just open a Gmail account with a phony name?
>
>
>
> Because the Feds watch foreign suspects?
>
>
>
> >?Why did she use an account that was clearly marked as coming from the
> Secretary Of State of the United States?
>
>
>
> She thought she was immune to hacking.  She thought the hackers would need
> to physically access the server.  She was the one who said in a rare moment
> of honesty ??I don?t know how it works digitally at all??  I guess she
> assumed it was safe.  She assumed wrong.
>
>
>
> >?I think Hillary was guilty of security laziness?
>
>
>
> This I agree with, however, when you have those clearances working with
> that level of information, security laziness is a felony.  They remind you
> of that fact every day, every time you long on.
>
>
>
> >? that's not a insignificant oversight and she deserves criticism for it?
>
>
>
> I see.  Would you and I deserve criticism if we committed a felony?
> Perhaps by our cellmate Bubba, the lonely car thief who carried away a
> Volkswagen on his back?  Ja.
>
>
>
> >?but with Dumb Donald on the rampage we need to get a little perspective?
>
>
>
> Indeed sir.  This is all I am offering: there are more than two choices.
>
>
>
>
>
> ?>?Can you prove you didn't murder somebody last year? I can't prove I
> didn't.?..
>
>
>
> You don?t need to, nor do I.  When you destroy evidence which is under
> subpoena however, a judge is going to conclude you did it, or you are
> trying to cover for whoever did.
>
>
>
>
>
> ?> ?We have now very plausible reasons to doubt her word that none of it
> leaked.
>
>
>
> ?>?None of what leaked?
>
>
>
> The 30,000 yoga routines John!  We don?t even know what that was!  Mrs.
> Clinton broke the law to get rid of it, and convinced staffers to risk
> prison to aid and abet that action.
>
>
>
> >? Who was it leaked to?
>
>
>
> We don?t know.  That?s the point of all this.
>
>
>
> >? Exactly what information are we talking about??
>
>
>
> We who are being asked to vote for this person are not allowed to have
> that info.  But the bad guys might already have it.  But we don?t know
> which bad guys, or what they intend to do with it.
>
>
>
>
>
> ?>>? ?Selling State Department favors is the people?s business.
>
>
>
> ?>?What favors were sold?
>
>
>
> We don?t know.  That?s the point.  The information was destroyed.
>
>
>
> >? Who were they sold to?
>
>
>
> We don?t know.
>
>
>
> >? How much did they cost??
>
>
>
> Yoga routines John.  We don?t know any of this stuff.  We are told to shut
> up and vote.
>
>
>
> >?Look Spike I'm not the world's biggest Clinton family fan either and I
> don't want to come off sounding like a apologist for Hillary, but when were
> faced with Donald babbling about building a wall, deporting 11 million
> people, encouraging Saudi Arabia to develop Nuclear Weapons and defaulting
> on the national debt I just can't get outraged over a blowjob and some
> silly mail server?
>
>
>
> Ja me too man, ja to all.  I am still in utter shock that we ended up with
> these two as our major party choices.  I am stunned.  I just wasn?t paying
> attention, and had one of those reverse nightmare experiences.  Sometimes
> you wake up with a jolt from a really scary dream, and oh, OK no problem.
> This time there was nothing wrong with the dream, but I woke up to a really
> terrifying reality.
>
>
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160507/32929b0f/attachment.html>

From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Sun May  8 03:31:30 2016
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 20:31:30 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
Message-ID: <CAPiwVB5TAZsR2bCVG-6q-3w1rxG3avwk+L9dYWAuL0CEXmn=gw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 6:54 PM,  BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

snip

> Bullet points:
>
> 1. Trump knows people are basically irrational.

People are *conditionally* irrational.  Think about it, how would an
irrational animal survive?

Of course, from the viewpoint of genes, inducing what looks like
irrational behavior can be the best way to survive, at least in the
environment of evolutionary adaptiveness.

Keith


From anders at aleph.se  Sun May  8 06:52:41 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 09:52:41 +0300
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
 was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armgcfYrfge0kZJY1dZzEZT46G-pP486-mKWCER6Eq+whuw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3pzfMEHfpLw3dxe=7C_B9breSpQSEq=YJ7oBoFj-tS7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <017401d1a7c1$abedcc30$03c96490$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNRT56VJaF34b3ne8cXuPsFJ32pMpj_iEKT29DrAbTvhWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <01ef01d1a7d1$859da680$90d8f380$@att.net>
 <020101d1a7d5$aad25a00$00770e00$@att.net> <572D9B5A.4080806@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armjhCa13-7zKAi8mpxYdqwnpiyVgN3dHctt_YZBbhNeQvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <572E4171.1030606@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armgcfYrfge0kZJY1dZzEZT46G-pP486-mKWCER6Eq+whuw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <572EE239.7090402@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-08 02:24, BillK wrote:
> I agreed that an open society was a 'good thing', but it is far too 
> utopian for the current state of humanity. 

Huh? I was using it in the standard PoliSci sense. And by that sense you 
and me are living in open societies. Not "open", but open. We will not 
go to jail for criticising the government policy unless we do it in some 
really crazy way. If we organise to change something in society we have 
a fair chance of influencing things. There is rule of law, people 
criticising the law, and changes to the law.

There are a lot of places that do not have open societies. But overall, 
a fairly sizeable chunk of the world is open as per the latest indices 
(e.g. Freedom House).

-- 
Anders Sandberg
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Oxford University



From stathisp at gmail.com  Sun May  8 10:14:41 2016
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 20:14:41 +1000
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
 was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <00dc01d1a889$5f415c80$1dc41580$@att.net>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3pzfMEHfpLw3dxe=7C_B9breSpQSEq=YJ7oBoFj-tS7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <017401d1a7c1$abedcc30$03c96490$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNRT56VJaF34b3ne8cXuPsFJ32pMpj_iEKT29DrAbTvhWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY+Rg3jf9rnqY7jsd440+pOQe=kdE2ygCN1yFaXer=Hmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0zS74wKquY9H7B3hpW_iVOieMvcLw0L8Gbooy-Rh-gFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZWz3_V+2avY_pjVpY=T_1ytmX9+T3SceCwZFWsyb8k2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <003101d1a7eb$e8c82900$ba587b00$@att.net>
 <004b01d1a7f1$64aaff20$2e00fd60$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv15nbp5nA_VujJO42EDmr9QkO8AJNU2yHkdV2Esq6EMLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c101d1a828$eda8b5b0$c8fa2110$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3kXqRiikN7EuwHVDCxAKr=9XutqQcUTNtd7MEu7h2WdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00dc01d1a889$5f415c80$1dc41580$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAH=2ypXJhOxLt8QsoYQ6BkNkC6hq+=5B-+fGRrnom+vV8ijUuA@mail.gmail.com>

On 8 May 2016 at 03:53, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:


> There is no law against a politician getting a blowjob, but there damn
> sure is a law against covering it up.
>

Really? There is a law requiring US presidents to announce all their sexual
encounters to the world?


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/2e37f9e4/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Sun May  8 11:57:29 2016
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 12:57:29 +0100
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
 was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <572EE239.7090402@aleph.se>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3pzfMEHfpLw3dxe=7C_B9breSpQSEq=YJ7oBoFj-tS7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <017401d1a7c1$abedcc30$03c96490$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNRT56VJaF34b3ne8cXuPsFJ32pMpj_iEKT29DrAbTvhWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <01ef01d1a7d1$859da680$90d8f380$@att.net>
 <020101d1a7d5$aad25a00$00770e00$@att.net>
 <572D9B5A.4080806@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armjhCa13-7zKAi8mpxYdqwnpiyVgN3dHctt_YZBbhNeQvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <572E4171.1030606@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armgcfYrfge0kZJY1dZzEZT46G-pP486-mKWCER6Eq+whuw@mail.gmail.com>
 <572EE239.7090402@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAL_armgsygUYXzvEKQgE3eO2SPx78CU3H2oqZQr9JVdYWEcpNQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 8 May 2016 at 07:52, Anders Sandberg  wrote:
> On 2016-05-08 02:24, BillK wrote:
>>
>> I agreed that an open society was a 'good thing', but it is far too
>> utopian for the current state of humanity.
>
>
> Huh? I was using it in the standard PoliSci sense. And by that sense you and
> me are living in open societies. Not "open", but open. We will not go to
> jail for criticising the government policy unless we do it in some really
> crazy way. If we organise to change something in society we have a fair
> chance of influencing things. There is rule of law, people criticising the
> law, and changes to the law.
>
> There are a lot of places that do not have open societies. But overall, a
> fairly sizeable chunk of the world is open as per the latest indices (e.g.
> Freedom House).
>


Definitions can be tricky. There is open society, open government,
press freedom, freedom of information, etc.
Freedom House commented in 2016 --
"These developments contributed to the 10th consecutive year of
decline in global freedom".

Western societies are certainly more open and more free than many countries.
But the amount of secrecy, spying, tracking, spin and public opinion
manipulation going on is discouraging.
The US appears to be moving towards a merger of corporate and state
power (fascism).
And whistleblowers are severely punished (if the state can get hold of them).

So there is much room for improvement in the 'openness' of Western society.

BillK


From spike66 at att.net  Sun May  8 12:54:34 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 05:54:34 -0700
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
	was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAH=2ypXJhOxLt8QsoYQ6BkNkC6hq+=5B-+fGRrnom+vV8ijUuA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3pzfMEHfpLw3dxe=7C_B9breSpQSEq=YJ7oBoFj-tS7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <017401d1a7c1$abedcc30$03c96490$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNRT56VJaF34b3ne8cXuPsFJ32pMpj_iEKT29DrAbTvhWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY+Rg3jf9rnqY7jsd440+pOQe=kdE2ygCN1yFaXer=Hmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0zS74wKquY9H7B3hpW_iVOieMvcLw0L8Gbooy-Rh-gFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZWz3_V+2avY_pjVpY=T_1ytmX9+T3SceCwZFWsyb8k2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <003101d1a7eb$e8c82900$ba587b00$@att.net>
 <004b01d1a7f1$64aaff20$2e00fd60$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv15nbp5nA_VujJO42EDmr9QkO8AJNU2yHkdV2Esq6EMLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c101d1a828$eda8b5b0$c8fa2110$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3kXqRiikN7EuwHVDCxAKr=9XutqQcUTNtd7MEu7h2WdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00dc01d1a889$5f415c80$1dc41580$@att.net>
 <CAH=2ypXJhOxLt8QsoYQ6BkNkC6hq+=5B-+fGRrnom
 +vV8ijUuA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <005f01d1a928$c62b2f80$52818e80$@att.net>

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stathis Papaioannou
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2016 3:15 AM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters, was: RE: Donald Trump

 

 

 

On 8 May 2016 at 03:53, spike <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net> > wrote:

 

There is no law against a politician getting a blowjob, but there damn sure is a law against covering it up.

 

Really? There is a law requiring US presidents to announce all their sexual encounters to the world? 



-- 

Stathis Papaioannou

 

 

 

Ja.  If you hold a top level security clearance, you take on an agreement to self-report if you commit any act which could possibly result in blackmail.  If you fail to do that, you lose your clearance, or worse.  The security people can call in any clearance holder at any time for any reason, they can order a random drug test, they can pull a clearance for any reason and are not required to tell why, even to the person who lost their clearance, all that stuff.  When you get those clearances, you sign up for all this, agree to it.  They don?t need to justify why they are asking.  You give up some rights to privacy if you hold a clearance.  You can lose that clearance at the judgment of the security staff.  I have seen it happen.

 

Office affairs where everyone is a clearance holder must be exceedingly rare, for if one self-reported and the other didn?t, the non-reporter would lose his or her clearance.  One self-reporter with two cleared participants was the case in 1998.  Had Bill self-reported his activities the next day, then there never would have been an investigation, for a person wouldn?t lose their clearance for getting a blowjob, and no risk of blackmail if he had just admitted everything.  

 

In 1998 we had a Whitehouse intern who not only self-reported, but had actual evidence.  This made Clinton vulnerable to blackmail, but not just theoretically: his girlfriend actually did try to blackmail him.  According to her sworn testimony, he counter-threatened in such a way that she feared for her life, so she backed down, but the dress was out of the bag.  So? what do you do if you are the top security guy and the president now must be called in for a polygraph?

 

Apparently, they did call him in, he lied under oath twice, both felonies.  We never did find out what happens in that case, but what should happen?  Do we make a special case for the president, since he has the theoretical authority to self-pardon?  What if he ordered his girlfriend to be slain, then pardons whoever carried out the deed?  And should that special accommodation cover the VP and the Secretary of State?  What about the Speaker of the House, since he or she is only two heartbeats from the presidency, and does it matter if the Speaker is the wrong party?  What about the Senate, shouldn?t the majority leader get a little leeway on the usual rules on security clearances?  After all, these four positions cannot do their jobs without a security clearance, so what happens if they do something shady and fail to self-report?  We know what happens in the military if you lose your clearance: you are sidelined until you resign.  In a company that uses those clearances a lot, you are left scrapping for what few assignments don?t require a clearance, which is pretty much equivalent to not having a job for long.

 

OK then, is there a law requiring a US president to announce illicit sexual encounters?  They are required to announce it to the security staff, who then must assess the risk and decide if the president can continue to hold a clearance.  If questioned under oath, they are still required to tell the truth.  Bill Clinton did not, so he would automatically lose his clearance forever, but notice that he kept his office.   

 

So what if we decide a president must have a clearance regardless?  Then do we decide the security staff must just look the other way in the president?s case?  What about the VP?  The SecState?  Senate and House leaders?  Top military brass?  And if they can continue to hold clearances under circumstances which would cause others to lose theirs, which offices get to be immune from law?  Which laws?  All of them?  Or just ones having to do with perjury and blowjobs?  Does it matter which party they belong to?  Why?  Could Nixon have self-pardoned in 1974?  Could Clinton in 1998?  Could Clinton in 2017?  Why not?  Had the senate moved to impeach, could not he have ordered the leaders killed, then pardoned whoever pulled the trigger?  Why not?  Could that cycle repeat until the senate calms down and the survivors stop talking about impeachment?

 

The point of all this: we know that in practice, some high office holders do get around the usual rules, because their office inherently requires a security clearance.  So, in practice, our high office holders are granted a de facto license to commit felonies to some extent.  The real problem is we don?t know which felonies we are authorizing and for whom.  We don?t know what was in the yoga routines, we don?t know who has them, we don?t know what they will do with them if the author of the yoga is granted a limited immunity from law, we don?t know which of the leaked yoga is genuine and which is counterfeit, we have no way of knowing how do deal with indications or counter indications of the genuineness of the leaked yoga, for the evidence was intentionally destroyed while under subpoena.  We don?t know what are the limits to legality we are granting with a vote, we don?t know what happens if a sitting president seriously explores the depth of the power to pardon and the still-open question of self-pardon.

 

It can go the other way too.  Suppose we grant a president a limited immunity from law.  Do we also grant a limited ability to prosecute beyond the usual law?  For instance, in the USA we have no laws against blasphemy, but in special cases, could a sitting president order someone arrested for posting inflammatory videos to the internet?  Is it only a president who gets special prosecution powers, or can the VP and SecState also have some of that heady power?  Can the house and senate leaders taste a little of that?  The top military brass?  Does it matter which party they belong to?

 

Stathis, to your question:

 

>?There is a law requiring US presidents to announce all their sexual encounters to the world?

 

I would answer ja, they are a clearance holder, so they are required to self-report and if they fail to do so, they must testify under oath, and if they lie, it is perjury.  Then we have a senate trial; perjury definitely meets the definition of ?high crimes and misdemeanors.?  Two times this has happened: in 1974 the president resigned before the senate trial.  In 1998, the senate let the president skate with no legal consequences.  So? that set a precedent.  US presidents can lie under oath.  So can the VP?  The SecState?  Congressional leaders?  Which party?  How much legal immunity are we granting in an election, and to what crimes and to which offices?  What should the rules be on this in the ideal case?

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/a40b59b5/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sun May  8 13:23:01 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 09:23:01 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFhEzbHjj1FUta1qQkdECjYeMkN1FAEa-GQCDNGTX0UW=A@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 6:21 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> ?I agree, we'll probably survive, the betting market only gives Trump a
> 23.5% chance of winning.?
>

### This is a bad long term sign for America. Voters seem to prefer a
treasonous, incompetent, bitter, arrogant establishment felon to a brash,
successful businessman.

Not good at all.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/e9a5707c/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sun May  8 13:40:31 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 09:40:31 -0400
Subject: [ExI] calling for our exi computer security hipsters,
 was: RE: Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv3Wc+WW20NTV9KMHHN1jN=Lx1CeJ4BHVvC3Ak5j8oJThg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <017701d1a6fc$fd4daa70$f7e8ff50$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0r_wBfzZCDkDEN_YU=ka=xk0cM2z7wzi5BvF6WNz2AwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01f601d1a710$35582720$a0087560$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0JaVxPjkz6foRZe01obET0+QsPi9_n0imujvXfxSn_7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c701d1a754$6009c700$201d5500$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3pzfMEHfpLw3dxe=7C_B9breSpQSEq=YJ7oBoFj-tS7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <017401d1a7c1$abedcc30$03c96490$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNRT56VJaF34b3ne8cXuPsFJ32pMpj_iEKT29DrAbTvhWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY+Rg3jf9rnqY7jsd440+pOQe=kdE2ygCN1yFaXer=Hmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0zS74wKquY9H7B3hpW_iVOieMvcLw0L8Gbooy-Rh-gFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZWz3_V+2avY_pjVpY=T_1ytmX9+T3SceCwZFWsyb8k2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <003101d1a7eb$e8c82900$ba587b00$@att.net>
 <004b01d1a7f1$64aaff20$2e00fd60$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv15nbp5nA_VujJO42EDmr9QkO8AJNU2yHkdV2Esq6EMLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c101d1a828$eda8b5b0$c8fa2110$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3kXqRiikN7EuwHVDCxAKr=9XutqQcUTNtd7MEu7h2WdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00dc01d1a889$5f415c80$1dc41580$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv2=uopnDrCGEqUros4-o=7RJesFgYOC3PDRVhs=YvkHJQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <00a601d1a8b0$26596bc0$730c4340$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3Wc+WW20NTV9KMHHN1jN=Lx1CeJ4BHVvC3Ak5j8oJThg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFiwYhCGPSX-sdTmNiaZNmhhySTrG6zzBRpDcLRPUxAFvw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 8:56 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 6:31 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
>> ?>?
>>  The crime was lying under oath.
>>
>>
> ?
> The real crime was asking
> ?Bill ?
> if he ever got a blowjob
> ?;
> he should never
> ?have been
> asked because i
> ?t?
> was none of
> ?
> Kenneth
> ?
> Starr's
> ?damn ?
> business. Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies.
>
>

### John, are you OK?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/85ac005a/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sun May  8 13:51:56 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 09:51:56 -0400
Subject: [ExI] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNRr3YzLbWtXSXfEQWY6+d7e2jt1YbnGV1AdfKT23vxrKQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFgJLT0KLJRF3LsE5B=bhTvsYdN0vDOt3tXStXeOHad+pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRr3YzLbWtXSXfEQWY6+d7e2jt1YbnGV1AdfKT23vxrKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFjPFyUvTp5D=Pu_wg+_4nREP1LVhCd5h+Q47=kK0qbi6Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
> rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Evil attacked again:
>>
>>
>> http://www.empr.com/news/new-fda-rule-extends-regulation-to-e-cigs-hookah-cigars/article/494629/?DCMP=EMC-MPR_DailyDose_rd&cpn=Copaxone69726&hmSubId=&hmEmail=dgaoEN5eY-8KzeZ5fFb0Xi0gb47GIyfLMhkOjt7-LyE1&NID=1841350915&c_id=&dl=0&spMailingID=14410983&spUserID=MjQzMDE0MjAxMDIxS0&spJobID=780377744&spReportId=NzgwMzc3NzQ0S0
>>
>> Note how they lie - they say "tobacco" products in relation to things
>> that have absolutely no connection to tobacco at all.
>>
>
> They're targeting nicotine, not just tobacco.  Though everything listed in
> that article that they're targeting either is tobacco or has the
> detrimental health effects of tobacco (having been distilled from/adapted
> from tobacco to be "honest it's not tobacco" when it basically is).
>
> Besides, "smoke in your lungs" is bad enough, tobacco or no tobacco.
>

### Vapes do not generate smoke, they generate, as you may easily guess,
vapor. Yet the evil ones just forbade the sale of vapes in general, unless
permitted, and gave themselves the exclusive right to grant individual
permissions to sell vapes.

Of course, they know that vapes displace cigarettes. They know that vapes
thus reduce exposure to smoke, and therefore are most likely literally
life-saving.

Yet they chose to forbid vapes, and this will destroy lives. They did that
to increase their own power. That's why I know they are evil.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/402e3b63/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Sun May  8 15:32:46 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 08:32:46 -0700
Subject: [ExI] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFjPFyUvTp5D=Pu_wg+_4nREP1LVhCd5h+Q47=kK0qbi6Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFgJLT0KLJRF3LsE5B=bhTvsYdN0vDOt3tXStXeOHad+pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRr3YzLbWtXSXfEQWY6+d7e2jt1YbnGV1AdfKT23vxrKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjPFyUvTp5D=Pu_wg+_4nREP1LVhCd5h+Q47=kK0qbi6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNSCxXj5CWSg7pdhTFaXEgceQ-ixCbsHgEqn-NW__0hqog@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 6:51 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
> wrote:

> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Besides, "smoke in your lungs" is bad enough, tobacco or no tobacco.
>>
>
> ### Vapes do not generate smoke, they generate, as you may easily guess,
> vapor.
>

Vapor that happens to contain certain chemicals to the point where
breathing it has the health effects of breathing smoke.  The duck test is
in effect.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/6311792f/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Sun May  8 16:08:41 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 12:08:41 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <572E9C31.30200@gmail.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <572E9C31.30200@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv0WAaYbb+8GEKP-dbckLutnmghY+KUjXwbhCZ2HxGX+ug@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at gmail.com> wrote:


> ?> ?
> There is no reason in reality that the relative income of intelligent
> agents (people for now) should be confined to some arbitrary narrow range
> relative to one another.
>

I'm not talking about "should", I'm not talking about morality, I'm just
saying when the gap between the rich and the poor gets large social
instability occurs. And when the 62 richest are equal to the 3.5 BILLION
poorest I wouldn't call that gap "narrow". That huge gap is a problem, I'm
not saying I have a solution to the problem I'm just saying those who think
"Income inequality is a complete non-problem" are
 ?
kidding themselves. Maybe it shouldn't be a problem but it WILL be a
problem.


> ?> ?
> Do we want to limit an Elon Musk to no more value creation than some
> arbitrary factor times the average value created by persons of his
> generation and society?   What for?
> ?
> Or do we want to limit the amount of the wealth he produced that he can
> personally control?
>

?It doesn't matter what we want if we can't get what we want and if
civilization is in turmoil nobody is going to get what they want.


> ?> ?
> I would want rationally to see that person expert in increasing
> value/wealth to have as much of it to multiply as possible.
>

?I would want that too but when it's already 62 verses 3.5 BILLION and the
trend is pushing hard to make things even more lopsided it's ?likely that
neither of us are going to get what we want.


?> ?
> Under accelerating change I would expect and increase in income/wealth
> inequality.   Those who avail themselves of it earlier and/or better will
> have their efforts multiplied more, including efforts that have economic
> consequences.
>

?That is completely true, and it's not just in the USA, in every nation on
the planet the gap between the rich and the poor is growing and it's
growing about as fast as the rate that technological ability is growing. A
nd there is
? no way,?
absolutely no way that
?gap ?
won't produce
?very ?
?unpleasant situations for rich and poor alike?
. I don't know how to fix the gash in the Titanic's hull but at least I
know it's a problem and it shouldn't be ignored.

?>?
>  is the perceived "problem" that more money might buy more political
> favor?  Well the answer to that is that government's should have no favors
> to sell
>

?I agree in theory and at one time I would have agreed in practice too?. I
still think that if we were starting from scratch and civilization was
organized by means of privately produced law and private protection
agencies we'd be richer happier more peaceful and better educated than we
are now, but the trouble is we're not starting from scratch, we're very
very VERY far from scratch. I just don't have the confidence that I once
did that you can get there from here.



> ?> ?
> It is not the fault of the wealthy that government has so gotten out of
> hand that it controls aspects of about everything in our lives.
>

?Who's fault it was is irrelevant. If there is too much steam in a boiler
it's going to blow up regardless of whose fault it was for letting the
pressure get that high. Let future historians theorize about whose fault it
was, right now we have far more pressing concerns that need solutions.   ?


> ?> ?
> Nor that it has so drained the economy that despite how much it has taken
> for so long it has put (US) us nearly $20 trillion in debt
>

?That reminds me of something from another thread.  Under Democrat Bill
Clinton the government ran a SURPLUS in 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001.
Republican George Bush was in power in 2002 and the government ran a
deficit that year and has been running a deficit every year since. Ronald
Reagan never managed to balance the budget for even one year, but Clinton
did it for 4.

 John K Clark











>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/4c287dea/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Sun May  8 16:09:44 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 11:09:44 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFhEzbHjj1FUta1qQkdECjYeMkN1FAEa-GQCDNGTX0UW=A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhEzbHjj1FUta1qQkdECjYeMkN1FAEa-GQCDNGTX0UW=A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZfJBf+Hj_naPJFPcuh5xPxFaNNv5d=W-RCwVhSTz+h1w@mail.gmail.com>

Or do we want to limit the amount of the wealth he produced that he can
personally control?  Who would we rather control some resources, someone
who has shown they have the Midas touch turning a given quantity of
resources into the gold of more resources or someone that has shown no such
thing and seems to somehow always consume approximately as much as they
produce?   I would want rationally to see that person expert in increasing
value/wealth to have as much of it to multiply as possible.    And of
course the private space program and the real viable electric car would not
exist without some real wealth in the hands of a few with sufficient vision
and skill.  samantha

I agree with all you said.  But - what I don't like about the super rich is
their avoidance of taxes, buying congressmen to put in loopholes that only
affect the rich (see NYT Business section today about what Obama can do),
hiding money overseas to avoid taxes, and so forth.  Clearly they think
that they are paying too much.  They do pay the majority of taxes and I am
grateful for that, and they do drive the economy with their intelligence
and creativity.  But they often act selfishly and think they deserve to be
treated like kings and queens.  And because they are rich they think they
are right about everything.

I ask everyone on this list this question:  given that you are far smarter
than the average person or even the average college graduate, did you ever
think that you could do a better job of running your town, state, or
country?  Of course you have.  Why?  Because you are great an engineering
or economics or physics?  You see - being among the elite pumps your ego --
it certainly has pumped mine, and I AM one of those who think this way, but
I know that this is dangerous thinking and I am very ignorant of how to run
anything outside of a classroom.

bill w

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
> wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 6:21 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> ?I agree, we'll probably survive, the betting market only gives Trump a
>> 23.5% chance of winning.?
>>
>
> ### This is a bad long term sign for America. Voters seem to prefer a
> treasonous, incompetent, bitter, arrogant establishment felon to a brash,
> successful businessman.
>
> Not good at all.
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/1a54708e/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Sun May  8 16:11:04 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 09:11:04 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <572E9C31.30200@gmail.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <572E9C31.30200@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNRUg+s7DSjSs8vY6F0mJOkAgquKxzJjj=i8y-iqCdgn0A@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 6:53 PM, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at gmail.com> wrote:

> Income inequality is a complete non-problem.  There is no reason in
> reality that the relative income of intelligent agents (people for now)
> should be confined to some arbitrary narrow range relative to one another.
> Wealth is created, it is not static.
>

You are confusing wealth and income.

Wealth, in the sense you're using it, does not precisely correlate to
money.  A given house is a given house, whether or not it's in an in-demand
neighborhood.  (Although it can be fixed up or enhanced to increase its
value.)

Income is, and it adjusts for inflation.  The problems with concentrations
of money aside, the average worker now earns a lower inflation-adjusted
amount.

But this can be put in terms of wealth.  While the richest have been
concentrating more wealth in their own hands, the poorest have been getting
less wealth - and the reason why is a direct consequence of the
concentration (not so much the mere generation) of wealth - and it is now
more of a struggle for them to afford basics such as food and housing.

In other words, while there has been wealth creation going on, the richest
have also been shifting wealth to themselves away from the poorest.  A lot
of this they claim is wealth creation, when it never was.  They have also
been finding ways of wealth creation where they get the wealth that someone
else creates - which was long the case, but the actual creators gained much
more of the wealth they created than they do now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/1ab0f205/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Sun May  8 16:24:41 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 11:24:41 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Study Links Disparities in Pain Management to Racial Bias
In-Reply-To: <572E97D5.2090902@gmail.com>
References: <09877B4E-1A1C-41F4-AC47-8A4E4E79F58E@gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEYxDFpptzsM8xyRoFjfQ-_tcgCZtSPS12u0biHgw3cszg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armg464g3xH9yLcQyiLs==jSVuNeXRL2FbDxoC+x3oxewqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEa8fT1YO2oyG4EHVoG6Fg1b7HA7oTebeYfWPi4DSmtvLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <572E97D5.2090902@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZft-uFuk=iCnrF93vDssVt7NWC_RWoWhiMYNM6=e3h2Q@mail.gmail.com>

People may need a "new story" but it is not up to anyone else to weave one
for them.  That is their own job.   I have had the experience of trying to
do the weaving for another person.  Then they get really upset because they
fill like you are "trying to cram it down their throats" or seeking to
reach in and reprogram their brain.  samantha

It is not the job of anyone, in psychology at least - and psychiatry - to
weave a new story for a person.  But it is the job of them to point out the
inconsistencies in that person's life and thinking.  This is called
cognitive behavior therapy, and it works as well as anything has that
clinicians have put out  - ever.

Case in point:  my yardman took 30 minutes to mulch a small bed, a job I
could have done in 7 minutes. He was pulling out single stems of grass as
he went that the mulch would have smothered.   It turns out that he has
been fired numerous times for doing a job his way and not the way his
manager wanted it done.  He is a perfectionist and is very rigid.  He just
refuses to do what I tell him and does what he thinks is best, including
jobs I did not give him but that he thought needed doing.  I am going to
try to send him to counseling.  His rigidity has cost him jobs, meaning a
lot of money, and will cost him my jobs if he doesn't change.  He is
supported by his wife and currently has no job.  I will not 'cram anything
down his throat', but I do expect a yardman to do what I tell him to do as
long as I am paying for it.  Why doesn't he see this for himself?  Good
question.  It's called a personality disorder, meaning a rigid type of
thinking (of several types) and it's hard to deal with as people don't know
these disorders well.  They have little insight into their condition.
Generally people don't recognize personality disorders as being a mental
disease.  They think of neurotics and psychotics and psychopaths.

bill w

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 8:35 PM, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 04/06/2016 02:52 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote:
>
>
> Studies have shown many times that just presenting people with facts
>> will rarely cause them to change previously held beliefs. It might
>> even strengthen the wrong belief. It's called the Backfire effect.
>>
>> There are several factors involved. People don't like to be told that
>> they are wrong as they 'lose face' and don't want lower status. When a
>> belief is wrong, people need help to build a new story in their brain
>> to store the new facts.
>>
>
> Why do they "need help"?  Perhaps it is "good old days" fallacy but it
> seems to me that people have more fragile egos now than they used to.
> Actually it is not that the egos seem more fragile but there is more belief
> that ego fragility is to be coddled instead of telling the person to
> embrace the rational approach and get over their mere feelings enough to
> admit the new evidence.    It used to be more the norm that bringing up
> feelings in an intellectual conversation was frowned upon.
>
> Is it just me or as the world changed where we want to be real careful not
> to upset anyone's pre-existing prejudice?
>
> Extropians in particular held to pancritical rationalism - question
> everything and take no feeling prisoners.
>
> People may need a "new story" but it is not up to anyone else to weave one
> for them.  That is their own job.   I have had the experience of trying to
> do the weaving for another person.  Then they get really upset because they
> fill like you are "trying to cram it down their throats" or seeking to
> reach in and reprogram their brain.
>
> You can lead a horse to water..
>
>
> - samantha
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/c4aa1639/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Sun May  8 16:27:53 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 09:27:53 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEZfJBf+Hj_naPJFPcuh5xPxFaNNv5d=W-RCwVhSTz+h1w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhEzbHjj1FUta1qQkdECjYeMkN1FAEa-GQCDNGTX0UW=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZfJBf+Hj_naPJFPcuh5xPxFaNNv5d=W-RCwVhSTz+h1w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNR+JS1v9b3q9cu_yhveegA076kgiqK_FOuU_zb-4uLKvw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 9:09 AM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I ask everyone on this list this question:  given that you are far smarter
> than the average person or even the average college graduate, did you ever
> think that you could do a better job of running your town, state, or
> country?  Of course you have.  Why?  Because you are great an engineering
> or economics or physics?  You see - being among the elite pumps your ego --
> it certainly has pumped mine, and I AM one of those who think this way, but
> I know that this is dangerous thinking and I am very ignorant of how to run
> anything outside of a classroom.
>
<http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat>
I know that I could learn how to run things better.  That is a meta-skill
that most people do not have, to a degree that many use the lack of it as a
social or comedic common.  (How many people say they want to "rest their
brain" or the like when merely encountering a complex problem, with no
serious attempt made to begin figuring out how to solve it?)

As I am right now, I would not trust myself to be President of the US.  But
the campaign trail is long, and success attracts those who know the pieces
of what it takes, who can be learned from.  This is a path I have walked
before while starting up companies - and, indeed, is a path I walk now as I
start another one.  From what I can see, the path to high political office
is similar in this regard.  In particular, any successful effort starts
well before it becomes visible to the public, and the first major step is
an analysis of what it is going to take to succeed.  (Successfully getting
started on a political trail - even just city/county/state, let alone
federal - would require resources and skills I do not currently have, thus
I do not waste what resources I do have by attempting to start.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/5361dfa8/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Sun May  8 16:35:16 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 11:35:16 -0500
Subject: [ExI] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNSCxXj5CWSg7pdhTFaXEgceQ-ixCbsHgEqn-NW__0hqog@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFgJLT0KLJRF3LsE5B=bhTvsYdN0vDOt3tXStXeOHad+pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRr3YzLbWtXSXfEQWY6+d7e2jt1YbnGV1AdfKT23vxrKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjPFyUvTp5D=Pu_wg+_4nREP1LVhCd5h+Q47=kK0qbi6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNSCxXj5CWSg7pdhTFaXEgceQ-ixCbsHgEqn-NW__0hqog@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZA4fELz32bQNOZg=0VHMhV23DD5Jjaiz_cEJn9-E+cZw@mail.gmail.com>

I want to end and utterly oppose the government telling anyone what they
can and cannot put in their own body.  That is the core principle, not
whether e-cigs are bad or as bad as tobacco or not.

- samantha

I used to agree with that.  Heroin, cocaine, crack, anything.  Make it all
legal.  Take the high profits out it.  Then I find things like one puff of
a cigarette changes your brain permanently.  I kicked alcohol and tobacco
cold turkey, but other members of my family have found it much harder to
do.  Most people are not good at moderating their intake of things that
make them very happy - I wasn't either.  But I was an excellent quitter.

Just too many people would ruin their lives and put great burdens of
society by legal everything.  I have worked in several mental hospitals and
can assert that the craziest people I saw were those on amphetamines - very
psychotic.  (Heroin, by contrast is a far easier habit to kick.)

I am a libertarian but there just has be lines drawn.

bill w

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 6:51 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
> rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Besides, "smoke in your lungs" is bad enough, tobacco or no tobacco.
>>>
>>
>> ### Vapes do not generate smoke, they generate, as you may easily guess,
>> vapor.
>>
>
> Vapor that happens to contain certain chemicals to the point where
> breathing it has the health effects of breathing smoke.  The duck test is
> in effect.
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/bbdd8e41/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Sun May  8 16:36:11 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 09:36:11 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEZfJBf+Hj_naPJFPcuh5xPxFaNNv5d=W-RCwVhSTz+h1w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhEzbHjj1FUta1qQkdECjYeMkN1FAEa-GQCDNGTX0UW=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZfJBf+Hj_naPJFPcuh5xPxFaNNv5d=W-RCwVhSTz+h1w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00cd01d1a947$bb6007a0$322016e0$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace



>?  They do pay the majority of taxes and I am grateful for that, and they do drive the economy with their intelligence and creativity.  But they often act selfishly and think they deserve to be treated like kings and queens.  And because they are rich they think they are right about everything?bill w

 

 

 

Ja, there is that, and there is a case easily imagined where the rich cannot pay taxes, because they cannot let it be known how they made their money.

 

Imagine that are an American and you have come into ownership of this:

 

http://infodoz.ru/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/b982e24da9368c554f17724757a.jpg

 

?and you came by it by illegal means.  We all know the current vehicle for coming to own huge piles of unaccountable cash.  You can?t put it in the bank, because cash deposits are carefully watched.  All this green paper just isn?t worth much to you.  It is really a liability: it would be a big job just to haul it down to the trunk of your car and take it out somewhere to burn it.  In the amounts you could launder it or spend it while staying under the radar, fifty lifetimes would be insufficient.

 

All is not lost.  Now you can take it to Canada, donate it to a charity with the understanding they would remove your identity and donate 99% of it forward to the family charity of an upcoming American president, with an understanding with the future American president that you would like a pre-emptive pardon for however you came up with those millions, along with an agreement to keep the IRS off your back.  You will see to it that the family charity/campaign fund is richly rewarded.

 

Everything is kept vewwy vewwy quiet.  

 

How easy was that?

 

spike

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/5ee9ea09/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Sun May  8 17:13:01 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 13:13:01 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFhEzbHjj1FUta1qQkdECjYeMkN1FAEa-GQCDNGTX0UW=A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhEzbHjj1FUta1qQkdECjYeMkN1FAEa-GQCDNGTX0UW=A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv0qsydcP=GWZpUYwJ1ibuKum1VMo0Tn=7BHLDeqy=XY9A@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
> wrote:


> ?> ?
> Voters seem to prefer a treasonous, incompetent, bitter, arrogant
> establishment felon
>

?Fact check: ?The word "felon" means something and it doesn't mean what Hillary
Clinton is.


> ?> ?
> to a brash, successful businessman.
>

?Calling Trump "brash" would be a vast understatement,  as for "?
successful
?"... well,... Hillary Clinton has released her tax returns, you can read
them here:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/p/files/returns/WJC_HRC_2014_Form_1040.pdf

But Donald Trump has refused to release his tax return
?s?
and I think I know why, it would show he is worth far less than the 10
billion he claims he's worth. And even if the 10 billion figure is true
?,?
mediocre would be a better word than successful.
?? S
ince 1974, the year Dumb Donald inherited his money from
?much smarter ?Fred
 Trump, the S&P 500 has gone up 74 fold
?.?

?If

?Donald had just put that money in a simple S&P index fund in 1974 and then
sat on his hands for 42 years today he'd be worth well over 10 billion.

?And speaking of successful:
Do you think encouraging
Saudi Arabia
? to obtain nuclear weapons would be a successful foreign policy move?
Do you think defaulting on the national debt would be a
successful ?economic move?
?Do you think building a wall and making Mexico pay for it would be
a successful sane move? ?

? John K Clark?



 ?



>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/d289997d/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Sun May  8 17:15:55 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 10:15:55 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <00cd01d1a947$bb6007a0$322016e0$@att.net>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhEzbHjj1FUta1qQkdECjYeMkN1FAEa-GQCDNGTX0UW=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZfJBf+Hj_naPJFPcuh5xPxFaNNv5d=W-RCwVhSTz+h1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <00cd01d1a947$bb6007a0$322016e0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNS4M_M6FV8RHWbKw4t3CjfooJf3ih2mqqEGZgP-mEMb=g@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 9:36 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> Imagine that are an American and you have come into ownership of this:
>
>
>
>
> http://infodoz.ru/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/b982e24da9368c554f17724757a.jpg
>
>
>
> ?and you came by it by illegal means.  We all know the current vehicle for
> coming to own huge piles of unaccountable cash.  You can?t put it in the
> bank, because cash deposits are carefully watched.  All this green paper
> just isn?t worth much to you.  It is really a liability: it would be a big
> job just to haul it down to the trunk of your car and take it out somewhere
> to burn it.  In the amounts you could launder it or spend it while staying
> under the radar, fifty lifetimes would be insufficient.
>

 Tch.  Maybe for you.  While I should not disclose in public the exact
means by which I would do so (money laundering being an illegal act, after
all), I know of ways that would be rather simple - for me, having done
mostly the same thing (except entirely legal) before - and take several
months at most before 99+% of the money would be in bank accounts under my
control (the rest having been spent setting things up), from which I could
spend it on whatever I wanted.

(Although "whatever I wanted" is part of the key.  I'm not one for million
dollar yachts.  Many of the big spends I want would be in line with what
the accounts are supposed to be for.  If I wanted a Presidential bid, I'd
arrange for the money to wind up in a PAC that I do not officially
coordinate with - though there are many
can't-legally-prove-it's-coordination signals candidates can employ.)

I believe that the Clintons are quite aware of and able to employ these
means too.  Therefore, if that were their intent, it seems wasteful that
they would have used a far less efficient charitable foundation - which
suggests that was not their intent, since if it were, efficiency (winding
up with as much money as possible) would be part of the objective.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/9e52fb19/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Sun May  8 17:10:15 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 10:10:15 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv0WAaYbb+8GEKP-dbckLutnmghY+KUjXwbhCZ2HxGX+ug@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <572E9C31.30200@gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0WAaYbb+8GEKP-dbckLutnmghY+KUjXwbhCZ2HxGX+ug@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <011301d1a94c$7e14b530$7a3e1f90$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark
?

 

?> ?>?Nor that it has so drained the economy that despite how much it has taken for so long it has put (US) us nearly $20 trillion in debt

 

?>?That reminds me of something from another thread.  Under Democrat Bill Clinton the government ran a SURPLUS in 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001.  Republican George Bush was in power in 2002 and the government ran a deficit that year and has been running a deficit every year since. Ronald Reagan never managed to balance the budget for even one year, but Clinton did it for 4.  John K Clark

 

 

 

Heh.  John do you recall how that was done?  It was done by ?welfare reform.?  The US removed all those people from the welfare rolls, which resulted in lower federal expenditures and a balanced budget.  Hooray, a miracle it was!  

 

Where did all those welfare class people go?  Off into 9 to 5s, where they happily labored and became productive members of society?  Hmmm?  Anyone want to bet on that one?

 

What really happened is that the huge and growing welfare masses were assigned a disability of some sort.  They didn?t miraculously become employable.  That whole welfare to work program was an illusion.  A bunch of new disabilities came into vogue, certainly into common use: ADHD, post-traumatic stress syndrome, learning disabilities of one flavor or another, BillW might have a more up-to-date list, but no matter, just so long as every unemployable sort could be assigned some kind of disability, even a voluntary one such as drug addiction.  Then these conditions become diseases, leading to the helpless victims being disabled.  Before they were called drunks, winos, dopers, slackers, such hurtful terms.  Now these unemployable masses are victims of disabling conditions, and being disabled, they are eligible for Social Security Disability!  Well that isn?t welfare, it is an insurance payment, and that?s an entitlement!  So now all those unemployables are no longer on welfare, and they are making even more than before.  Oh why didn?t we think of it sooner?

 

Well? because it now becomes very easy to predict when the Social Security fund will be exhausted.  The VP at the time, Al Gore, did exactly that, and realized he might well live to see the day.  So he ran in 2000 on trying to figure out a way to undo what his own running mate had done, but for obvious reasons couldn?t state it in those terms.  So he came up with some oblique language that was just a little too subtle for the voting masses, that ?lock box? business.  

 

Really what he was saying was clear enough: if we continue with this madness of putting welfare masses on Social Security Disability and pretending they aren?t on welfare, then pretending we have balanced the budget when really all we are doing is spending the retirement savings of the young, the long-term but foreseeable consequences are catastrophic.

 

Fun aside: one of our smarter ExI posters pointed out the obvious and commented on it here.  He is German.  From the outside looking in, it was perfectly obvious what a tall glass of poison koolaid the USA had guzzled.  America had fooled itself into thinking it had balanced the budget, when all it really did was borrow the collective retirement fund and spend it on today?s needs, with no clear means of paying it back.  In the 1990s, America converted its retirement system from a savings account pension fund into a Pay As You Go, with an ever-dwindling supply of payers and ever-growing supply of pensioners.

 

Second fun aside: in 2000, candidate Al Gore was able to give us a date for Social Security going bust: 2035.  Sixteen years later, that estimate hasn?t changed much.  

 

The differences now: half the time has passed to catastrophe, yet no one seems to be worrying much about what happens when Social Security runs out of money and it cannot pay.  We don?t seem to be the least bit worried collectively about that.  Perhaps the voting masses just assume we can raise taxes to cover it, but my own grandfather showed me in 1974 why that strategy fails: by the time this Ponzi scheme collapses and runs out of other people?s money, there are only two earners supporting each pensioner.  The government doesn?t end all its other obligations, so those two earners still need to support the government with their earnings while somehow supporting half a pensioner on their meager salary, all while new pensioners come signing up every day, their numbers growing much faster than the employment rolls.

 

Again John please, what was that you were saying about Bill Clinton balancing the budget?

 

spike

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/a8264ac8/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Sun May  8 17:50:32 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 12:50:32 -0500
Subject: [ExI] climate change et alia
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEbT+MWKEBxgt-Zvntpj4pFjQ81jNrKf0EC0sR402CiaXw@mail.gmail.com>

What do Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, climate change have in common?
 (you could probably add to this list)

All of them share this:  nothing currently going on with them is dire and
needs fixing right away.  All are long term problems.

The people we elect seem focused on short term problems, because they are
the ones their voters can relate to.  Tell someone we are 20 trillion
dollars in debt and I think it is likely he will say "So what?"  Climate
change will bring significant problems in the year 2030.  "So what?  I'll
probably be dead by then."

Current money goes to fix current problems, regardless of what long term
thing it has be taken from.  My state keeps an emergency fund which is
raided every year despite their being no emergency.  We are acting as is
hurricane Katrina never happened.

I have no idea how to fix this.  You'd have to change human brains.

Or, start a war with China.  Always proven to stimulate the economy, and we
can then declare our debts to them null and void!

bill w
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/94a214d9/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Sun May  8 18:21:44 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 20:21:44 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNR+JS1v9b3q9cu_yhveegA076kgiqK_FOuU_zb-4uLKvw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhEzbHjj1FUta1qQkdECjYeMkN1FAEa-GQCDNGTX0UW=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZfJBf+Hj_naPJFPcuh5xPxFaNNv5d=W-RCwVhSTz+h1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNR+JS1v9b3q9cu_yhveegA076kgiqK_FOuU_zb-4uLKvw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <572F83B8.7040803@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-08 18:27, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 9:09 AM, William Flynn Wallace 
> <foozler83 at gmail.com <mailto:foozler83 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     I ask everyone on this list this question:  given that you are far
>     smarter than the average person or even the average college
>     graduate, did you ever think that you could do a better job of
>     running your town, state, or country?  Of course you have.  Why?
>     Because you are great an engineering or economics or physics?  You
>     see - being among the elite pumps your ego -- it certainly has
>     pumped mine, and I AM one of those who think this way, but I know
>     that this is dangerous thinking and I am very ignorant of how to
>     run anything outside of a classroom.
>
>
> I know that I could learn how to run things better.  That is a 
> meta-skill that most people do not have, to a degree that many use the 
> lack of it as a social or comedic common.  (How many people say they 
> want to "rest their brain" or the like when merely encountering a 
> complex problem, with no serious attempt made to begin figuring out 
> how to solve it?)

That is a good answer. Putting people able to acquire relevant skills in 
charge is a good idea. But in general there is a big cost to on-the-job 
learning: you want to put people in charge who have the skills from the 
start. Which skills depends a fair bit on the job - many jobs running 
institutions require social skills that tend to require practical 
training over long time.

I like my friend Toby's answer. When asked whether the world would be a 
better place if we put a philosopher like him (well-meaning, very smart 
and knowledgeable) in charge he gave it some thought and said: "Either 
much better, or much worse. And there is no way of knowing before trying 
it."

It is not just "putting people in charge". That assumes their job is 
decisionmaking, and that is pretty clearly wrong (hang out in a 
parliament for a while or read a PoliSci textbook). Decisions are a tiny 
part of the job, with much more of it being management, negotiation and 
(this is a biggie in democratic politics) representing the viewpoint of 
the voters. If I somehow magically (and unconstitutionally) ended up in 
the White House and had the right skillset I would still be a disaster 
since I do not represent the US people in any sensible way, and I would 
have absolutely zero legitimacy. Getting legitimacy, that is actually 
what the current US candidate circus is about. Unfortunately for 
everyone it is not going very well.

-- 
Anders Sandberg
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Oxford University

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/050aa6ff/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Sun May  8 18:21:56 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 13:21:56 -0500
Subject: [ExI] for fiction readers only
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEbLBwmbHXcVLoxfktREzyXeuj0apZURGgLobyUhUtcZBw@mail.gmail.com>

Well, lil ol me got a letter published in the NYT Book Review.  It was in
response to an article about what is wrong with modern fiction.  Here it is:

Two words:  happy endings.

People buy romance novels, sci-fi and other genres because they know they
will encounter no unhappiness, no depression, no angst, no killings, no
family conflict, etc. the way they will in all of modern fiction.  They
know what to expect from these books, many of which are formulaic, but many
display really good writing too

It's as if there were some rule that literature cannot have happy endings
because those other genres do and it would taint a true work of literature
to have them.

And readers know this.

Similarly, writers know that they must include racism and feminism and the
evils of capitalism because without them their books would be politically
incorrect.

And readers know this too.

So readers don't buy too many books they suspect are 'literature'.

Have you noticed that?

bill w
(a bit of exaggeration in the first paragraph, and I omitted modern
fictions obsession with LGBT issues)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/73f8dcb2/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Sun May  8 18:44:51 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 20:44:51 +0200
Subject: [ExI] drugs
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEZA4fELz32bQNOZg=0VHMhV23DD5Jjaiz_cEJn9-E+cZw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFgJLT0KLJRF3LsE5B=bhTvsYdN0vDOt3tXStXeOHad+pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRr3YzLbWtXSXfEQWY6+d7e2jt1YbnGV1AdfKT23vxrKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjPFyUvTp5D=Pu_wg+_4nREP1LVhCd5h+Q47=kK0qbi6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNSCxXj5CWSg7pdhTFaXEgceQ-ixCbsHgEqn-NW__0hqog@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZA4fELz32bQNOZg=0VHMhV23DD5Jjaiz_cEJn9-E+cZw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <572F8923.60802@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-08 18:35, William Flynn Wallace wrote:
> I want to end and utterly oppose the government telling anyone what 
> they can and cannot put in their own body.  That is the core 
> principle, not whether e-cigs are bad or as bad as tobacco or not.
>
> - samantha
>
> I used to agree with that.  Heroin, cocaine, crack, anything.  Make it 
> all legal.  Take the high profits out it.  Then I find things like one 
> puff of a cigarette changes your brain permanently.  I kicked alcohol 
> and tobacco cold turkey, but other members of my family have found it 
> much harder to do. Most people are not good at moderating their intake 
> of things that make them very happy - I wasn't either.  But I was an 
> excellent quitter.
>
> Just too many people would ruin their lives and put great burdens of 
> society by legal everything.  I have worked in several mental 
> hospitals and can assert that the craziest people I saw were those on 
> amphetamines - very psychotic.  (Heroin, by contrast is a far easier 
> habit to kick.)
>
> I am a libertarian but there just has be lines drawn.

This is bound to become an endless thread on this list. I'll get in 
early so I can go on holiday :-)

My own libertarian position is what I call "Bayesian libertarianism": 
for any question I start out with the prior assumption that letting 
people do what they want as long as they do not harm each other and that 
centralized government interventions often are unjust, costly or go 
wrong, and then see if there is evidence that forces me to refine my 
views into posterior views.

So the basic approach I would take is to ask, "In what ways would 
allowing people take whatever they want go wrong, and what is the least 
imposition needed to produce a decent outcome?"

The problem with seriously addictive drugs is that they *in some people, 
in some situations* overrule their ability to control their behavior. 
This ability is the basis for most of the rights frameworks 
libertarianism use to build their proposals. Hence some form of harm 
reduction is needed. However, the evidence that government drug policy 
banning drugs is an effective form of harm reduction is clearly not 
there: countries with harsh policies do not seem to reduce drug use 
significantly, and there are clear costs and harms induced by the policies.

As I argue in
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2015/05/strange-brew-opiates-from-yeast/
there are anyway significant harms from use of opioids, alcohol and 
other hard drugs. But the evidence seems to point at decriminalisation 
with improved addiction treatment as being both more effective and 
cheaper. So the real libertarian issue might be what forms improved 
addiction treatment should take. Maybe this is a legitimate function of 
a minarchist state, or maybe there are smarter ways of producing it 
privately?

-- 
Anders Sandberg
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Oxford University

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/89542b61/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sun May  8 18:52:15 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 14:52:15 -0400
Subject: [ExI] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEZA4fELz32bQNOZg=0VHMhV23DD5Jjaiz_cEJn9-E+cZw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFgJLT0KLJRF3LsE5B=bhTvsYdN0vDOt3tXStXeOHad+pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRr3YzLbWtXSXfEQWY6+d7e2jt1YbnGV1AdfKT23vxrKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjPFyUvTp5D=Pu_wg+_4nREP1LVhCd5h+Q47=kK0qbi6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNSCxXj5CWSg7pdhTFaXEgceQ-ixCbsHgEqn-NW__0hqog@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZA4fELz32bQNOZg=0VHMhV23DD5Jjaiz_cEJn9-E+cZw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFixC0TNgPuEiv=_GdFKB5i+PFWUjqVfNpY1TxzK8SpEDQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 12:35 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> I am a libertarian but there just has be lines drawn.
>
> ### Being a libertarian is as much about values as it is about
understanding. Monopolistic organizations empowered to initiate violence
are a bad solution to problems, both on the normative and on the
explanatory levels.

The drug wars always claim more victims than they save. Good intentions
don't help.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/3f47e65c/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sun May  8 18:54:31 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 14:54:31 -0400
Subject: [ExI] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNSCxXj5CWSg7pdhTFaXEgceQ-ixCbsHgEqn-NW__0hqog@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFgJLT0KLJRF3LsE5B=bhTvsYdN0vDOt3tXStXeOHad+pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRr3YzLbWtXSXfEQWY6+d7e2jt1YbnGV1AdfKT23vxrKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjPFyUvTp5D=Pu_wg+_4nREP1LVhCd5h+Q47=kK0qbi6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNSCxXj5CWSg7pdhTFaXEgceQ-ixCbsHgEqn-NW__0hqog@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFgcq0utW-YzJodV+GfWXfZ0o86g9-juq09XB_Wq5M7S-Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Vapor that happens to contain certain chemicals to the point where
> breathing it has the health effects of breathing smoke.
>

### Your references as related to currently available vapes?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/2f137b94/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Sun May  8 19:00:18 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 21:00:18 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Aristotle on trolling
Message-ID: <572F8CC2.9010501@aleph.se>

A recent translation of Aristotle's classic "On trolling" (it is CC, so 
you can read the whole thing):
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=10293503&fileId=S2053447716000099
Many good points, and just two pages.

An excerpt:
> One might wonder whether there is an art of trolling and an 
> excellence; and indeed some say that Socrates was a troll, and so that 
> the good man also trolls. And this is in fact what the troll claims: 
> that he is a gadfly and beneficial, and without him to ?stir up? the 
> thread it would become dull and unintelligent. But this is incorrect. 
> For Socrates was speaking frankly when he told the Athenians to care 
> for their souls, rather than money and honors, and showed that they 
> lacked knowledge. And this is not trolling but the contrary, 
> exhortation and truth-telling?even if the citizens get very annoyed. 
> For annoyance results from many kinds of speech; and the peculiarity 
> [/idion/] of the troll is not annoyance or controversy in general, but 
> confusion and strife among a community who really agree. And since the 
> one who does this on every occasion must act with knowledge, and on 
> the basis of practice and care, he has a kind of art?just as one might 
> speak of the art of the hack or of the grifter. But it is not really 
> an art, being without any function; and it belongs not to the serious 
> person to be a troll but to the one who lacks education.

I am reminded of Frankfurt's classic "On bullshit":
http://www.stoa.org.uk/topics/bullshit/pdf/on-bullshit.pdf

Which is doubly relevant today given Trump's candidacy and the epistemic 
approach of Putin's Russia. Know your epistemic defenses and virtues.

-- 
Anders Sandberg
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Oxford University

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/c738641d/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Sun May  8 19:01:11 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 14:01:11 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <572F83B8.7040803@aleph.se>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhEzbHjj1FUta1qQkdECjYeMkN1FAEa-GQCDNGTX0UW=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZfJBf+Hj_naPJFPcuh5xPxFaNNv5d=W-RCwVhSTz+h1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNR+JS1v9b3q9cu_yhveegA076kgiqK_FOuU_zb-4uLKvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <572F83B8.7040803@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEbF6+jCvzVEgEK+cDq2MiLDg+3qSczOphtQXZp0-QHuxQ@mail.gmail.com>

It is not just "putting people in charge". That assumes their job is
decisionmaking, and that is pretty clearly wrong (hang out in a parliament
for a while or read a PoliSci textbook). Decisions are a tiny part of the
job, with much more of it being management, negotiation and (this is a
biggie in democratic politics) representing the viewpoint of the voters. If
I somehow magically (and unconstitutionally) ended up in the White House
and had the right skillset I would still be a disaster since I do not
represent the US people in any sensible way, and I would have absolutely
zero legitimacy. Getting legitimacy, that is actually what the current US
candidate circus is about. Unfortunately for everyone it is not going very
well. anders

Oh, I disagree completely with the last sentence.  This is exactly what
needs to happen to our political parties.  In the four years the Repubs
have ruled Congress they have done nothing to make their campaign promises
come true.  There is not one victory they can claim.  They have bickered
with everyone, mainly themselves.  They needed shaking up badly.

I wish democratic politics were as you say, actually representing the
voters.  They haven't and that's why it's such a mess.  They have been
representing the viewpoints of the rich donors, while Mr Average Voter
could not get two minutes of a Congressman's time.  I imagine the first
question asked about someone who wanted an appt. to be "Is he on the donor
list?l  How much did he give?"

I'd vote for you, Anders, for president.  While you have no obligation to
our voters, you would be determined to do a good job.  Of course Jimmy
Carter wanted to also, but he had no idea how Washington worked.

Maybe I do need to read a pol sci text.  I think it's a huge part of being
on top to choose very carefully the people under you whom you expect to
carry out your programs.

bill w

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> On 2016-05-08 18:27, Adrian Tymes wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 9:09 AM, William Flynn Wallace <
> <foozler83 at gmail.com>foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I ask everyone on this list this question:  given that you are far
>> smarter than the average person or even the average college graduate, did
>> you ever think that you could do a better job of running your town, state,
>> or country?  Of course you have.  Why?  Because you are great an
>> engineering or economics or physics?  You see - being among the elite pumps
>> your ego -- it certainly has pumped mine, and I AM one of those who think
>> this way, but I know that this is dangerous thinking and I am very ignorant
>> of how to run anything outside of a classroom.
>>
>
> I know that I could learn how to run things better.  That is a meta-skill
> that most people do not have, to a degree that many use the lack of it as a
> social or comedic common.  (How many people say they want to "rest their
> brain" or the like when merely encountering a complex problem, with no
> serious attempt made to begin figuring out how to solve it?)
>
>
> That is a good answer. Putting people able to acquire relevant skills in
> charge is a good idea. But in general there is a big cost to on-the-job
> learning: you want to put people in charge who have the skills from the
> start. Which skills depends a fair bit on the job - many jobs running
> institutions require social skills that tend to require practical training
> over long time.
>
> I like my friend Toby's answer. When asked whether the world would be a
> better place if we put a philosopher like him (well-meaning, very smart and
> knowledgeable) in charge he gave it some thought and said: "Either much
> better, or much worse. And there is no way of knowing before trying it."
>
> It is not just "putting people in charge". That assumes their job is
> decisionmaking, and that is pretty clearly wrong (hang out in a parliament
> for a while or read a PoliSci textbook). Decisions are a tiny part of the
> job, with much more of it being management, negotiation and (this is a
> biggie in democratic politics) representing the viewpoint of the voters. If
> I somehow magically (and unconstitutionally) ended up in the White House
> and had the right skillset I would still be a disaster since I do not
> represent the US people in any sensible way, and I would have absolutely
> zero legitimacy. Getting legitimacy, that is actually what the current US
> candidate circus is about. Unfortunately for everyone it is not going very
> well.
>
> --
> Anders Sandberg
> Future of Humanity Institute
> Oxford Martin School
> Oxford University
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/92c70d4c/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Sun May  8 19:03:16 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 14:03:16 -0500
Subject: [ExI] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFgcq0utW-YzJodV+GfWXfZ0o86g9-juq09XB_Wq5M7S-Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFgJLT0KLJRF3LsE5B=bhTvsYdN0vDOt3tXStXeOHad+pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRr3YzLbWtXSXfEQWY6+d7e2jt1YbnGV1AdfKT23vxrKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjPFyUvTp5D=Pu_wg+_4nREP1LVhCd5h+Q47=kK0qbi6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNSCxXj5CWSg7pdhTFaXEgceQ-ixCbsHgEqn-NW__0hqog@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgcq0utW-YzJodV+GfWXfZ0o86g9-juq09XB_Wq5M7S-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEYKW54ywVJAw2RXnLM31BNA=MRexKPJv72rK0WmL0AswQ@mail.gmail.com>

 Being a libertarian is as much about values as it is about understanding.
Monopolistic organizations empowered to initiate violence are a bad
solution to problems, both on the normative and on the explanatory levels.

The drug wars always claim more victims than they save. Good intentions
don't help.  rafal

I would never have started this ridiculous drug war.  I would have focused
on treatment and research.

bill w

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
> wrote:

> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Vapor that happens to contain certain chemicals to the point where
>> breathing it has the health effects of breathing smoke.
>>
>
> ### Your references as related to currently available vapes?
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/388a3d77/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Sun May  8 19:08:25 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 14:08:25 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Aristotle on trolling
In-Reply-To: <572F8CC2.9010501@aleph.se>
References: <572F8CC2.9010501@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZ0gWfF+2kiac8h5fn0zMQwdRrS=rkcrR+WdPwTruuMuw@mail.gmail.com>

?

I am reminded of Frankfurt's classic "On bullshit":
http://www.stoa.org.uk/topics/bullshit/pdf/on-bullshit.pdf


I am not sure what this is - perhaps the author's summer?.  I have the
book, available from Amazon, and it's 67 pages.

bill w

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> A recent translation of Aristotle's classic "On trolling" (it is CC, so
> you can read the whole thing):
>
> http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=10293503&fileId=S2053447716000099
> Many good points, and just two pages.
>
> An excerpt:
>
> One might wonder whether there is an art of trolling and an excellence;
> and indeed some say that Socrates was a troll, and so that the good man
> also trolls. And this is in fact what the troll claims: that he is a gadfly
> and beneficial, and without him to ?stir up? the thread it would become
> dull and unintelligent. But this is incorrect. For Socrates was speaking
> frankly when he told the Athenians to care for their souls, rather than
> money and honors, and showed that they lacked knowledge. And this is not
> trolling but the contrary, exhortation and truth-telling?even if the
> citizens get very annoyed. For annoyance results from many kinds of speech;
> and the peculiarity [*idion*] of the troll is not annoyance or
> controversy in general, but confusion and strife among a community who
> really agree. And since the one who does this on every occasion must act
> with knowledge, and on the basis of practice and care, he has a kind of
> art?just as one might speak of the art of the hack or of the grifter. But
> it is not really an art, being without any function; and it belongs not to
> the serious person to be a troll but to the one who lacks education.
>
>
> I am reminded of Frankfurt's classic "On bullshit":
> http://www.stoa.org.uk/topics/bullshit/pdf/on-bullshit.pdf
>
> Which is doubly relevant today given Trump's candidacy and the epistemic
> approach of Putin's Russia. Know your epistemic defenses and virtues.
>
> --
> Anders Sandberg
> Future of Humanity Institute
> Oxford Martin School
> Oxford University
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/f9a9e999/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Sun May  8 19:12:36 2016
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 20:12:36 +0100
Subject: [ExI] drugs
In-Reply-To: <572F8923.60802@aleph.se>
References: <CAAc1gFgJLT0KLJRF3LsE5B=bhTvsYdN0vDOt3tXStXeOHad+pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRr3YzLbWtXSXfEQWY6+d7e2jt1YbnGV1AdfKT23vxrKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjPFyUvTp5D=Pu_wg+_4nREP1LVhCd5h+Q47=kK0qbi6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNSCxXj5CWSg7pdhTFaXEgceQ-ixCbsHgEqn-NW__0hqog@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZA4fELz32bQNOZg=0VHMhV23DD5Jjaiz_cEJn9-E+cZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <572F8923.60802@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAL_armjt6t8+mS+sJY7+s9VCSki6ognbdzfM6vr479R552HJOA@mail.gmail.com>

On 8 May 2016 at 19:44, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:
> On 2016-05-08 18:35, William Flynn Wallace wrote:
>
> I want to end and utterly oppose the government telling anyone what they can
> and cannot put in their own body.  That is the core principle, not whether
> e-cigs are bad or as bad as tobacco or not.
>
> - samantha
>
> I used to agree with that.  Heroin, cocaine, crack, anything.  Make it all
> legal.  Take the high profits out it.  Then I find things like one puff of a
> cigarette changes your brain permanently.  I kicked alcohol and tobacco cold
> turkey, but other members of my family have found it much harder to do.
> Most people are not good at moderating their intake of things that make them
> very happy - I wasn't either.  But I was an excellent quitter.
>
> Just too many people would ruin their lives and put great burdens of society
> by legal everything.  I have worked in several mental hospitals and can
> assert that the craziest people I saw were those on amphetamines - very
> psychotic.  (Heroin, by contrast is a far easier habit to kick.)
>
> I am a libertarian but there just has be lines drawn.
>
>
> This is bound to become an endless thread on this list. I'll get in early so
> I can go on holiday :-)
>
> My own libertarian position is what I call "Bayesian libertarianism": for
> any question I start out with the prior assumption that letting people do
> what they want as long as they do not harm each other and that centralized
> government interventions often are unjust, costly or go wrong, and then see
> if there is evidence that forces me to refine my views into posterior views.
>
> So the basic approach I would take is to ask, "In what ways would allowing
> people take whatever they want go wrong, and what is the least imposition
> needed to produce a decent outcome?"
>
> The problem with seriously addictive drugs is that they *in some people, in
> some situations* overrule their ability to control their behavior. This
> ability is the basis for most of the rights frameworks libertarianism use to
> build their proposals. Hence some form of harm reduction is needed. However,
> the evidence that government drug policy banning drugs is an effective form
> of harm reduction is clearly not there: countries with harsh policies do not
> seem to reduce drug use significantly, and there are clear costs and harms
> induced by the policies.
>
> As I argue in
> http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2015/05/strange-brew-opiates-from-yeast/
> there are anyway significant harms from use of opioids, alcohol and other
> hard drugs. But the evidence seems to point at decriminalisation with
> improved addiction treatment as being both more effective and cheaper. So
> the real libertarian issue might be what forms improved addiction treatment
> should take. Maybe this is a legitimate function of a minarchist state, or
> maybe there are smarter ways of producing it privately?
>
> --
> Anders Sandberg
> Future of Humanity Institute
> Oxford Martin School
> Oxford University
>


Gmail put your missive in the Spam folder.
Probably because it has some characteristics of drug spam emails.

BillK


From atymes at gmail.com  Sun May  8 19:13:58 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 12:13:58 -0700
Subject: [ExI] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFgcq0utW-YzJodV+GfWXfZ0o86g9-juq09XB_Wq5M7S-Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFgJLT0KLJRF3LsE5B=bhTvsYdN0vDOt3tXStXeOHad+pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRr3YzLbWtXSXfEQWY6+d7e2jt1YbnGV1AdfKT23vxrKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjPFyUvTp5D=Pu_wg+_4nREP1LVhCd5h+Q47=kK0qbi6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNSCxXj5CWSg7pdhTFaXEgceQ-ixCbsHgEqn-NW__0hqog@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgcq0utW-YzJodV+GfWXfZ0o86g9-juq09XB_Wq5M7S-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNTkWMZqpTGBJJZ6DmuWduV4V-Y=hVGsdBu5FG_kopASZw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Vapor that happens to contain certain chemicals to the point where
>> breathing it has the health effects of breathing smoke.
>>
>
> ### Your references as related to currently available vapes?
>

Direct observation, and analysis of the exhaled vapor using what
(admittedly less than full scientific lab) tools were available when
encountering people using the product.  (Still waiting for my SCiO to ship;
then I could have more reliable answers for this.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/7ff7a323/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sun May  8 19:20:31 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 15:20:31 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv0qsydcP=GWZpUYwJ1ibuKum1VMo0Tn=7BHLDeqy=XY9A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhEzbHjj1FUta1qQkdECjYeMkN1FAEa-GQCDNGTX0UW=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0qsydcP=GWZpUYwJ1ibuKum1VMo0Tn=7BHLDeqy=XY9A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFhv-EhzJC=Cg5q5MhVgX-hRUbVsZcx88khbrTnKtuDopQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 1:13 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> ?Fact check: ?The word "felon" means something and it doesn't mean what Hillary
> Clinton is.
>

### Who is Hillary Clinton? How about an old witch? A reptilian overlord?
Old reptilian witch?

And yes, she committed multiple felonies.
-------------------


>
> ?If
>
> ?Donald had just put that money in a simple S&P index fund in 1974 and
> then sat on his hands for 42 years today he'd be worth well over 10 billion.
>

### Well, the S&P grows in value thanks to being linked to the efforts of
successful businessmen. Yes, matching the S&P means you are a successful
businessman.
------------------

>
> ?And speaking of successful:
> Do you think encouraging
> Saudi Arabia
> ? to obtain nuclear weapons would be a successful foreign policy move?
> Do you think defaulting on the national debt would be a
> successful ?economic move?
> ?Do you think building a wall and making Mexico pay for it would be
> a successful sane move?
>

 ### Do you think we should pay attention to silly leftist stories?

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/1527d17b/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sun May  8 19:24:46 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 15:24:46 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEbF6+jCvzVEgEK+cDq2MiLDg+3qSczOphtQXZp0-QHuxQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhEzbHjj1FUta1qQkdECjYeMkN1FAEa-GQCDNGTX0UW=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZfJBf+Hj_naPJFPcuh5xPxFaNNv5d=W-RCwVhSTz+h1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNR+JS1v9b3q9cu_yhveegA076kgiqK_FOuU_zb-4uLKvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <572F83B8.7040803@aleph.se>
 <CAO+xQEbF6+jCvzVEgEK+cDq2MiLDg+3qSczOphtQXZp0-QHuxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFhduDAoh+58w0mBzm+Lu4wjeuVgQC9y_b3fPFec3MNO5Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 3:01 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> I wish democratic politics were as you say, actually representing the
> voters.  They haven't and that's why it's such a mess.  They have been
> representing the viewpoints of the rich donors,
>

### The average voter is an idiot. If American democracy meant actually
representing voters, the US would have imploded before the 18th century was
over. Thank gods for rich donors being on average smarter.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/948e8aef/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sun May  8 19:37:30 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 15:37:30 -0400
Subject: [ExI] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEYKW54ywVJAw2RXnLM31BNA=MRexKPJv72rK0WmL0AswQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFgJLT0KLJRF3LsE5B=bhTvsYdN0vDOt3tXStXeOHad+pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRr3YzLbWtXSXfEQWY6+d7e2jt1YbnGV1AdfKT23vxrKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjPFyUvTp5D=Pu_wg+_4nREP1LVhCd5h+Q47=kK0qbi6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNSCxXj5CWSg7pdhTFaXEgceQ-ixCbsHgEqn-NW__0hqog@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgcq0utW-YzJodV+GfWXfZ0o86g9-juq09XB_Wq5M7S-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEYKW54ywVJAw2RXnLM31BNA=MRexKPJv72rK0WmL0AswQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFi1zGdMLeBxma04GeA3e7vHwDxFUEcgGipFv87WfLNP9Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 3:03 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> I would never have started this ridiculous drug war.  I would have focused
> on treatment and research.
>

### If you don't want to have a war, why bother having a government?

You don't need the DEA to do treatment and research.

Rafa?

PS - "If you don't want to have a war, why bother having a government?" -
what a neat turn of phrase :)

I just googled it, and seemingly no one ever committed this sentence to
Google's memory. It is worthy of being enshrined among other fortuitous
expressions, like "Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?", in the
pantheon of hippy-sounding slogans.

I am proud of myself for uttering it first.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/307827c3/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Sun May  8 20:00:15 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 13:00:15 -0700
Subject: [ExI] for fiction readers only
Message-ID: <CACB7g26wHkwsYh6FKrnqDWFtnmmi0jhvdhjGeCwF8Z+xvPqwng@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 11:21 AM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Well, lil ol me got a letter published in the NYT Book Review.  It was in
response to an article about what is wrong with modern fiction.  Here it is:
>
> Two words:  happy endings.
>
> People buy romance novels, sci-fi and other genres because they know they
will encounter no unhappiness, no depression, no angst, no killings, no
family conflict, etc. the way they will in all of modern fiction.  They
know what to expect from these books, many of which are formulaic, but many
display really good writing too
>
> It's as if there were some rule that literature cannot have happy endings
because those other genres do and it would taint a true work of literature
to have them.
>
> And readers know this.
>
> Similarly, writers know that they must include racism and feminism and
the evils of capitalism because without them their books would be
politically incorrect.
>
> And readers know this too.
>
> So readers don't buy too many books they suspect are 'literature'.
>
> Have you noticed that?
>
> bill w
> (a bit of exaggeration in the first paragraph, and I omitted modern
fictions obsession with LGBT issues)

Gross oversimplifications all around, in my view. You've chosen a subset of
each genre -- and literary fiction and modernist fiction can be considered
genres here -- and then generalized from them to all members of each genre
and to why people read them.

There's another problem too. Maybe readers of literary fiction, modernist
fiction also enjoy various other genre fiction. I hesitate to use myself as
an example, but I enjoy the work of Thomas Bernard (don't read him; I'm
guessing you'll despise his work) and that of Cixin Liu. I'm not the only
example of such a reader too. I haven't done any surveys, so I'm not sure
how big this class of readers is. (And I'm not even bringing up writers who
cross genre boundaries or how genres are sort of arbitrary, often more to
do with tastes and marketing than anything essential to the works. Nothing
prevents one from writing a literary Western or a postmodernist space
opera. That such things sell means there are people who will buy them and
presumably read them.:)

We've already discussed the happy endings issue before. This isn't anything
genre-specific about this. Yes, there's probably a tendency toward mixed or
unhappy endings in modernist fiction, but there are counterexamples.
(Literary fiction is a wider genre and harder to map out. Do we include the
works of Jane Austen? If so, happy endings abound.) Likewise, there are
plenty of science fiction, fantasy, mystery, espionage, etc. novels with
unhappy or mixed endings. I don't believe endings are genre-specific --
save in trivial cases.

Regards,

Dan
  Sample my Kindle books via:
http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/d36fa36e/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Sun May  8 20:11:30 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 13:11:30 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFhv-EhzJC=Cg5q5MhVgX-hRUbVsZcx88khbrTnKtuDopQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhEzbHjj1FUta1qQkdECjYeMkN1FAEa-GQCDNGTX0UW=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0qsydcP=GWZpUYwJ1ibuKum1VMo0Tn=7BHLDeqy=XY9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhv-EhzJC=Cg5q5MhVgX-hRUbVsZcx88khbrTnKtuDopQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNQe4sxNDsu=7xzMfJBxeg6m452yrHt0shB2hKtcBxN88w@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 1:13 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> ?Fact check: ?The word "felon" means something and it doesn't mean what Hillary
>> Clinton is.
>>
>
> ### Who is Hillary Clinton? How about an old witch? A reptilian overlord?
> Old reptilian witch?
>
> And yes, she committed multiple felonies.
>

"Felon" means that she has been convicted of felonies.

Which felonies has she actually been convicted of, not just charged with?

For the purposes of applying the label "felon", it doesn't matter why she
hasn't been convicted yet, just that she hasn't.

>
>
> ?If
>
> ?Donald had just put that money in a simple S&P index fund in 1974 and
> then sat on his hands for 42 years today he'd be worth well over 10 billion.
>

### Well, the S&P grows in value thanks to being linked to the efforts of
successful businessmen. Yes, matching the S&P means you are a successful
businessman.

So what does it say about Donald that he hasn't matched the S&P?


> ?And speaking of successful:
> Do you think encouraging
> Saudi Arabia
> ? to obtain nuclear weapons would be a successful foreign policy move?
> Do you think defaulting on the national debt would be a
> successful ?economic move?
> ?Do you think building a wall and making Mexico pay for it would be
> a successful sane move?
>

 ### Do you think we should pay attention to silly leftist stories?

 Those are from his mouth, not the lefties'.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/aea9df34/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Sun May  8 20:16:50 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 13:16:50 -0700
Subject: [ExI] climate change et alia
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEbT+MWKEBxgt-Zvntpj4pFjQ81jNrKf0EC0sR402CiaXw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEbT+MWKEBxgt-Zvntpj4pFjQ81jNrKf0EC0sR402CiaXw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACB7g24SZeOs_L4_O_rtGwwoA0XO+9wWwZ8K=sAN-aRLbJvLZQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 10:50 AM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> What do Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, climate change have in
common?
> (you could probably add to this list)
>
> All of them share this:  nothing currently going on with them is dire and
needs
> fixing right away.  All are long term problems.

That's a good point.

> The people we elect seem focused on short term problems, because they are
the ones
> their voters can relate to.  Tell someone we are 20 trillion dollars in
debt and I think it
> is likely he will say "So what?"  Climate change will bring significant
problems in the
> year 2030.  "So what?  I'll probably be dead by then."

You might want to choose a different year there, perhaps 02100. I hope and
believe most people living now will be alive in 02030 -- <14 years away --
but I'm not so sure about 02100 -- almost 84 years away. This doesn't,
however, undercut your point.

I think people now do try to link global warming to current problems, such
as droughts, the rash of hot summers, and severe storms. So they do try to
make it seem as if the impact is nearer or even now and, presumably, that
changes taken now can have more a immediate impact... More immediate than,
say, something we might only noticed in the 02060s.

> Current money goes to fix current problems, regardless of what long term
thing it has
> be taken from.  My state keeps an emergency fund which is raided every
year despite
> their being no emergency.  We are acting as is hurricane Katrina never
happened.

Such funds are too tempting. It's kind of like I heard one time that a
certain city wanted to cut costs by cutting the fire department staff
because they don't really do anything but wait and train until they're
needed. :/

> I have no idea how to fix this.  You'd have to change human brains.

I think having many of these things under government control or provision
creates problems because adjustments are only made via the political
process and the whole thing becomes ever more fragile. For instance, with
the health industry, government intervention over the last century or more
has only helped to drive up costs and increase the layers of bureaucracy.
Despite this, there have been some improvements, but nothing like in more
free areas of the economy. (Some of the improvements, too, have been
spillover effects of the freer parts of the economy.)

> Or, start a war with China.  Always proven to stimulate the economy, and
we can then
> declare our debts to them null and void!

Starting a war with China is very unlikely. I gather you're joking, but...
the problem wouldn't be that US government debt could just be defaulted on
-- that can be done now sans war -- but that the market for future debt
will dry up. The outcome could be not getting any foreign -- not just
Chinese -- buyers for US government debt for some time afterward. Who would
loan to the US government given that it might use war to nullify the debt?
That would limit the US government to either domestic borrowers, more
aggressive inflation, or raising taxes. (Actually, simply defaulting now
might not be so bad since these other means have more restraints on them
than foreign borrowers.)

Regards,

Dan
  Sample my Kindle books via:
http://author.to/DanUst
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/ed136c87/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Sun May  8 20:22:03 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 13:22:03 -0700
Subject: [ExI] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEZA4fELz32bQNOZg=0VHMhV23DD5Jjaiz_cEJn9-E+cZw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFgJLT0KLJRF3LsE5B=bhTvsYdN0vDOt3tXStXeOHad+pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRr3YzLbWtXSXfEQWY6+d7e2jt1YbnGV1AdfKT23vxrKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjPFyUvTp5D=Pu_wg+_4nREP1LVhCd5h+Q47=kK0qbi6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNSCxXj5CWSg7pdhTFaXEgceQ-ixCbsHgEqn-NW__0hqog@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZA4fELz32bQNOZg=0VHMhV23DD5Jjaiz_cEJn9-E+cZw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACB7g240NaXwns184v1y8Su-oKKT4FdgiZG-SCB3FNJxj55xOQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 9:35 AM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> I want to end and utterly oppose the government telling anyone what they
can
> and cannot put in their own body.  That is the core principle, not
whether e-cigs
> are bad or as bad as tobacco or not.
>
> - samantha

I agree with Samantha here.

> I used to agree with that.  Heroin, cocaine, crack, anything.  Make it
all legal.  Take the
> high profits out it.  Then I find things like one puff of a cigarette
changes your brain
> permanently.  I kicked alcohol and tobacco cold turkey, but other members
of my family
> have found it much harder to do.  Most people are not good at moderating
their intake of
> things that make them very happy - I wasn't either.  But I was an
excellent quitter.
>
> Just too many people would ruin their lives and put great burdens of
society by legal
> everything.  I have worked in several mental hospitals and can assert
that the craziest
> people I saw were those on amphetamines - very psychotic.  (Heroin, by
contrast is a
> far easier habit to kick.)
>
> I am a libertarian but there just has be lines drawn.

The argument you're making here is actually the typical anti-libertarian
one: free people can make bad choices -- choices we disapprove of -- and
this might cause harm to others -- someone might read Karl Marx and form a
revolutionary group to take over society -- so we must limit their freedom
-- control their reading of Marx, for instance.

Regards,

Dan
  Sample my Kindle books via:
http://author.to/DanUst
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/d5d08c39/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Sun May  8 20:53:49 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 16:53:49 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <011301d1a94c$7e14b530$7a3e1f90$@att.net>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <572E9C31.30200@gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0WAaYbb+8GEKP-dbckLutnmghY+KUjXwbhCZ2HxGX+ug@mail.gmail.com>
 <011301d1a94c$7e14b530$7a3e1f90$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv2EoR3BSNkHWfN8zGrkk_ePY81EtiaGG7Qb9TviP1X8uQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 1:10 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:



>  ?>
>> ?>?
>> ? Under Democrat Bill Clinton the government ran a SURPLUS in 1998,
>> 1999, 2000 and 2001.  Republican George Bush was in power in 2002 and the
>> government ran a deficit that year and has been running a deficit every
>> year since. Ronald Reagan never managed to balance the budget for even one
>> year, but Clinton did it for 4.  John K Clark
>
>
> ?>
> Heh.  John do you recall how that was done?  It was done by ?welfare
> reform.?  The US removed all those people from the welfare rolls, which
> resulted in lower federal expenditures and a balanced budget.  Hooray, a
> miracle it was! What really happened is that the huge and growing welfare
> masses were assigned a disability of some sort.
>

?But if that's the explanation somebody must? be paying for all those
disability payments, if it wasn't the government it must have been private
companies. If so it sure didn't seem to have cramped their style much
because the 8 Clinton years were the most prosperous in the country's
history. And if that's the explanation what changed as soon as Bush became
president?

Well OK he did start 2 wars, one of which was against the wrong country,
and he did preside over the worst economic catastrophe since the Great
Depression of 1929, but other than that what changed?


> ?> ?
> in 2000, candidate Al Gore was able to give us a date for Social Security
> going bust: 2035
>
> Predicting is hard, especially the future
?,?

?so ?
I have very little confidence
?in a prediction of
what the economy will be like in 2035. We do know that in 2014
?
Social Security
?
took in $769 billion and paid out $714 billion
?
and the surplus
?
$55 billion
?went
 into
?a?
 $2.729 trillion
? trust fund to cover possible future shortfalls. Some projections say that
starting about 2020
Social Security
? will pay out more money than it takes in ?so they will have to dip into
that trust fund then, and 2020 isn't that far away so that prediction may
be worth taking seriously. And yes if everything continued on in a straight
line from 2020 to 2035 the trust fund would be gone in 2035 and benefits
could only come from taxes just as they do today; but the future never
happens in a straight line, if it did predicting would be easy. And it
isn't.


With today's rate of change I think it's a waste of time to worry about any
problem that won't become serious for more than 10 years, we'll worry about
it when the time comes and we understand the problem better and have better
tools to solve it.
That's why I don't worry about climate change much, and that's why I do
worry about the
 the wealth gap
?because I think it ?
will cause serious problems much sooner than 10 years.
? Very serious problems.?

 John K Clark











>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/0caa3133/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Sun May  8 20:55:48 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 13:55:48 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Democracy/was Re:  Donald Trump
Message-ID: <CACB7g26z_YyWQ-QBsB4ZehnPf745-aQNg2rx8aORObAQ-1ObWQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 3:01 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>>
>> I wish democratic politics were as you say, actually representing the
voters.  They haven't and that's why it's such a mess.  They have been
representing the viewpoints of the rich donors,
>
>
> ### The average voter is an idiot. If American democracy meant actually
representing
> voters, the US would have imploded before the 18th century was over.
Thank gods for
> rich donors being on average smarter.

I don't know if that's exactly what happened. There does seem to be some
evidence that, overall, voters in any putative democracy rarely get exactly
what they vote for -- not just in the US. There seems to be friction in any
democratic system that prevents this in most votes. (I believe Caplan
covers this in his book, _The Myth of the Rational Voter_.)

By the way, the federalists seemed to want the rich to be stuck to the
government -- partly by getting them to buy public debt and therefore be in
favor of taxation to recover their money -- because some of them (the rich)
might otherwise support decentralist or secessionist movements. And this
seems to make sense all around: don't alienate people who might organize
and effectively fight against you.

Regards,

Dan
  Sample my Kindle books via:
http://author.to/DanUst
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/53b6ffdb/attachment.html>

From jasonresch at gmail.com  Sun May  8 21:01:23 2016
From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 16:01:23 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNQe4sxNDsu=7xzMfJBxeg6m452yrHt0shB2hKtcBxN88w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhEzbHjj1FUta1qQkdECjYeMkN1FAEa-GQCDNGTX0UW=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0qsydcP=GWZpUYwJ1ibuKum1VMo0Tn=7BHLDeqy=XY9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhv-EhzJC=Cg5q5MhVgX-hRUbVsZcx88khbrTnKtuDopQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNQe4sxNDsu=7xzMfJBxeg6m452yrHt0shB2hKtcBxN88w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+BCJUh+wWJiAzJ=1Yc3wPN0Nq_xVYxwpQiuZYaiJt+nPrGCZQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
> rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 1:13 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> ?Fact check: ?The word "felon" means something and it doesn't mean what Hillary
>>> Clinton is.
>>>
>>
>> ### Who is Hillary Clinton? How about an old witch? A reptilian overlord?
>> Old reptilian witch?
>>
>> And yes, she committed multiple felonies.
>>
>
> "Felon" means that she has been convicted of felonies.
>

A felon is just someone who has committed a felony
<http://www.dictionary.com/browse/felon?s=t> (serious crime). A convicted
felon is someone who has been convicted of committing a felony.

The word has been substantially diluted, given the huge number of things
now considered felonies in America.
See: Three Felonies a Day
<http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229>

When everything is illegal, and enforcement is selective, the result is a
de facto dictatorship where anyone can be targeted at the will of those who
have a say in the selective enforcement of laws.

See: Dinosaur 13 <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3090252/> for a great example
of this.

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/984fd8cb/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Sun May  8 21:04:00 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 17:04:00 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNQe4sxNDsu=7xzMfJBxeg6m452yrHt0shB2hKtcBxN88w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhEzbHjj1FUta1qQkdECjYeMkN1FAEa-GQCDNGTX0UW=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0qsydcP=GWZpUYwJ1ibuKum1VMo0Tn=7BHLDeqy=XY9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhv-EhzJC=Cg5q5MhVgX-hRUbVsZcx88khbrTnKtuDopQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNQe4sxNDsu=7xzMfJBxeg6m452yrHt0shB2hKtcBxN88w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv0c3BV1MmvY7CTi1tjVctsCFmZpj3ay+aZ7f0F7_Ubugg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

?>> ?
>> And yes, she committed multiple felonies.
>>
>
> ?> ?
> "
> ??
> Felon" means that she has been convicted of felonies.
> Which felonies has she actually been convicted of, not just charged with?
>

?Forger conviction,?

?the fact is ?
Hillary Clinton
? hasn't even been charged with a felony. A Fox News smear story is not the
same as an
indictment
?.?


 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/c59159e6/attachment.html>

From cryptaxe at gmail.com  Sun May  8 19:24:17 2016
From: cryptaxe at gmail.com (CryptAxe)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 12:24:17 -0700
Subject: [ExI] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNTkWMZqpTGBJJZ6DmuWduV4V-Y=hVGsdBu5FG_kopASZw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFgJLT0KLJRF3LsE5B=bhTvsYdN0vDOt3tXStXeOHad+pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRr3YzLbWtXSXfEQWY6+d7e2jt1YbnGV1AdfKT23vxrKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjPFyUvTp5D=Pu_wg+_4nREP1LVhCd5h+Q47=kK0qbi6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNSCxXj5CWSg7pdhTFaXEgceQ-ixCbsHgEqn-NW__0hqog@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgcq0utW-YzJodV+GfWXfZ0o86g9-juq09XB_Wq5M7S-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNTkWMZqpTGBJJZ6DmuWduV4V-Y=hVGsdBu5FG_kopASZw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAF5CFkhYe1nNx_uTgkRNvmjAH+z3VdJObYe+-nXACHDcupFAKw@mail.gmail.com>

The exhaled vapor appears white because of vegetable glycerin. I don't
think it's nearly as dangerous as actual smoke based on my personal
experience. Actual smoke leaves behind tars, are there any studies showing
that vapor of any kind produces the same toxic tar byproducts?
On May 8, 2016 12:14 PM, "Adrian Tymes" <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
> rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Vapor that happens to contain certain chemicals to the point where
>>> breathing it has the health effects of breathing smoke.
>>>
>>
>> ### Your references as related to currently available vapes?
>>
>
> Direct observation, and analysis of the exhaled vapor using what
> (admittedly less than full scientific lab) tools were available when
> encountering people using the product.  (Still waiting for my SCiO to ship;
> then I could have more reliable answers for this.)
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/b71d75ff/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Sun May  8 21:09:45 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 14:09:45 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Welfare and the US budget/was Re:  Donald Trump
Message-ID: <CACB7g24GCcuDTn-rOwgYto8zXCtmvXh5TVnFhGBHz=V4zEq_hQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 10:10 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On
Behalf Of John Clark
>>?That reminds me of something from another thread.  Under Democrat
>> Bill Clinton the government ran a SURPLUS in 1998, 1999, 2000 and
>> 2001.  Republican George Bush was in power in 2002 and the government
>> ran a deficit that year and has been running a deficit every year since.
>> Ronald Reagan never managed to balance the budget for even one year,
>> but Clinton did it for 4.  John K Clark
>
> Heh.  John do you recall how that was done?  It was done by ?welfare
reform.?
> The US removed all those people from the welfare rolls, which resulted in
lower
> federal expenditures and a balanced budget.  Hooray, a miracle it was!

Not my understanding. The welfare rolls were hardly changed and welfare
spending -- as in welfare for poor folks -- was always and remain and small
percentage of the overall budget. The bigger share goes to Medicare and
Social Security -- which are transfer payments to old folks not necessarily
poor folks and were mostly untouched by welfare reform during the 1990s.
The booming economy and the increases in taxes on that resulted in the
surplus. There was a decrease in the acceleration of federal spending too,
though most areas, including welfare (for the poor), increased.

Of course, since the federal budget is hard to piece together and total,
it's often hard to track the actual level of debt.

I also stress welfare to poor folks. Corporate welfare, as far as I know,
didn't drop under Clinton -- or any recent president -- and is massive.
Things like subsidies and bailouts are, of course, rarely discussed as
corporate welfare and few really want to get rid of these. One might call
them welfare for the middle class and for the corporate ruling class.

Regards,

Dan
  Sample my Kindle books via:
http://author.to/DanUst
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/cea37900/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Sun May  8 21:24:37 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 14:24:37 -0700
Subject: [ExI] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <CAF5CFkhYe1nNx_uTgkRNvmjAH+z3VdJObYe+-nXACHDcupFAKw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFgJLT0KLJRF3LsE5B=bhTvsYdN0vDOt3tXStXeOHad+pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRr3YzLbWtXSXfEQWY6+d7e2jt1YbnGV1AdfKT23vxrKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjPFyUvTp5D=Pu_wg+_4nREP1LVhCd5h+Q47=kK0qbi6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNSCxXj5CWSg7pdhTFaXEgceQ-ixCbsHgEqn-NW__0hqog@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgcq0utW-YzJodV+GfWXfZ0o86g9-juq09XB_Wq5M7S-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNTkWMZqpTGBJJZ6DmuWduV4V-Y=hVGsdBu5FG_kopASZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF5CFkhYe1nNx_uTgkRNvmjAH+z3VdJObYe+-nXACHDcupFAKw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNRades8Fpza1yg5yPzf57bLSy3kAjq31ok-AT7DHGeO0w@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 12:24 PM, CryptAxe <cryptaxe at gmail.com> wrote:

> The exhaled vapor appears white because of vegetable glycerin. I don't
> think it's nearly as dangerous as actual smoke based on my personal
> experience. Actual smoke leaves behind tars, are there any studies showing
> that vapor of any kind produces the same toxic tar byproducts?
>

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm173146.htm
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/23/suppl_2/ii11.full
http://www.restek.com/pdfs/ecigvaporposter.pdf

among others.  (The FDA's is, IMO, the weakest of these three - but again,
these three are far from all.)

It is difficult to make blanket statements with high degrees of precision
because of the high variance from any one e-cig to another, even in the
same make and brand (which itself is a problem: they're selling a
garbage-quality product), but what is consistent is bad enough.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/df211b5a/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Sun May  8 21:37:58 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 17:37:58 -0400
Subject: [ExI] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <572E995D.6000109@gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFgJLT0KLJRF3LsE5B=bhTvsYdN0vDOt3tXStXeOHad+pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRr3YzLbWtXSXfEQWY6+d7e2jt1YbnGV1AdfKT23vxrKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <572E995D.6000109@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv32zE+ECukb6ZQdkOfDmBgSYdguOL4dsF00ieNKGp=emw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at gmail.com> wrote:

?> ?
> I want to end and utterly oppose the government telling anyone what they
> can and cannot put in their own body.
>

?We agree on that, the only caveat ?is that the person should have the
ability to know what they're putting into their body.

?So for that reason I think laws against selling a bottle of vodka to a 6
year old are reasonable, and when an adult reads a ingredients label that
label should tell the truth. But if somebody wants to inject themselves
with vitamins or heroin or cobra venom that's their decision to make not
mine.

By the way, in my opinion the single most pressing libertarian issue in the
world today has nothing to do with money, it's euthanasia. I think forcing
somebody to live who wants to die is as great a violation of human rights
as forcing somebody to die who wants to live.

 John K Clark ?

t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/e031dd6b/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Sun May  8 22:47:24 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 18:47:24 -0400
Subject: [ExI] climate change et alia
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEbT+MWKEBxgt-Zvntpj4pFjQ81jNrKf0EC0sR402CiaXw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEbT+MWKEBxgt-Zvntpj4pFjQ81jNrKf0EC0sR402CiaXw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv1kXotxMZFK03YvzcGtTWrq05RmOBd4G4jUDOdgVv3q4Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 8, 2016  William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:

?> ?
> What do Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, climate change have in
> common?  (you could probably add to this list)
> ?
> All of them share this:  nothing currently going on with them is dire and
> needs fixing right away.  All are long term problems.
>

?Yes, and that's why I don't give them much thought.?


The people we elect seem focused on short term problems,
>

?Good. The longer range the prediction is the more likely it will be wrong
and the more likely the proposed solution to the hypothetical problem will
turn out to be ridiculous. A long rage problem might not turn out to be a
problem at all, and even if it is you're not going to know how to fix it
now. ?


> Tell someone we are 20 trillion dollars in debt and I think it is likely
> he will say "So what?"  Climate change will bring significant problems in
> the year 2030.  "So what?  I'll probably be dead by then."
>

?And that is a perfectly rational attitude to take. ?The people of the
future can solve their own damn problems, we have problems of our own.

?> ?
> Current money goes to fix current problems,
>

?Right, people in 1916 didn't solve our problems they solved their own, and
we don't even know what problems the people (or Jupiter Brains) of 2116
will have much less know how to fix them. ?


? John K Clark?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/ab16cec1/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Sun May  8 22:45:53 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 15:45:53 -0700
Subject: [ExI] s&p 500 growth, was:  RE: 
Message-ID: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark
?

?,?

>?mediocre would be a better word than successful.

??>? Since 1974, the year Dumb Donald inherited his money from 

?much smarter ?Fred Trump, the S&P 500 has gone up 74 fold

?.?

>?If Donald had just put that money in a simple S&P index fund in 1974 and then sat on his hands for 42 years today he'd be worth well over 10 billion.

 

 

 

 

I am getting 21.4 fold increase since 1974:  2057/96 = 21.4

 

Shows to go ya however, when in doubt, drop your money into an index fund then go get to work, or go outside and play, or do whatever gives meaning to this short life.  That philosophy has worked well for me for a long time.

 

It?s impressive as all get out if you think about how the S&P has done all these years: 4.4 doublings in 42 years, that?s doubling your investment more often than every decade, so over 7% return over the long haul, which is excellent.  We must realize the game will eventually run out, just as Moore?s Law.  If we somehow kept doubling every decade, well a thousand fold increase in a century, well maybe.  Depending on how you count it, one might argue that our economy has expanded a thousand fold since WW1.

 

spike

 

 

http://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-historical-prices/table/by-year

 

 

 

o     <http://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-historical-prices/table/by-year> By Year

o     <http://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-historical-prices/table/by-month> By Month


Date

Price


May 6, 2016

2,057.14


Jan 1, 2016

1,918.60


Jan 1, 2015

2,028.18


Jan 1, 2014

1,822.36


Jan 1, 2013

1,480.40


Jan 1, 2012

1,300.58


Jan 1, 2011

1,282.62


Jan 1, 2010

1,123.58


Jan 1, 2009

865.58


Jan 1, 2008

1,378.76


Jan 1, 2007

1,424.16


Jan 1, 2006

1,278.73


Jan 1, 2005

1,181.41


Jan 1, 2004

1,132.52


Jan 1, 2003

895.84


Jan 1, 2002

1,140.21


Jan 1, 2001

1,335.63


Jan 1, 2000

1,425.59


Jan 1, 1999

1,248.77


Jan 1, 1998

963.36


Jan 1, 1997

766.22


Jan 1, 1996

614.42


Jan 1, 1995

465.25


Jan 1, 1994

472.99


Jan 1, 1993

435.23


Jan 1, 1992

416.08


Jan 1, 1991

325.49


Jan 1, 1990

339.97


Jan 1, 1989

285.40


Jan 1, 1988

250.50


Jan 1, 1987

264.50


Jan 1, 1986

208.20


Jan 1, 1985

171.60


Jan 1, 1984

166.40


Jan 1, 1983

144.30


Jan 1, 1982

117.30


Jan 1, 1981

133.00


Jan 1, 1980

110.90


Jan 1, 1979

99.71


Jan 1, 1978

90.25


Jan 1, 1977

103.80


Jan 1, 1976

96.86


Jan 1, 1975

72.56


Jan 1, 1974

96.11


Jan 1, 1973

118.40


Jan 1, 1972

103.30


Jan 1, 1971

93.49


Jan 1, 1970

90.31


Jan 1, 1969

102.00


Jan 1, 1968

95.04


Jan 1, 1967

84.45


Jan 1, 1966

93.32


Jan 1, 1965

86.12


Jan 1, 1964

76.45


Jan 1, 1963

65.06


Jan 1, 1962

69.07


Jan 1, 1961

59.72


Jan 1, 1960

58.03


Jan 1, 1959

55.62


Jan 1, 1958

41.12


Jan 1, 1957

45.43


Jan 1, 1956

44.15


Jan 1, 1955

35.60


Jan 1, 1954

25.46


Jan 1, 1953

26.18


Jan 1, 1952

24.19


Jan 1, 1951

21.21


Jan 1, 1950

16.88


Jan 1, 1949

15.36


Jan 1, 1948

14.83


Jan 1, 1947

15.21


Jan 1, 1946

18.02


Jan 1, 1945

13.49


Jan 1, 1944

11.85


Jan 1, 1943

10.09


Jan 1, 1942

8.93


Jan 1, 1941

10.55


Jan 1, 1940

12.30


Jan 1, 1939

12.50


Jan 1, 1938

11.31


Jan 1, 1937

17.59


Jan 1, 1936

13.76


Jan 1, 1935

9.26


Jan 1, 1934

10.54


Jan 1, 1933

7.09


Jan 1, 1932

8.30


Jan 1, 1931

15.98


Jan 1, 1930

21.71


Jan 1, 1929

24.86


Jan 1, 1928

17.53


Jan 1, 1927

13.40


Jan 1, 1926

12.65


Jan 1, 1925

10.58


Jan 1, 1924

8.83


Jan 1, 1923

8.90


Jan 1, 1922

7.30


Jan 1, 1921

7.11


Jan 1, 1920

8.83


Jan 1, 1919

7.85


Jan 1, 1918

7.21


Jan 1, 1917

9.57


Jan 1, 1916

9.33


Jan 1, 1915

7.48


Jan 1, 1914

8.37


Jan 1, 1913

9.30


Jan 1, 1912

9.12


Jan 1, 1911

9.27


Jan 1, 1910

10.08


Jan 1, 1909

9.06


Jan 1, 1908

6.85


Jan 1, 1907

9.56


Jan 1, 1906

9.87


Jan 1, 1905

8.43


Jan 1, 1904

6.68


Jan 1, 1903

8.46


Jan 1, 1902

8.12


Jan 1, 1901

7.07


Jan 1, 1900

6.10


Jan 1, 1899

6.08


Jan 1, 1898

4.88


Jan 1, 1897

4.22


Jan 1, 1896

4.27


Jan 1, 1895

4.25


Jan 1, 1894

4.32


Jan 1, 1893

5.61


Jan 1, 1892

5.51


Jan 1, 1891

4.84


Jan 1, 1890

5.38


Jan 1, 1889

5.24


Jan 1, 1888

5.31


Jan 1, 1887

5.58


Jan 1, 1886

5.20


Jan 1, 1885

4.24


Jan 1, 1884

5.18


Jan 1, 1883

5.81


Jan 1, 1882

5.92


Jan 1, 1881

6.19


Jan 1, 1880

5.11


Jan 1, 1879

3.58


Jan 1, 1878

3.25


Jan 1, 1877

3.55


Jan 1, 1876

4.46


Jan 1, 1875

4.54


Jan 1, 1874

4.66


Jan 1, 1873

5.11


Jan 1, 1872

4.86


Jan 1, 1871

4.44

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/5b1176eb/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Sun May  8 23:46:28 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 19:46:28 -0400
Subject: [ExI] s&p 500 growth, was: RE:
In-Reply-To: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
References: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv28qXEe=VAPzEbibT6CqbqxDFO68h-T-vew=40Y3eMSWg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 6:45 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:



??>? Since 1974, the year Dumb Donald inherited his money from
>> ?
>> ?much smarter ?Fred Trump, the S&P 500 has gone up 74 fold
>> ?
>> f Donald had just put that money in a simple S&P index fund in 1974 and
>> then sat on his hands for 42 years today he'd be worth well over 10 billion.
>
>
>
> ?> ?
> I am getting 21.4 fold increase since 1974:  2057/96 = 21.4
>
>
?That doesn't count reinvestment of dividends. My 74 fold figure was a
little out of date, from April 1974 to April 2016 it's 75.7 fold.
See for yourself:

https://dqydj.com/sp-500-return-calculator/

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/7aeb0b38/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Sun May  8 23:47:06 2016
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 09:47:06 +1000
Subject: [ExI] s&p 500 growth, was: RE:
In-Reply-To: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
References: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAH=2ypXHvvLEox5=gZ17fa7J3p5MMfKtUM0dt082i5BGNMkOQQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 9 May 2016 at 08:45, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On
> Behalf Of *John Clark
> *?*
>
> ?,?
>
> >?mediocre would be a better word than successful.
>
> ??>? Since 1974, the year Dumb Donald inherited his money from
>
> ?much smarter ?Fred Trump, the S&P 500 has gone up 74 fold
>
> ?.?
>
> >?If Donald had just put that money in a simple S&P index fund in 1974
> and then sat on his hands for 42 years today he'd be worth well over 10
> billion.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I am getting 21.4 fold increase since 1974:  2057/96 = 21.4
>
>
>
> Shows to go ya however, when in doubt, drop your money into an index fund
> then go get to work, or go outside and play, or do whatever gives meaning
> to this short life.  That philosophy has worked well for me for a long time.
>
>
>
> It?s impressive as all get out if you think about how the S&P has done all
> these years: 4.4 doublings in 42 years, that?s doubling your investment
> more often than every decade, so over 7% return over the long haul, which
> is excellent.  We must realize the game will eventually run out, just as
> Moore?s Law.  If we somehow kept doubling every decade, well a thousand
> fold increase in a century, well maybe.  Depending on how you count it, one
> might argue that our economy has expanded a thousand fold since WW1.
>
>
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-historical-prices/table/by-year
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> o    *By Year*
> <http://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-historical-prices/table/by-year>
>
> o    By Month
> <http://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-historical-prices/table/by-month>
>
> *Date*
>
> *Price*
>
> May 6, 2016
>
> 2,057.14
>
> Jan 1, 2016
>
> 1,918.60
>
> Jan 1, 2015
>
> 2,028.18
>
> Jan 1, 2014
>
> 1,822.36
>
> Jan 1, 2013
>
> 1,480.40
>
> Jan 1, 2012
>
> 1,300.58
>
> Jan 1, 2011
>
> 1,282.62
>
> Jan 1, 2010
>
> 1,123.58
>
> Jan 1, 2009
>
> 865.58
>
> Jan 1, 2008
>
> 1,378.76
>
> Jan 1, 2007
>
> 1,424.16
>
> Jan 1, 2006
>
> 1,278.73
>
> Jan 1, 2005
>
> 1,181.41
>
> Jan 1, 2004
>
> 1,132.52
>
> Jan 1, 2003
>
> 895.84
>
> Jan 1, 2002
>
> 1,140.21
>
> Jan 1, 2001
>
> 1,335.63
>
> Jan 1, 2000
>
> 1,425.59
>
> Jan 1, 1999
>
> 1,248.77
>
> Jan 1, 1998
>
> 963.36
>
> Jan 1, 1997
>
> 766.22
>
> Jan 1, 1996
>
> 614.42
>
> Jan 1, 1995
>
> 465.25
>
> Jan 1, 1994
>
> 472.99
>
> Jan 1, 1993
>
> 435.23
>
> Jan 1, 1992
>
> 416.08
>
> Jan 1, 1991
>
> 325.49
>
> Jan 1, 1990
>
> 339.97
>
> Jan 1, 1989
>
> 285.40
>
> Jan 1, 1988
>
> 250.50
>
> Jan 1, 1987
>
> 264.50
>
> Jan 1, 1986
>
> 208.20
>
> Jan 1, 1985
>
> 171.60
>
> Jan 1, 1984
>
> 166.40
>
> Jan 1, 1983
>
> 144.30
>
> Jan 1, 1982
>
> 117.30
>
> Jan 1, 1981
>
> 133.00
>
> Jan 1, 1980
>
> 110.90
>
> Jan 1, 1979
>
> 99.71
>
> Jan 1, 1978
>
> 90.25
>
> Jan 1, 1977
>
> 103.80
>
> Jan 1, 1976
>
> 96.86
>
> Jan 1, 1975
>
> 72.56
>
> Jan 1, 1974
>
> 96.11
>
> Jan 1, 1973
>
> 118.40
>
> Jan 1, 1972
>
> 103.30
>
> Jan 1, 1971
>
> 93.49
>
> Jan 1, 1970
>
> 90.31
>
> Jan 1, 1969
>
> 102.00
>
> Jan 1, 1968
>
> 95.04
>
> Jan 1, 1967
>
> 84.45
>
> Jan 1, 1966
>
> 93.32
>
> Jan 1, 1965
>
> 86.12
>
> Jan 1, 1964
>
> 76.45
>
> Jan 1, 1963
>
> 65.06
>
> Jan 1, 1962
>
> 69.07
>
> Jan 1, 1961
>
> 59.72
>
> Jan 1, 1960
>
> 58.03
>
> Jan 1, 1959
>
> 55.62
>
> Jan 1, 1958
>
> 41.12
>
> Jan 1, 1957
>
> 45.43
>
> Jan 1, 1956
>
> 44.15
>
> Jan 1, 1955
>
> 35.60
>
> Jan 1, 1954
>
> 25.46
>
> Jan 1, 1953
>
> 26.18
>
> Jan 1, 1952
>
> 24.19
>
> Jan 1, 1951
>
> 21.21
>
> Jan 1, 1950
>
> 16.88
>
> Jan 1, 1949
>
> 15.36
>
> Jan 1, 1948
>
> 14.83
>
> Jan 1, 1947
>
> 15.21
>
> Jan 1, 1946
>
> 18.02
>
> Jan 1, 1945
>
> 13.49
>
> Jan 1, 1944
>
> 11.85
>
> Jan 1, 1943
>
> 10.09
>
> Jan 1, 1942
>
> 8.93
>
> Jan 1, 1941
>
> 10.55
>
> Jan 1, 1940
>
> 12.30
>
> Jan 1, 1939
>
> 12.50
>
> Jan 1, 1938
>
> 11.31
>
> Jan 1, 1937
>
> 17.59
>
> Jan 1, 1936
>
> 13.76
>
> Jan 1, 1935
>
> 9.26
>
> Jan 1, 1934
>
> 10.54
>
> Jan 1, 1933
>
> 7.09
>
> Jan 1, 1932
>
> 8.30
>
> Jan 1, 1931
>
> 15.98
>
> Jan 1, 1930
>
> 21.71
>
> Jan 1, 1929
>
> 24.86
>
> Jan 1, 1928
>
> 17.53
>
> Jan 1, 1927
>
> 13.40
>
> Jan 1, 1926
>
> 12.65
>
> Jan 1, 1925
>
> 10.58
>
> Jan 1, 1924
>
> 8.83
>
> Jan 1, 1923
>
> 8.90
>
> Jan 1, 1922
>
> 7.30
>
> Jan 1, 1921
>
> 7.11
>
> Jan 1, 1920
>
> 8.83
>
> Jan 1, 1919
>
> 7.85
>
> Jan 1, 1918
>
> 7.21
>
> Jan 1, 1917
>
> 9.57
>
> Jan 1, 1916
>
> 9.33
>
> Jan 1, 1915
>
> 7.48
>
> Jan 1, 1914
>
> 8.37
>
> Jan 1, 1913
>
> 9.30
>
> Jan 1, 1912
>
> 9.12
>
> Jan 1, 1911
>
> 9.27
>
> Jan 1, 1910
>
> 10.08
>
> Jan 1, 1909
>
> 9.06
>
> Jan 1, 1908
>
> 6.85
>
> Jan 1, 1907
>
> 9.56
>
> Jan 1, 1906
>
> 9.87
>
> Jan 1, 1905
>
> 8.43
>
> Jan 1, 1904
>
> 6.68
>
> Jan 1, 1903
>
> 8.46
>
> Jan 1, 1902
>
> 8.12
>
> Jan 1, 1901
>
> 7.07
>
> Jan 1, 1900
>
> 6.10
>
> Jan 1, 1899
>
> 6.08
>
> Jan 1, 1898
>
> 4.88
>
> Jan 1, 1897
>
> 4.22
>
> Jan 1, 1896
>
> 4.27
>
> Jan 1, 1895
>
> 4.25
>
> Jan 1, 1894
>
> 4.32
>
> Jan 1, 1893
>
> 5.61
>
> Jan 1, 1892
>
> 5.51
>
> Jan 1, 1891
>
> 4.84
>
> Jan 1, 1890
>
> 5.38
>
> Jan 1, 1889
>
> 5.24
>
> Jan 1, 1888
>
> 5.31
>
> Jan 1, 1887
>
> 5.58
>
> Jan 1, 1886
>
> 5.20
>
> Jan 1, 1885
>
> 4.24
>
> Jan 1, 1884
>
> 5.18
>
> Jan 1, 1883
>
> 5.81
>
> Jan 1, 1882
>
> 5.92
>
> Jan 1, 1881
>
> 6.19
>
> Jan 1, 1880
>
> 5.11
>
> Jan 1, 1879
>
> 3.58
>
> Jan 1, 1878
>
> 3.25
>
> Jan 1, 1877
>
> 3.55
>
> Jan 1, 1876
>
> 4.46
>
> Jan 1, 1875
>
> 4.54
>
> Jan 1, 1874
>
> 4.66
>
> Jan 1, 1873
>
> 5.11
>
> Jan 1, 1872
>
> 4.86
>
> Jan 1, 1871
>
> 4.44
>


But don't forget inflation, which reduces the value of your 1974 USD by a
factor of 4.8:

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/84a6d3ca/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Mon May  9 00:03:11 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 19:03:11 -0500
Subject: [ExI] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv32zE+ECukb6ZQdkOfDmBgSYdguOL4dsF00ieNKGp=emw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFgJLT0KLJRF3LsE5B=bhTvsYdN0vDOt3tXStXeOHad+pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRr3YzLbWtXSXfEQWY6+d7e2jt1YbnGV1AdfKT23vxrKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <572E995D.6000109@gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv32zE+ECukb6ZQdkOfDmBgSYdguOL4dsF00ieNKGp=emw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEYN5z9FVpAs7XDsOGeq1+7sgbGO2dh=5vSDVsHMycsxdA@mail.gmail.com>

The argument you're making here is actually the typical anti-libertarian
one: free people can make bad choices -- choices we disapprove of -- and
this might cause harm to others -- someone might read Karl Marx and form a
revolutionary group to take over society -- so we must limit their freedom
-- control their reading of Marx, for instance.  dan


On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 4:37 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> ?> ?
>> I want to end and utterly oppose the government telling anyone what they
>> can and cannot put in their own body.
>>
>
> ?We agree on that, the only caveat ?is that the person should have the
> ability to know what they're putting into their body.
>
> ?So for that reason I think laws against selling a bottle of vodka to a 6
> year old are reasonable, and when an adult reads a ingredients label that
> label should tell the truth. But if somebody wants to inject themselves
> with vitamins or heroin or cobra venom that's their decision to make not
> mine.
>
> By the way, in my opinion the single most pressing libertarian issue in
> the world today has nothing to do with money, it's euthanasia. I think
> forcing somebody to live who wants to die is as great a violation of human
> rights as forcing somebody to die who wants to live.
>
>  John K Clark ?
>
> t
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/c58f4b2c/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Mon May  9 00:04:36 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 19:04:36 -0500
Subject: [ExI] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEYN5z9FVpAs7XDsOGeq1+7sgbGO2dh=5vSDVsHMycsxdA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFgJLT0KLJRF3LsE5B=bhTvsYdN0vDOt3tXStXeOHad+pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRr3YzLbWtXSXfEQWY6+d7e2jt1YbnGV1AdfKT23vxrKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <572E995D.6000109@gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv32zE+ECukb6ZQdkOfDmBgSYdguOL4dsF00ieNKGp=emw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEYN5z9FVpAs7XDsOGeq1+7sgbGO2dh=5vSDVsHMycsxdA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEaBDF7xBPQMzqQkntAOVnPLQ65DK4iNzPS0PaC18BmHPg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 7:03 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> The argument you're making here is actually the typical anti-libertarian
> one: free people can make bad choices -- choices we disapprove of -- and
> this might cause harm to others -- someone might read Karl Marx and form a
> revolutionary group to take over society -- so we must limit their freedom
> -- control their reading of Marx, for instance.  dan
>
> ?So you think that, for instance, limiting the amount of alcohol in one's
>> bloodstream while driving a car is anti-libertarian?  Really?
>>
>
?bill w?


> ?
>>
>>
>> ?We agree on that, the only caveat ?is that the person should have the
>> ability to know what they're putting into their body.
>>
>> ?So for that reason I think laws against selling a bottle of vodka to a 6
>> year old are reasonable, and when an adult reads a ingredients label that
>> label should tell the truth. But if somebody wants to inject themselves
>> with vitamins or heroin or cobra venom that's their decision to make not
>> mine.
>>
>> By the way, in my opinion the single most pressing libertarian issue in
>> the world today has nothing to do with money, it's euthanasia. I think
>> forcing somebody to live who wants to die is as great a violation of human
>> rights as forcing somebody to die who wants to live.
>>
>>  John K Clark ?
>>
>> t
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/74ca319f/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Mon May  9 00:18:38 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 20:18:38 -0400
Subject: [ExI] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEYN5z9FVpAs7XDsOGeq1+7sgbGO2dh=5vSDVsHMycsxdA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFgJLT0KLJRF3LsE5B=bhTvsYdN0vDOt3tXStXeOHad+pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRr3YzLbWtXSXfEQWY6+d7e2jt1YbnGV1AdfKT23vxrKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <572E995D.6000109@gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv32zE+ECukb6ZQdkOfDmBgSYdguOL4dsF00ieNKGp=emw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEYN5z9FVpAs7XDsOGeq1+7sgbGO2dh=5vSDVsHMycsxdA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv0vaUdhwR6Mjapni0Q5XEHLKv-CFYTT=VMBoVhMBpZZ6g@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 8, 2016  William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:

?> ?
> The argument you're making here is actually the typical anti-libertarian
> one:
>

?Huh? Being in favor of allowing people to decide for themselves if they
want to live or die is ?
anti-libertarian
???

 John K Clark?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/bdfbf74f/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Mon May  9 00:25:29 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 17:25:29 -0700
Subject: [ExI] s&p 500 growth, was: RE:
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv28qXEe=VAPzEbibT6CqbqxDFO68h-T-vew=40Y3eMSWg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv28qXEe=VAPzEbibT6CqbqxDFO68h-T-vew=40Y3eMSWg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <003f01d1a989$4b50df60$e1f29e20$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark



?>>?I am getting 21.4 fold increase since 1974:  2057/96 = 21.4

 

?>?That doesn't count reinvestment of dividends. My 74 fold figure was a little out of date, from April 1974 to April 2016 it's 75.7 fold. 

See for yourself:

 

https://dqydj.com/sp-500-return-calculator/ 

 

 John K Clark

 

 

Sure but if you compare them that way, you cannot use current net worth either.  It would assume the investor never spent any money since 1974.  We can be quite sure that it wasn?t cheap to send Marla Maples and Ivana Zelnickova on their way, nor was it cheap to purchase the current Mrs. Trump.

 

spike

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/4d16d404/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Mon May  9 00:57:14 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 17:57:14 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Libertarian stances/was Re:  (no subject)
Message-ID: <CACB7g24i4dv2Gj4YRbUOWur0oAfXK--qovDb_-yCBVRrTH8XiA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 5:18 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 8, 2016  William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >
>> The argument you're making here is actually the typical anti-libertarian
one:
>
>
> Huh? Being in favor of allowing people to decide for themselves if they
want to live or die is
> anti-libertarian
> ??

I believe Bill hit Send while he was editing an email. That line is from me
responding to him on legalizing hard drugs -- not to you. :)

Regards,

Dan
  Sample my Kindle books via:
http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/29c89254/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Mon May  9 01:04:39 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 18:04:39 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Libertarians who draw lines?/was Re:  (no subject)
Message-ID: <CACB7g25J_Pp03Q2WkLoArBsySN61PFEPktgzB-i3EQkV7zdBdA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 5:04 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 7:03 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>> The argument you're making here is actually the typical anti-libertarian
one: free people can make bad choices -- choices we disapprove of -- and
this might cause harm to others -- someone might read Karl Marx and form a
revolutionary group to take over society -- so we must limit their freedom
-- control their reading of Marx, for instance.  dan
>>
>>> So you think that, for instance, limiting the amount of alcohol in
one's bloodstream while driving a car is anti-libertarian?  Really?

Bill, I think you're dropping context here. What you wrote was:

> I used to agree with that.  Heroin, cocaine, crack, anything.  Make it
all legal.  Take the
> high profits out it.  Then I find things like one puff of a cigarette
changes your brain
> permanently.  I kicked alcohol and tobacco cold turkey, but other members
of my family
> have found it much harder to do.  Most people are not good at moderating
their intake of
> things that make them very happy - I wasn't either.  But I was an
excellent quitter.
>
> Just too many people would ruin their lives and put great burdens of
society by legal
> everything.  I have worked in several mental hospitals and can assert
that the craziest
> people I saw were those on amphetamines - very psychotic.  (Heroin, by
contrast is a
> far easier habit to kick.)
>
> I am a libertarian but there just has be lines drawn.

I responded with:

"The argument you're making here is actually the typical anti-libertarian
one: free people can make bad choices -- choices we disapprove of -- and
this might cause harm to others -- someone might read Karl Marx and form a
revolutionary group to take over society -- so we must limit their freedom
-- control their reading of Marx, for instance."

Your original point didn't seem to be about a specific context like driving
a car, but about some (or any) people using heroin, etc. at all. Did you
just mean specific contexts -- like if someone wants to drive a car on
public roads they shouldn't be under a certain level of influence? Or did
you mean something more in line with your original statement -- "too many
people would ruin their lives," so some prohibition or controls must be in
place?

Also, regarding what's libertarian, you said, in response to Samantha, that
you are "a libertarian but there just has be lines drawn." That seems to me
to be admitting that libertarians per se would be for decriminalizing these
things and not drawing lines, but that you are not a per se libertarian.
Please elaborate.

Regards,

Dan
  Sample my Kindle books via:
http://author.to/DanUst
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/7abba45b/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Mon May  9 01:30:41 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 21:30:41 -0400
Subject: [ExI] s&p 500 growth, was: RE:
In-Reply-To: <003f01d1a989$4b50df60$e1f29e20$@att.net>
References: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv28qXEe=VAPzEbibT6CqbqxDFO68h-T-vew=40Y3eMSWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <003f01d1a989$4b50df60$e1f29e20$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv1Bj20bTje_2k7nEUKbN4HLAL5nyvzCWaWbXdfqCWobmA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 8:25 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>> ?>
>> ?>?
>> ?That doesn't count reinvestment of dividends. My 74 fold figure was a
>> little out of date, from April 1974 to April 2016 it's 75.7 fold.
>> See for yourself:
>>
>> https://dqydj.com/sp-500-return-calculator/
>>
>     ?
>
> ?> ?
> Sure but if you compare them that way, you cannot use current net worth
> either.  It would assume the investor never spent any money since 1974.  We
> can be quite sure that it wasn?t cheap to send Marla Maples and Ivana
> Zelnickova on their way, nor was it cheap to purchase the current Mrs.
> Trump.
>
>
?OK but  no amount of spin can turn Donald Trump into a brilliant
businessman and economic genius, there are billionaires in Silicon Valley
and elsewhere that fit that description but Donald doesn't. The best you
can say about Trump is he didn't completely blow the inheritance he got
from daddy.

 John K Clark      ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/5ecc51dc/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Mon May  9 01:46:11 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 18:46:11 -0700
Subject: [ExI] s&p 500 growth, was: RE:
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv1Bj20bTje_2k7nEUKbN4HLAL5nyvzCWaWbXdfqCWobmA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv28qXEe=VAPzEbibT6CqbqxDFO68h-T-vew=40Y3eMSWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <003f01d1a989$4b50df60$e1f29e20$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1Bj20bTje_2k7nEUKbN4HLAL5nyvzCWaWbXdfqCWobmA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACB7g251m_zBeVdHgDmcE30=KuoY=D=++yDoM2Uc46REL4+DMw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 6:30 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 8:25 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>>> ?That doesn't count reinvestment of dividends. My 74 fold figure was a
little out of date, from April 1974 to April 2016 it's 75.7 fold.
>>> See for yourself:
>>>
>>> https://dqydj.com/sp-500-return-calculator/
>> >
>> Sure but if you compare them that way, you cannot use current net worth
either.  It would assume the investor never spent any money since 1974.  We
can be quite sure that it wasn?t cheap to send Marla Maples and Ivana
Zelnickova on their way, nor was it cheap to purchase the current Mrs.
Trump.
>
>
> OK but  no amount of spin can turn Donald Trump into a brilliant
businessman
> and economic genius, there are billionaires in Silicon Valley and
elsewhere
> that fit that description but Donald doesn't. The best you can say about
Trump
> is he didn't completely blow the inheritance he got from daddy.

His records of bankruptcies -- and walking away from them without incurring
hits to his personal fortune -- seems to speak of his ability to game the
system rather than the kind of brilliance anyone should applaud.

Regards,

Dan
  Sample my Kindle books from:
http://author.to/DanUst
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/7d377c84/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Mon May  9 02:08:43 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 19:08:43 -0700
Subject: [ExI] s&p 500 growth, was: RE:
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv1Bj20bTje_2k7nEUKbN4HLAL5nyvzCWaWbXdfqCWobmA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv28qXEe=VAPzEbibT6CqbqxDFO68h-T-vew=40Y3eMSWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <003f01d1a989$4b50df60$e1f29e20$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1Bj20bTje_2k7nEUKbN4HLAL5nyvzCWaWbXdfqCWobmA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00db01d1a997$b6ee9560$24cbc020$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark
?

 

?>?OK but  no amount of spin can turn Donald Trump into a brilliant businessman and economic genius, there are billionaires in Silicon Valley and elsewhere that fit that description but Donald doesn't. ?  John K Clark  

 

 

I don?t understand why we didn?t get any local startup CEOs to run.  I would vote for any Silicon Valley biggie, any of them, even those I didn?t like much, such as Carly Fiorina.  I would vote for Larry Ellison over these two.   Side note: Carly failed to inspire us, but oh my, she doesn?t look half bad now, ja?  Carly, we totally forgive you for buying Compaq!

 

Sheesh, think about this.  When there are 17 candidates in the starting blocks, weird outcomes like this one just have a high risk of happening.  It reminds us of the first season of Survivor, where the unpopular guy who understood game theory ended up beating about half a dozen more popular candidates, because he was always positioned exactly right, where the more popular ones kept eliminating each other.  There was even a reasonably good one in the Democrat debate.  Not the blank stare guy (although in retrospect he seems refreshingly harmless.)  Who was that other one, the Marine officer?  Jim Webb?  Why couldn?t he win, in this crowd of yahoos?

 

My former college roommate made each other laugh.  He is a hardcore liberal, but has maintained a sense of humor in spite of that.  We were talking, he said ?The one time in my life I probably would have voted for a Republican, and you guys nominate Donald Trump.  Deal?s off.?  I could only come back with ?This would be the one and only time in my life I would have voted Democrat, and you guys dig up the festering abscess Hillary Clinton.  No deal.?

 

We agreed to vote for Johnson.  Voting for the lesser of two evils is voting for evil just the same.

 

I am searching hard for a silver lining in all this, and I may have found it.  We get to listen to the most bitter mudslinging contest in American history, right when this country needs one.  Whichever one prevails, the other will make sure the American people deplore the sleazebag.  Our collective disapproval ratings of our own leaders will reach an all time high.  Our righteous disdain will perhaps disable the presidency more than anything that could have happened, which will perhaps encourage people to look within themselves for leadership.  

 

spike

 

 

 

 

   ?

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/09e1b1df/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Mon May  9 02:33:31 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 19:33:31 -0700
Subject: [ExI] s&p 500 growth, was: RE:
In-Reply-To: <CACB7g251m_zBeVdHgDmcE30=KuoY=D=++yDoM2Uc46REL4+DMw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv28qXEe=VAPzEbibT6CqbqxDFO68h-T-vew=40Y3eMSWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <003f01d1a989$4b50df60$e1f29e20$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1Bj20bTje_2k7nEUKbN4HLAL5nyvzCWaWbXdfqCWobmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACB7g251m_zBeVdHgDmcE30=KuoY=D=++yDoM2Uc46REL4+DMw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <010901d1a99b$2db05190$8910f4b0$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan
?

>?His records of bankruptcies -- and walking away from them without incurring hits to his personal fortune -- seems to speak of his ability to game the system rather than the kind of brilliance anyone should applaud.  Regards, Dan



 

We Americans must face what we ourselves created.  It is our own fault, our collective punishment for having elected the nearly meritless three predecessors Bill Clinton, Bush43 and Obama.  Regardless of who wins, we get a throbbing canker sore in our highest office, a remorseless master of gaming the system, of shamelessly working the angles, a wizened guru of skating past the intent of the law while maintaining a strained pretense of the letter, practiced in the art of subterfuge, lacking a trace of moral character.  We will choose a top executive who is the reprehensible antithesis of Gandhi: harmless as the serpent and wise as the dove.  

 

We were so offended when Jonathan Gruber said we were stupid for believing their story, but deep down in our hearts, we know he was right.  Ben Rhodes echoed the sentiment in Thursday?s New York Times, admitting the current administration lied to us and calling us fools for believing them:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/magazine/the-aspiring-novelist-who-became-obamas-foreign-policy-guru.html?_r=0

 

Here we have a guy openly admitting, or even bragging about doing Jedi mind tricks on the newschildren so that their echo chamber would result in news stories to convince the masses to follow meekly and quietly.  Disgraceful.

 

No point in bitching about it now.  This is all our own fault.  We did this to us.  Now we will make it still worse: good chance we will get a decent, competent, experienced and honest third party candidate who will step up to the podium and tell us the harsh truth.  We will conclude that he is the most qualified of the choices but that there is no point in voting for him because he cannot win.  Everyone knows third parties cannot win.  Even if every member of the flock can see a greener pasture beckoning, the flock will stay with its miserable situation, for this is where the rest of the flock follow each other.

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/cab80167/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Mon May  9 03:07:58 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 20:07:58 -0700
Subject: [ExI] s&p 500 growth
Message-ID: <CACB7g27vsEb5ayidRODP3cUymuSK7tZEwi0WFL=gfczCb6RJBQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 7:33 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On
Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan
>>?His records of bankruptcies -- and walking away from them without
>> incurring hits to his personal fortune -- seems to speak of his ability
>> to game the system rather than the kind of brilliance anyone should
>> applaud.
>
> We Americans must face what we ourselves created.

I don't mind accepting blame for stuff I'm actually responsible for, but I
don't believe that's the case here. I didn't vote, so don't blame me. :)

> It is our own fault, our collective punishment for having elected the
nearly
> meritless three predecessors Bill Clinton, Bush43 and Obama.  Regardless
> of who wins, we get a throbbing canker sore in our highest office, a
> remorseless master of gaming the system, of shamelessly working the
> angles, a wizened guru of skating past the intent of the law while
maintaining
> a strained pretense of the letter, practiced in the art of subterfuge,
lacking a
> trace of moral character.  We will choose a top executive who is the
> reprehensible antithesis of Gandhi: harmless as the serpent and wise as
the dove.

I'm not sure that follows. I think one can find similar faults going back
well before Clinton. In my mind, the bigger problem is looking to a ruler
for solutions in the first place. As long as that mindset is in place,
gaming the system becomes not only possible but likely. I don't want to
sound as apocalyptic as some do -- it's just one election and a hundred
years hence might only be something scholars will worry about (and not the
most important choice in the history of the species or the planet:) -- but
it seems much like the ancient Roman system worked reasonably only so long
as no one tested its limits. Once tested, though, it fell apart. This can
be used to blame the testers or blame other around them, but one does have
to notice that the system was really fragile in the first place.

However, you can place some blame on many people who should know better,
and that might include most people. Doing so doesn't resolve anything
though.

Regards,

Dan
     Sample my Kindle books via:
http://author.to/DanUst
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/2711329f/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Mon May  9 03:10:01 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 20:10:01 -0700
Subject: [ExI] s&p 500 growth, was: RE:
In-Reply-To: <00db01d1a997$b6ee9560$24cbc020$@att.net>
References: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv28qXEe=VAPzEbibT6CqbqxDFO68h-T-vew=40Y3eMSWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <003f01d1a989$4b50df60$e1f29e20$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1Bj20bTje_2k7nEUKbN4HLAL5nyvzCWaWbXdfqCWobmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00db01d1a997$b6ee9560$24cbc020$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNSZZzRVWKcYwhPKNCoacU6G53RRH_=Ksrz1pkL1YhxgOg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 7:08 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> I don?t understand why we didn?t get any local startup CEOs to run.
>

Speaking as a local startup CEO, I can think of a few reasons.

Startup CEOs aren't often the ones with tens-to-hundreds of millions of
dollars to spend on something with very low odds of working.  (Granted,
Clinton and Trump have largely spent other peoples' money - but political
fundraising and raising funds from VCs require radically distinct pitches,
among other differences.)  With their own businesses, they think there's
some very good reason why they have much better odds than average; if they
didn't, they wouldn't be doing it.  For winning the Presidency or even just
a presidential nomination, it's harder to drum up that sort of advantage
before you decide to begin.

Running a business is not, no matter what Trump claims, like running a
nation, or even like running for office.  They can see where their skill
set does not apply.

But perhaps the most important is party-specific.

Running as third party: you have a MUCH better chance if you run as part of
a party that has serious resources - at least serious attempts at the
governorship and/or Congressional representation - in all 50 states.  The
Libertarian party, for example, is barely on the ballot in all 50 states;
there are no governors or Congresspeople who identify with it, let alone
legions of voters sworn to only vote for that party no matter what.

Running as Democrat: Hillary Clinton was on the ballot.  The party
machinery coalesced around her in a heartbeat.  It could be predicted, a
year ago today, that nobody else would have a serious chance.

Running as Republican: the current Republican base is, or at least seems to
be, largely religion-over-science, anti-intellectual, racist, misogynist,
and anti-effective-business while claiming to be pro-business.  In other
words, the opposite in many ways of your typical Silicon Valley startup CEO
- at least, the ones who have it together enough to get anywhere.
Therefore, the perception is that we would be hard pressed to win that
nomination.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160508/ee8d471f/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Mon May  9 14:44:27 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 07:44:27 -0700
Subject: [ExI] fun outsider's view on ai
Message-ID: <002b01d1aa01$4a1def20$de59cd60$@att.net>

 

 

 

Nothing particularly profound or insightful in this AI article, but it is
good clean fun:

 

https://aeon.co/essays/true-ai-is-both-logically-possible-and-utterly-implau
sible?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter
<https://aeon.co/essays/true-ai-is-both-logically-possible-and-utterly-impla
usible?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=6469cf0d50-Daily_Newsletter_9
_May_20165_9_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-6469cf0d50-68957125
>
&utm_campaign=6469cf0d50-Daily_Newsletter_9_May_20165_9_2016&utm_medium=emai
l&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-6469cf0d50-68957125

 

He reminds me a little of Roger Penrose's take on the subject from a long
time ago: he introduces two schools of thought, pokes fun at both while
offering little or no evidence or support, then reveals he is pretty much a
follower of one of the two: the Church of AI-theists.

 

There are plenty of AI-theists, but nowhere have I ever seen a really good
argument for why we can never simulate a neuron and a dendrite and synapses.
Once we understand them well enough, we can write a sim of one.  We already
have sims of complicated systems, such as aircraft, nuclear plants and such.
So why not a brain cell?   And if so, why not two, and why not a connectome
and why can we not simulate a brain?  I have been pondering that question
for over 2 decades and have still never found a good reason.  That puts me
in Floridi-dismissed Church of the Singularitarian.

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/1cb731bf/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Mon May  9 15:38:58 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 11:38:58 -0400
Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?A_Nobel_Prize_=E2=80=8Bwinner_on_Trump?=
Message-ID: <CAJPayv1vJNDVg4tQDz4HRAdE9ViM4HrgA2xNpXx4H4ROcOpDvw@mail.gmail.com>

Paul Krugman
?, who won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2008, has this to say about
Donald Trump's proposal to default on the national debt:

?"?
*Donald Trump knows nothing. He is more ignorant about policy than you can
possibly imagine, even when you take into account the fact that he is more
ignorant than you can possibly imagine.? ?The presumptive Republican
presidential nominee  revealed his plan to make America great again.
Basically, it involves running the country like a failing casino. He?s
extrapolating from his own business career, in which he has done very well
by running up debts, then walking away from them.? ?He really is
frighteningly uninformed; worse, he doesn?t appear to know what he doesn?t
know.*
"?

Remember, this critique doesn't come from some no nothing political hack
but from a
Nobel Prize
?winner in?
 Economics
?.

  John K Clark?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/3860d746/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Mon May  9 15:58:27 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 11:58:27 -0400
Subject: [ExI] s&p 500 growth, was: RE:
In-Reply-To: <00db01d1a997$b6ee9560$24cbc020$@att.net>
References: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv28qXEe=VAPzEbibT6CqbqxDFO68h-T-vew=40Y3eMSWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <003f01d1a989$4b50df60$e1f29e20$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1Bj20bTje_2k7nEUKbN4HLAL5nyvzCWaWbXdfqCWobmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00db01d1a997$b6ee9560$24cbc020$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv0V5_YG1AxPO6uUjPLWyi96T+zgfkQhYjpDPZ8p=9tnyw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 10:08 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:


?> ?
> I don?t understand why we didn?t get any local startup CEOs to run.  I
> would vote for any Silicon Valley biggie
>
>
?Me too.?


> ?> ?
> any of them, even those I didn?t like much, such as Carly Fiorina.
>
>
?Well...?
I wouldn't go
?quite ?
that far
?;?
and she wasn't a biggie,
? ?she was a Silicon Valley l
illiputian
?.?


?> ?
> I am searching hard for a silver lining in all this, and I may have found
> it.  We get to listen to the most bitter mudslinging contest in American
> history,
>
>
?Yes, watching ?the slapstick will be very entertaining, I just hope it
doesn't turn into a horror movie on November 8.


? John K Clark?





>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/fedb1190/attachment.html>

From jasonresch at gmail.com  Mon May  9 16:00:45 2016
From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 11:00:45 -0500
Subject: [ExI] s&p 500 growth, was: RE:
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv0V5_YG1AxPO6uUjPLWyi96T+zgfkQhYjpDPZ8p=9tnyw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv28qXEe=VAPzEbibT6CqbqxDFO68h-T-vew=40Y3eMSWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <003f01d1a989$4b50df60$e1f29e20$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1Bj20bTje_2k7nEUKbN4HLAL5nyvzCWaWbXdfqCWobmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00db01d1a997$b6ee9560$24cbc020$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0V5_YG1AxPO6uUjPLWyi96T+zgfkQhYjpDPZ8p=9tnyw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+BCJUhn0qbY8+eFWm6LXh+0bpQgqJP=i4Y3597Dv1V9H7LBZQ@mail.gmail.com>

John McAfee (a silicon valley CEO) is running.

http://www.bealibertarian.com/

Jason

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:58 AM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 10:08 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
>
> ?> ?
>> I don?t understand why we didn?t get any local startup CEOs to run.  I
>> would vote for any Silicon Valley biggie
>>
>>
> ?Me too.?
>
>
>> ?> ?
>> any of them, even those I didn?t like much, such as Carly Fiorina.
>>
>>
> ?Well...?
> I wouldn't go
> ?quite ?
> that far
> ?;?
> and she wasn't a biggie,
> ? ?she was a Silicon Valley l
> illiputian
> ?.?
>
>
> ?> ?
>> I am searching hard for a silver lining in all this, and I may have found
>> it.  We get to listen to the most bitter mudslinging contest in American
>> history,
>>
>>
> ?Yes, watching ?the slapstick will be very entertaining, I just hope it
> doesn't turn into a horror movie on November 8.
>
>
> ? John K Clark?
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/88e872de/attachment.html>

From sparge at gmail.com  Mon May  9 16:27:24 2016
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 12:27:24 -0400
Subject: [ExI] fun outsider's view on ai
In-Reply-To: <002b01d1aa01$4a1def20$de59cd60$@att.net>
References: <002b01d1aa01$4a1def20$de59cd60$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAM5aL2dNPA71CjJ4-LDd8_At+F7jh_+FuCjfmktFBAnW3vK_AA@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:44 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
> Nothing particularly profound or insightful in this AI article, but it is
> good clean fun:
>
>
>
>
> https://aeon.co/essays/true-ai-is-both-logically-possible-and-utterly-implausible?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=6469cf0d50-Daily_Newsletter_9_May_20165_9_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-6469cf0d50-68957125
>

Yeah, not bad. Mostly on the mark, IMO, but he says a few things that are
just not rational.

He reminds me a little of Roger Penrose?s take on the subject from a long
> time ago: he introduces two schools of thought, pokes fun at both while
> offering little or no evidence or support, then reveals he is pretty much a
> follower of one of the two: the Church of AI-theists.
>

To be fair, he says both camps are wrong and the truth is probably
somewhere in between. And I agree.


> There are plenty of AI-theists, but nowhere have I ever seen a really good
> argument for why we can never simulate a neuron and a dendrite and
> synapses.  Once we understand them well enough, we can write a sim of one.
> We already have sims of complicated systems, such as aircraft, nuclear
> plants and such.  So why not a brain cell?   And if so, why not two, and
> why not a connectome and why can we not simulate a brain?  I have been
> pondering that question for over 2 decades and have still never found a
> good reason.  That puts me in Floridi-dismissed Church of the
> Singularitarian.
>

Yeah, his "True AI is not logically impossible, but it is utterly
implausible" doesn't seem to be based on reality.

I'm neither a Singularitarian nor an AItheist. I think human-level AI is
inevitable, if President Trump doesn't manage to wipe out the human race
first :-). But I don't buy the notion that super intelligence is akin to a
superpower, and don't think it's necessary for an AI to have consciousness,
human-like emotions, or the ability to set its own goals, and without those
there is no need to fear them.

-Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/28aba4b5/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Mon May  9 16:33:05 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 09:33:05 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Myth of the Rational Voter 2016
Message-ID: <7CEEC030-FDCC-4836-8E8F-665F85991F67@gmail.com>

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2016/03/myth_of_the_rat_9.html

An interesting thought experiment:

"Suppose an Hispanic version of Donald Trump were thrilling Hispanic voters.  Call him Donaldo Trumpo.  Opponents of immigration would plausibly fear that El Donaldo is a classic strongman plotting to turn the U.S. into a banana republic.  And they would hasten to the inference that Hispanics are fundamentally authoritarian and unfit for democracy.  If 2016 doesn't convince you that political externalities are a two-way street, nothing will."

Regards,

Dan
  Sample my Kindle books via:
http://author.to/DanUst
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/b2641d21/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Mon May  9 17:30:00 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 13:30:00 -0400
Subject: [ExI] The LHC is doing science again!
Message-ID: <CAJPayv38nWEP--yRv=B_j8Q7Ru1FhLW4i-6Q9K=XSnpcQpnqoA@mail.gmail.com>

The LHC is back online and is doing science again. In a month or two we
should know it the hints of new physics that it found late last year turn
out to be real, if so it would be the first new physics found by a particle
accelerator in 40 years. After its upgrade it will collect 6 times as much
data as it did last year.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/life-and-physics/2016/may/09/and-were-off-cern-declares-start-of-2016-lhc-physics-season

  John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/6434d9e8/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Mon May  9 17:46:04 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 10:46:04 -0700
Subject: [ExI] s&p 500 growth, was: RE:
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv0V5_YG1AxPO6uUjPLWyi96T+zgfkQhYjpDPZ8p=9tnyw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv28qXEe=VAPzEbibT6CqbqxDFO68h-T-vew=40Y3eMSWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <003f01d1a989$4b50df60$e1f29e20$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1Bj20bTje_2k7nEUKbN4HLAL5nyvzCWaWbXdfqCWobmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00db01d1a997$b6ee9560$24cbc020$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0V5_YG1AxPO6uUjPLWyi96T+zgfkQhYjpDPZ8p=9tnyw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <014e01d1aa1a$a8f42820$fadc7860$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 8:58 AM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] s&p 500 growth, was: RE:

 

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 10:08 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net> > wrote:

 

?> ?>?I don?t understand why we didn?t get any local startup CEOs to run.  I would vote for any Silicon Valley biggie

 

?>?Me too.?

 

?> ?>?any of them, even those I didn?t like much, such as Carly Fiorina. 

 

?>?Well...?she was a Silicon Valley Lilliputian?

 

Carly?s rise to the top of HP is impressive considering her credentials:  MBA from U of Maryland, MS in management from MIT which is a fine school for engineering but as far as I know isn?t noted for business management.  With only that, up against the Haaahvahd and Wharton MBAs, climbing the ranks quickly in AT&T, Lucent and HP without even being beautiful or sexy, well that is an accomplishment.  Had she not wrecked HP, we wouldn?t even need to bother with an election in the fall; cheering masses of Americans would carry her to the White House on their shoulders.

 

On the bright side: Carly is still almost young; she has at least one more shot at it, and might be compelling when we need someone to pick up the pieces.  That blank stare guy from Rhode Island whose name I can never remember might have another run (Lincoln somebody?  (He doesn?t look half bad now, does he?  (Four or eight years of blank stares would be less scary than what we are facing.))

 

?> ?>I am searching hard for a silver lining in all this, and I may have found it.  We get to listen to the most bitter mudslinging contest in American history,

 

?>?Yes, watching ?the slapstick will be very entertaining, I just hope it doesn't turn into a horror movie on November 8? John K Clark?

 

Ja, but the chances are slim indeed.  Third parties have never won an election in modern times, always either the Democrat or Republican, every time since Lincoln won the war.  Even hardcore optimists like me recognize that 8 November will likely be a horror movie.

 

John on another note, regarding a comment you made before but I didn?t have time to reply, where you said something to the effect of Bill Clinton?s blowjobs were none of Ken Starr?s damn business.  This is a puzzling commentary indeed considering that was Ken Starr?s only business: he was assigned as a special prosecutor.  That is what Inspectors General and special prosecutors do: investigate and prosecute.  Bill Clinton?s blowjobs were as much his business as Nixon?s audiotapes were the damn business of Archie Cox and his staff in 1974.

 

If we wish to argue that he shouldn?t have been assigned (either of them) then we create a logical tension.  In Nixon?s case, we had these unexplained burglaries.  We eventually found out what they were doing and traced it all the way back to the White House.  In Clinton?s case, the security people probably get young ladies about every other day claiming to have given the president a blowjob.  They don?t do much with those stories, no credibility.  But this one had physical DNA evidence, the first one in history.  So now, the holder of the blue dress has the keys to the White House, she can abuse them at will, she could theoretically persuade the president to do things, or create suspicion that he ordered Wag-the-Dog actions such as Operation Desert Fox in December 1998.  So? Bill Clinton?s blowjobs sure were Ken Starr?s damn business, his only damn business.  Had he failed to act, he himself would be guilty of a cover-up once we all knew about the blue dress (and several people already did by that time.)

 

One parting shot on that topic please: In November 2012, the Lockheed Martin top dog was retiring and the second in command Chris Kubasik was already making some good leadership speeches to the troops, but a couple weeks before the big ceremony, a whistleblower leaked to the security people that he and another employee had been boning in the back corner office, that soundproof lockable one.  Neither of the participants had self-reported, both held top level clearances.  Polygraph, both confessed (those polygraphs can?t be fooled as far as I know.)

 

The security people don?t work for Lockheed, they don?t care about the employee?s rank or whether the employee is getting ready to take over the reigns as CEO of a multi-billion dollar company.  The security people answer to the Fed; they have their orders, they follow them.  Military people are that way (which is a good thing (exactly what you want when you entrust people with enough fireworks to start World War 4.))  Lockheed has no authority or influence over the security people at all, which is as it should be.  

 

Both of these Lockheed employee had their clearances suspended pending investigation, which never happens quickly regardless of the rank of the employee, so it is always means at least months with no clearance (I have seen that happen.)  A major aerospace CEO cannot run the company without a clearance, and there is no mechanism for making a special case for the CEO.  The company is not going to pay this guy all this money when he cannot even be legally briefed on what his own company is doing, and even if they did, you can?t risk having a colleague discuss normal business with a guy who has a suspended clearance, which is itself a felony: passing classified info to anyone not authorized to receive it, such as one who has a clearance suspended pending a special investigation (stand by, you will soon hear a lot more about that particular crime.)

 

Result: CEO-elect Kubasik resigned the next day.

 

However? you never heard of it, did ya?  Why?  I?ll tell ya why: that resignation happened the same day General David Petraeus resigned over passing classified info to an unauthorized recipient, ruining his career, his political future, his legacy, everything.  In this field of competitors, General Petraeus would have been a walk-in winner for president in 2016, had he been eligible to hold a clearance.  The press told us Petraeus resigned over an extramarital affair, but this is false: there is no law against that.  But there is a law against failing to self-report it if you have a clearance, and passing sensitive info to anyone not authorized is a felony.  We were astonished Petraeus managed to get off without a prison sentence, and was eventually charged with storing classified information in an unauthorized or unsecured location.  Hmmmm?  

 

Those of us who worked at LM at the time damn sure did hear about Chris Kubasik.  I had met him; he was a smart guy, excellent speaker, inspiring, very insightful.  I am absolutely astonished he would risk a multi-million-dollar dream job running the company for whatever he was doing back there in the old soundproof room. 

 

spike 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/2c95aa1d/attachment.html>

From sparge at gmail.com  Mon May  9 18:07:10 2016
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 14:07:10 -0400
Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?A_Nobel_Prize_=E2=80=8Bwinner_on_Trump?=
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv1vJNDVg4tQDz4HRAdE9ViM4HrgA2xNpXx4H4ROcOpDvw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv1vJNDVg4tQDz4HRAdE9ViM4HrgA2xNpXx4H4ROcOpDvw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM5aL2ec6OKJSs=KD9TpfYg27dSe69dJmiu6WzqJ2wQgqhCJUA@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 11:38 AM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> Remember, this critique doesn't come from some no nothing political hack
> but from a
> Nobel Prize
> ?winner in?
>  Economics
> ?.
>

You say that as if you believe economics is a reputable science. :-)

-Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/59289c47/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Mon May  9 18:09:07 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 11:09:07 -0700
Subject: [ExI] s&p 500 growth, was: RE:
In-Reply-To: <CA+BCJUhn0qbY8+eFWm6LXh+0bpQgqJP=i4Y3597Dv1V9H7LBZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv28qXEe=VAPzEbibT6CqbqxDFO68h-T-vew=40Y3eMSWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <003f01d1a989$4b50df60$e1f29e20$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1Bj20bTje_2k7nEUKbN4HLAL5nyvzCWaWbXdfqCWobmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00db01d1a997$b6ee9560$24cbc020$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0V5_YG1AxPO6uUjPLWyi96T+zgfkQhYjpDPZ8p=9tnyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+BCJUhn0qbY8+eFWm6LXh+0bpQgqJP=i4Y3597Dv1V9H7LBZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <018301d1aa1d$e1750090$a45f01b0$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jason Resch
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 9:01 AM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] s&p 500 growth, was: RE:

 

John McAfee (a silicon valley CEO) is running.

 

http://www.bealibertarian.com/

 

Jason

 

 

Hi Jason, ja.  But McAffee is even older than Hillary Clinton (people do sometimes survive for that long in these modern times) and that drunk driving while in possession of a loaded shootin? arn last year could hurt his chances at the Libertarian convention.  

 

If one gets arrested for drunken misbehavior in Tennessee of all places, that?s pretty good evidence the drunken misbehavior was distinctive enough that the local constables were able to isolate one?s case from the other locals doing likewise.  I have a hard time imagining a vast down-wing conspiracy being responsible for the whole incident.

 

But, other than that?

 

{8^D

 

spike  

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/eb520f7e/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Mon May  9 18:19:28 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 11:19:28 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Myth of the Rational Voter 2016
In-Reply-To: <7CEEC030-FDCC-4836-8E8F-665F85991F67@gmail.com>
References: <7CEEC030-FDCC-4836-8E8F-665F85991F67@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <01a601d1aa1f$5356ca80$fa045f80$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 9:33 AM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: [ExI] Myth of the Rational Voter 2016

 

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2016/03/myth_of_the_rat_9.html

An interesting thought experiment:

 

"Suppose an Hispanic version of Donald Trump were thrilling Hispanic voters.  Call him Donaldo Trumpo.  Opponents of immigration would plausibly fear that El Donaldo is a classic strongman plotting to turn the U.S. into a banana republic.  And they would hasten to the inference that Hispanics are fundamentally authoritarian and unfit for democracy.  If 2016 doesn't convince you that political externalities are a two-way street, nothing will."

Regards,





Dan

 

 

Dan you bring up a good point: do we know for sure, and can we prove? where Donald Trump was born?  Could his BC have been forged?  How do we know?

 

Just sayin.  Think about it.

 

And while you do, think about this: Trump?s main rival was Ted Cruz.  Hell, we can read, all of us can (thanks Miss Rogers the elementary school teacher.)  I see the requirements right there in the constitution which says a president must be a natural-born US citizen.  I read the arguments claiming it meant this and meant that, but I could never convince myself that requirement can apply to either Canadian-born Ted Cruz or US military-base born John McCain.  Didn?t look to me like either of those guys were eligible.  The requirement would kill the eligibility of anyone who ever held a dual citizenship.  The founders meant they wanted a colonist born on this side of the Atlantic.  Plenty of their good guys at the time were not.  The founders didn?t write in exceptions, they wrote no ifs, buts nor maybes. 

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/8bd7ff99/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Mon May  9 18:35:43 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 11:35:43 -0700
Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?A_Nobel_Prize_=E2=80=8Bwinner_on_Trump?=
In-Reply-To: <CAM5aL2ec6OKJSs=KD9TpfYg27dSe69dJmiu6WzqJ2wQgqhCJUA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv1vJNDVg4tQDz4HRAdE9ViM4HrgA2xNpXx4H4ROcOpDvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2ec6OKJSs=KD9TpfYg27dSe69dJmiu6WzqJ2wQgqhCJUA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <01ca01d1aa21$98896980$c99c3c80$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dave Sill
Subject: Re: [ExI] A Nobel Prize ?winner on Trump

 

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 11:38 AM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com <mailto:johnkclark at gmail.com> > wrote:

Remember, this critique doesn't come from some no nothing political hack but from a 

Nobel Prize 

?winner in?

 Economics

?.

 

You say that as if you believe economics is a reputable science. :-)

-Dave

 

 

Well that too Dave, and recall that the Nobel committee awarded one of these prizes to the current POTUS before he had actually done anything.  

 

Even more ironic is that they awarded the prize for his promotion of nuclear non-proliferation.  So what does the Nobel Prize committee do now with this tell-all that former White House staffer Ben Rhodes gave the NYT Thursday in which he says the staff deliberately created an echo chamber, used Jedi mind tricks on inexperienced child-reporters fresh off of campaign volunteer jobs, to get them to sell the Iran nuclear deal to the public? 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/magazine/the-aspiring-novelist-who-became-obamas-foreign-policy-guru.html?_r=0

 

In that context, Netanyahu?s fiery speeches to the UN make a lot more sense now, ja?  What does the Nobel Prize committee do with the leaked comments that the Iran nuclear deal enables Iran to get nukes?  And how does that redraw the old map if they do?  Has not the USA taken actions which have placed Israel in grave peril?  Have not these same actions placed Tehran in even greater peril of a pre-emptive attack?  If not, do explain please.

 

Compounding the problem, the hardcores can?t even accuse us of reading too much FoxNews.  This article was featured in Thursday?s New York Freaking Times.  Are we to stop reading that too now?  The BBC covered the story, or referenced it.  Are the Brits now part of the vast right-wing conspiracy, and are the Brits now racist, sexist and all those other ists that allow and enable Federal level mismanagement?  

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/a4a7fdc3/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Mon May  9 18:54:36 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 14:54:36 -0400
Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?A_Nobel_Prize_=E2=80=8Bwinner_on_Trump?=
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv1vJNDVg4tQDz4HRAdE9ViM4HrgA2xNpXx4H4ROcOpDvw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv1vJNDVg4tQDz4HRAdE9ViM4HrgA2xNpXx4H4ROcOpDvw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFhKyD0gtC2_KZhsvOT1gGYSf+vuDQVunnH3kdtzYXetpA@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 11:38 AM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> Paul Krugman
> ?, who won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2008, has this to say about
> Donald Trump's proposal to default on the national debt:
>
> ?"?
> *Donald Trump knows nothing. He is more ignorant about policy than you can
> possibly imagine, even when you take into account the fact that he is more
> ignorant than you can possibly imagine.? ?The presumptive Republican
> presidential nominee  revealed his plan to make America great again.
> Basically, it involves running the country like a failing casino. He?s
> extrapolating from his own business career, in which he has done very well
> by running up debts, then walking away from them.? ?He really is
> frighteningly uninformed; worse, he doesn?t appear to know what he doesn?t
> know.*
> "?
>
> Remember, this critique doesn't come from some no nothing political hack
> but from a
> Nobel Prize
> ?winner in?
>  Economics
> ?.
>
>
### Krugman is nothing but a political hack. Back in the day he was a
defender of free trade and a brilliant economist who received the NP but
then something bad happened... he clambered on a bully pulpit at the Gray
Lady and all that economic wisdom went out the window.

As I said, silly leftoid stories about Trump don't matter, even if they
come from NP winners.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/03f52c61/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Mon May  9 19:07:07 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 21:07:07 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Aristotle on trolling
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEZ0gWfF+2kiac8h5fn0zMQwdRrS=rkcrR+WdPwTruuMuw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <572F8CC2.9010501@aleph.se>
 <CAO+xQEZ0gWfF+2kiac8h5fn0zMQwdRrS=rkcrR+WdPwTruuMuw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5730DFDB.1020106@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-08 21:08, William Flynn Wallace wrote:
> ?
>
> I am reminded of Frankfurt's classic "On bullshit":
> http://www.stoa.org.uk/topics/bullshit/pdf/on-bullshit.pdf
>
>
> I am not sure what this is - perhaps the author's summer?.  I have the 
> book, available from Amazon, and it's 67 pages.

It has been published in at least three different forms. The book is 
probably the most common, but I did not find it online.

The Swedish humorist Tage Danielsson wrote an independent and brilliant 
precursor, "Grallimatik" (1966) where he argues that most talking is not 
about communicating information, but simply social status games and nice 
sounds. So he outlines a grammar, semantics and style guide for vacuous 
talking. It is a hilarious satire, but actually making Frankfurt's point 
decades earlier. Nothing new under the sun, as Aristotle tweeted.

-- 
Anders Sandberg
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Oxford University

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/f3818ce9/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Mon May  9 19:19:12 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 21:19:12 +0200
Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?A_Nobel_Prize_=E2=80=8Bwinner_on_Trump?=
In-Reply-To: <01ca01d1aa21$98896980$c99c3c80$@att.net>
References: <CAJPayv1vJNDVg4tQDz4HRAdE9ViM4HrgA2xNpXx4H4ROcOpDvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2ec6OKJSs=KD9TpfYg27dSe69dJmiu6WzqJ2wQgqhCJUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01ca01d1aa21$98896980$c99c3c80$@att.net>
Message-ID: <5730E2B0.2070708@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-09 20:35, spike wrote:
>
> Well that too Dave, and recall that the Nobel committee awarded one of 
> these prizes to the current POTUS before he had actually done anything.
>
> Even more ironic is that they awarded the prize for his promotion of 
> nuclear non-proliferation.
>

It is worth recalling that Nobel committee for peace is based in Norway 
(a deliberate choice by Alfred). And that the economics prize is 
actually to his memory and founded by the Swedish national bank, not 
Nobel himself. Both have had a fair share of stupid choices (and IMHO 
more than the science and literature prizes).

The real issue is not Krugman's putative brilliance but whether his 
arguments are right. Do we know *any* economists who think Trump knows 
what he is doing?

-- 
Anders Sandberg
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Oxford University

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/645bd80c/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Mon May  9 19:19:45 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 15:19:45 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv0c3BV1MmvY7CTi1tjVctsCFmZpj3ay+aZ7f0F7_Ubugg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhEzbHjj1FUta1qQkdECjYeMkN1FAEa-GQCDNGTX0UW=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0qsydcP=GWZpUYwJ1ibuKum1VMo0Tn=7BHLDeqy=XY9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhv-EhzJC=Cg5q5MhVgX-hRUbVsZcx88khbrTnKtuDopQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNQe4sxNDsu=7xzMfJBxeg6m452yrHt0shB2hKtcBxN88w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0c3BV1MmvY7CTi1tjVctsCFmZpj3ay+aZ7f0F7_Ubugg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFj48pq1oEUxa2gwcmQFeJG54g=ALNmryHn+pt_+NQCGoA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 5:04 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ?>> ?
>>> And yes, she committed multiple felonies.
>>>
>>
>> ?> ?
>> "
>> ??
>> Felon" means that she has been convicted of felonies.
>> Which felonies has she actually been convicted of, not just charged with?
>>
>
> ?Forger conviction,?
>
> ?the fact is ?
> Hillary Clinton
> ? hasn't even been charged with a felony. A Fox News smear story is not
> the same as an
> indictment
> ?.?
>
>
> ### As Jason mentioned, a felon is a person who committed felonies.

Do you honestly think she did not commit felonies? All is a "vast
right-wing conspiracy" (meme she launched in 1998), this time out to get
her, rather than her hubby? It's all as insubstantial and untrue as that
stain on the blue dress?

It seems that Trump has the ability to mess with people's minds. Tempers
flare in the face of a cipher. Hardly any trustworthy information about his
views on anything is available to the public, his record so far is mildly
competent and mighty amusing, and yet predictions of cataclysmic
destruction are made. Hyperbole of a kind not seen this century abounds.

But to make somebody think that Clinton is not a felonious traitor? Truly,
Trump's powers are remarkable.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/5d057e20/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Mon May  9 19:28:12 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 12:28:12 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFj48pq1oEUxa2gwcmQFeJG54g=ALNmryHn+pt_+NQCGoA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhEzbHjj1FUta1qQkdECjYeMkN1FAEa-GQCDNGTX0UW=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0qsydcP=GWZpUYwJ1ibuKum1VMo0Tn=7BHLDeqy=XY9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhv-EhzJC=Cg5q5MhVgX-hRUbVsZcx88khbrTnKtuDopQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNQe4sxNDsu=7xzMfJBxeg6m452yrHt0shB2hKtcBxN88w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0c3BV1MmvY7CTi1tjVctsCFmZpj3ay+aZ7f0F7_Ubugg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFj48pq1oEUxa2gwcmQFeJG54g=ALNmryHn+pt_+NQCGoA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNQZu6vH_cW3j_sWbywUWBudE+eFgqVbh=dQBXWMJJ_UwQ@mail.gmail.com>

On May 9, 2016 12:20 PM, "Rafal Smigrodzki" <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
wrote:
> But to make somebody think that Clinton is not a felonious traitor?

Takes simple observation of the facts.  She never was either a felon or a
traitor, even before Trump came along.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/13424697/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Mon May  9 19:31:27 2016
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 20:31:27 +0100
Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?A_Nobel_Prize_=E2=80=8Bwinner_on_Trump?=
In-Reply-To: <5730E2B0.2070708@aleph.se>
References: <CAJPayv1vJNDVg4tQDz4HRAdE9ViM4HrgA2xNpXx4H4ROcOpDvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2ec6OKJSs=KD9TpfYg27dSe69dJmiu6WzqJ2wQgqhCJUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01ca01d1aa21$98896980$c99c3c80$@att.net> <5730E2B0.2070708@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAL_armj7m5Uo2SSzxL_P6GSBe+H__nbeH4N8AoqzO2ixDva=zg@mail.gmail.com>

On 9 May 2016 at 20:19, Anders Sandberg  wrote:
> It is worth recalling that Nobel committee for peace is based in Norway (a
> deliberate choice by Alfred). And that the economics prize is actually to
> his memory and founded by the Swedish national bank, not Nobel himself. Both
> have had a fair share of stupid choices (and IMHO more than the science and
> literature prizes).
>
> The real issue is not Krugman's putative brilliance but whether his
> arguments are right. Do we know *any* economists who think Trump knows what
> he is doing?
>


It doesn't matter. For many Americans life has been getting steadily
harder for many years.
They have given up on the Washington 'business-as-usual' crowd of
corrupt liars and thieves.
They are calling time on the old guard.

BillK


From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Mon May  9 19:33:26 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 15:33:26 -0400
Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?A_Nobel_Prize_=E2=80=8Bwinner_on_Trump?=
In-Reply-To: <5730E2B0.2070708@aleph.se>
References: <CAJPayv1vJNDVg4tQDz4HRAdE9ViM4HrgA2xNpXx4H4ROcOpDvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2ec6OKJSs=KD9TpfYg27dSe69dJmiu6WzqJ2wQgqhCJUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01ca01d1aa21$98896980$c99c3c80$@att.net>
 <5730E2B0.2070708@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFi-Dm7eebso0-xra_=w+No3AYw=NTmD85vo8K6MFhkMqw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:
>
>
> The real issue is not Krugman's putative brilliance but whether his
> arguments are right. Do we know *any* economists who think Trump knows what
> he is doing?
>

### I don't think we have sufficiently reliable information on Trump's
economic ideas. He does seem to be a run-of-the-mill liberal for the most
part (support for single-payer medicine, support for eminent domain,
opposition to free trade) but with minor exceptions and all covered up by
tons of random bluster and populist demagoguery.

His business record would indicate a reasonable level of skill in
negotiation and management, a high and consistent level of inner drive but
with a mercurial superficial persona.

My guess he will do nothing substantial once elected. He will hire some NP
winners to shape economic policy, which may or may not be good for our
country. All the wide-eyed horror at his coming will appear silly in
retrospect, just as the wide-eyed wonder at Obama's ascension looks stupid
now.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/d87cb4e5/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Mon May  9 19:36:27 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 15:36:27 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNQZu6vH_cW3j_sWbywUWBudE+eFgqVbh=dQBXWMJJ_UwQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhEzbHjj1FUta1qQkdECjYeMkN1FAEa-GQCDNGTX0UW=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0qsydcP=GWZpUYwJ1ibuKum1VMo0Tn=7BHLDeqy=XY9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhv-EhzJC=Cg5q5MhVgX-hRUbVsZcx88khbrTnKtuDopQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNQe4sxNDsu=7xzMfJBxeg6m452yrHt0shB2hKtcBxN88w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0c3BV1MmvY7CTi1tjVctsCFmZpj3ay+aZ7f0F7_Ubugg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFj48pq1oEUxa2gwcmQFeJG54g=ALNmryHn+pt_+NQCGoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNQZu6vH_cW3j_sWbywUWBudE+eFgqVbh=dQBXWMJJ_UwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFiAtLppyHbWGmpuQY7VsZQtrK4cHiZn-V84kyGR79kuXQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 9, 2016 12:20 PM, "Rafal Smigrodzki" <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > But to make somebody think that Clinton is not a felonious traitor?
>
> Takes simple observation of the facts.  She never was either a felon or a
> traitor, even before Trump came along.
>

### Ah, the madness of crowds.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/8b0c4dde/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Mon May  9 20:07:03 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 16:07:03 -0400
Subject: [ExI] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNRades8Fpza1yg5yPzf57bLSy3kAjq31ok-AT7DHGeO0w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFgJLT0KLJRF3LsE5B=bhTvsYdN0vDOt3tXStXeOHad+pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRr3YzLbWtXSXfEQWY6+d7e2jt1YbnGV1AdfKT23vxrKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjPFyUvTp5D=Pu_wg+_4nREP1LVhCd5h+Q47=kK0qbi6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNSCxXj5CWSg7pdhTFaXEgceQ-ixCbsHgEqn-NW__0hqog@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgcq0utW-YzJodV+GfWXfZ0o86g9-juq09XB_Wq5M7S-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNTkWMZqpTGBJJZ6DmuWduV4V-Y=hVGsdBu5FG_kopASZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF5CFkhYe1nNx_uTgkRNvmjAH+z3VdJObYe+-nXACHDcupFAKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRades8Fpza1yg5yPzf57bLSy3kAjq31ok-AT7DHGeO0w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFjq=a_GNe3ww39aVQoZme_1x6S61nsbt3-v=ciXgUqGkQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 12:24 PM, CryptAxe <cryptaxe at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The exhaled vapor appears white because of vegetable glycerin. I don't
>> think it's nearly as dangerous as actual smoke based on my personal
>> experience. Actual smoke leaves behind tars, are there any studies showing
>> that vapor of any kind produces the same toxic tar byproducts?
>>
>
> http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm173146.htm
> http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/23/suppl_2/ii11.full
> http://www.restek.com/pdfs/ecigvaporposter.pdf
>
> among others.  (The FDA's is, IMO, the weakest of these three - but again,
> these three are far from all.)
>
> It is difficult to make blanket statements with high degrees of precision
> because of the high variance from any one e-cig to another, even in the
> same make and brand (which itself is a problem: they're selling a
> garbage-quality product), but what is consistent is bad enough.
>

### To the contrary, it's easy to make blanket statements with high degree
of confidence. The levels of toxic substances in vapes are usually orders
of magnitude lower than in tobacco smoke. The references you adduce provide
no information in support of FDA's attack on vapes. The BMJ article
summarizes the low reliability of research on vapes, the FDA memo shows the
nicotine used in vapes is distilled from tobacco, and the third one shows
actually a reasonably good level of precision in labeling of nicotine
content of vapes. Diethylene glycol at 1%? Ah the horror! This would result
in a 10 mg of daily dose, or 1/10 000th of a deadly dose!

Also, you are engaging in manipulative rhetoric ("garbage-quality
product"). Try not to give garbage references next time.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/5fcb6256/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Mon May  9 20:07:32 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 16:07:32 -0400
Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?A_Nobel_Prize_=E2=80=8Bwinner_on_Trump?=
In-Reply-To: <01ca01d1aa21$98896980$c99c3c80$@att.net>
References: <CAJPayv1vJNDVg4tQDz4HRAdE9ViM4HrgA2xNpXx4H4ROcOpDvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2ec6OKJSs=KD9TpfYg27dSe69dJmiu6WzqJ2wQgqhCJUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01ca01d1aa21$98896980$c99c3c80$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv3SJ99W0HBFmuv9CWipxTvvy3d_NKUKFnYXGvOcaFPfrQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 2:35 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

?> ?
> the staff deliberately created an echo chamber, used Jedi mind tricks on
> inexperienced child-reporters fresh off of campaign volunteer jobs, to get
> them to sell the Iran nuclear deal to the public
>
>

?Well yeah, but you almost make that sound like a bad thing. With the deal
Iran could still have a nuclear bomb in 13 years; without the deal Iran
would have a nuclear bomb in 2 months. Sounds like a damn good deal to me!

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/efead757/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Mon May  9 19:57:22 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 12:57:22 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNQZu6vH_cW3j_sWbywUWBudE+eFgqVbh=dQBXWMJJ_UwQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhEzbHjj1FUta1qQkdECjYeMkN1FAEa-GQCDNGTX0UW=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0qsydcP=GWZpUYwJ1ibuKum1VMo0Tn=7BHLDeqy=XY9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhv-EhzJC=Cg5q5MhVgX-hRUbVsZcx88khbrTnKtuDopQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNQe4sxNDsu=7xzMfJBxeg6m452yrHt0shB2hKtcBxN88w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0c3BV1MmvY7CTi1tjVctsCFmZpj3ay+aZ7f0F7_Ubugg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFj48pq1oEUxa2gwcmQFeJG54g=ALNmryHn+pt_+NQCGoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNQZu6vH_cW3j_sWbywUWBudE+eFgqVbh=dQBXWMJJ_UwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <009201d1aa2d$01685500$0438ff00$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 12:28 PM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>; rafal at smigrodzki.org
Subject: Re: [ExI] Donald Trump

 

On May 9, 2016 12:20 PM, "Rafal Smigrodzki" <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com <mailto:rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> > wrote:



>>? But to make somebody think that Clinton is not a felonious traitor?

>?Takes simple observation of the facts.  She never was either a felon or a traitor, even before Trump came along? Adrian

 

 

Indeed sir?  Did not Mrs. Clinton write a leaked email which explicitly ordered a subordinate to commit a felony?  To ??remove the security markings and send it unclassified?? is a felonious act, as is ordering or requesting a subordinate to do so, which is to commit a felony.  The subordinate wrote back that there was willing to do it if he could, but there was no physical means by which he could possibly accomplish the task.  This implies the document in question existed on a secure server in a secure facility (which has no printers not being monitored by honest people), a secure server authorized to have this info has no physical link to the unsecured server or Mrs. Clinton?s blackberry.  The disturbing part is his comment that he would have committed the felony if he could have, but could not.  What she was requesting was as difficult for him as holding his breath for 15 minutes.

Mrs. Clinton was not or has not been convicted of that, so by the new definition she is not (yet) a convict, but by that same definition, she is a felon for with that email, she has clearly committed a felony, so she is a person who has committed a felony, and oh OK, let us give a felon command of the mighty US military when we don?t know who has the rest of her yoga routines and wedding plans.

Perhaps the leaked email was a forgery?  We need to deal with that possibility as well, for we can easily envision foreign governments forging Clinton emails, outing ambassadors as US agents or spies, or whatever government insiders they don?t like.  We could see governments all over the world arranging for the execution of the other guy?s own top-ranking people by making them appear traitorous.  

Think on this: we could be seeing this phenomenon regardless of whether Mrs. Clinton is or is not elected, regardless of whether she is or is not indicted, regardless of whether the FBI does or does not recommend convening a grand jury.

The reason I took up John Clark?s wager is that I cannot read that request about removing security markings off a document, vaguely suspect that the message is genuine, and figure out how the hell our own government, or own FBI can fail to recommend the DoJ indict that behavior.  

Rules and laws exist for a reason.  They are not all automatically silly or counterproductive just because someone you care about has broken them.  The potential damage here is unfathomable.

spike

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/6aa17912/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Mon May  9 20:33:04 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 16:33:04 -0400
Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?A_Nobel_Prize_=E2=80=8Bwinner_on_Trump?=
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFhKyD0gtC2_KZhsvOT1gGYSf+vuDQVunnH3kdtzYXetpA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv1vJNDVg4tQDz4HRAdE9ViM4HrgA2xNpXx4H4ROcOpDvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhKyD0gtC2_KZhsvOT1gGYSf+vuDQVunnH3kdtzYXetpA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv2T_hQnEiBVqHaL54t_ZbXt9ExXyATuHpzcMdWKrj0f0Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 9, 2016 , Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:

?> ?
> Krugman is nothing but a political hack.
>

?Are you saying defaulting on the national debt would be good economic
policy? Are you really saying that???


?> ?
> Back in the day he was a defender of free trade and a brilliant economist
> who received the NP
>

?
And since the Great Depression no presidential candidate has been a
bigger *OPPONENT
*of free trade than Donald Trump.  Oh and Trump thinks we should boycott
Apple because they refuse to *insert a backdoor* into
?
all
?
their products so the NSA can get into whatever they want whenever they
want.
? And it's not some leftoid saying these things, it's Donald Fucking Trump.?

Are you *really* sure you want to defend this man?

? John K Clark?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/89f3521b/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Mon May  9 20:46:35 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 15:46:35 -0500
Subject: [ExI] fun outsider's view on ai
In-Reply-To: <CAM5aL2dNPA71CjJ4-LDd8_At+F7jh_+FuCjfmktFBAnW3vK_AA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <002b01d1aa01$4a1def20$de59cd60$@att.net>
 <CAM5aL2dNPA71CjJ4-LDd8_At+F7jh_+FuCjfmktFBAnW3vK_AA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZBiyH2bdUV2iuaTkvDg0pqkTP4t5Da=KL0aOsR8JER=w@mail.gmail.com>

I'm neither a Singularitarian nor an AItheist. I think human-level AI is
inevitable, if President Trump doesn't manage to wipe out the human race
first :-). But I don't buy the notion that super intelligence is akin to a
superpower, and don't think it's necessary for an AI to have consciousness,
human-like emotions, or the ability to set its own goals, and without those
there is no need to fear them.  dave

If you want an AI to be superintelligent, why reference the neuron, Spike?
Human brains are so fallible it's just silly.  A person super intelligent
about one thing is totally at a loss about many other things.  I think
brains must be still evolving, because as they are, they are cobbled
together among available equipment and have functioned well enough to get
us to the present.  You don't have to be a psychologist to see the
irrationality, the emotional involvement, the selfishness, of the output of
human brains.  There are many functions of brains that we can do well
without entirely.  Start with all the cognitive errors we already know
about.

OK, so what else can we do?  Every decision we make is wrapped up in
emotions. That alone does not make them wrong or irrational, but often they
are. Take them out and see what we get.  Of course they are already out of
the AIs we have now.  So here is the question:  do we really want an AI to
function like a human brain?  I say no.  We are looking for something
better, right?

Since by definition we are not yet posthumans, how would we even know that
an AI decision was super intelligent?  I don't know enough about computer
simulations to criticize them, but sooner or later we have to put an AI
decision to experimental tests in the real world not knowing what will
happen.

In any case, I don't think that there is any magic in the neuron.  It's in
the connections.  And let's not forget about the role of glial cells, about
which we are just barely aware.  (see The Other Brain by Douglas Fields)
 Oh yeah, and the role of the gut microbiome - also just barely aware of
its functions.  Not even to mention all the endocrine glands and their
impact on brain functions.  Raising and lowering hormones has profound
effects on functioning of the brain.  Ditto food,  sunspots (?), humidity
and temperature, chemicals in the dust we breathe, pheromones, and drugs (I
take over 20 pills of various sorts,  Who or what could figure out the
results of that?)  All told, an incredible number of variables, some of
which we may not know about at present, all interacting with one another,
our learning, and our genes.

All told, we are many decades away from a good grasp of the brain, maybe
100 years.  A super smart AI will likely not function at all like a human
brain.  No reason it should.  (boy am I going to get flak on this one)

bill w



On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Dave Sill <sparge at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:44 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Nothing particularly profound or insightful in this AI article, but it is
>> good clean fun:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://aeon.co/essays/true-ai-is-both-logically-possible-and-utterly-implausible?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=6469cf0d50-Daily_Newsletter_9_May_20165_9_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-6469cf0d50-68957125
>>
>
> Yeah, not bad. Mostly on the mark, IMO, but he says a few things that are
> just not rational.
>
> He reminds me a little of Roger Penrose?s take on the subject from a long
>> time ago: he introduces two schools of thought, pokes fun at both while
>> offering little or no evidence or support, then reveals he is pretty much a
>> follower of one of the two: the Church of AI-theists.
>>
>
> To be fair, he says both camps are wrong and the truth is probably
> somewhere in between. And I agree.
>
>
>> There are plenty of AI-theists, but nowhere have I ever seen a really
>> good argument for why we can never simulate a neuron and a dendrite and
>> synapses.  Once we understand them well enough, we can write a sim of one.
>> We already have sims of complicated systems, such as aircraft, nuclear
>> plants and such.  So why not a brain cell?   And if so, why not two, and
>> why not a connectome and why can we not simulate a brain?  I have been
>> pondering that question for over 2 decades and have still never found a
>> good reason.  That puts me in Floridi-dismissed Church of the
>> Singularitarian.
>>
>
> Yeah, his "True AI is not logically impossible, but it is utterly
> implausible" doesn't seem to be based on reality.
>
> I'm neither a Singularitarian nor an AItheist. I think human-level AI is
> inevitable, if President Trump doesn't manage to wipe out the human race
> first :-). But I don't buy the notion that super intelligence is akin to a
> superpower, and don't think it's necessary for an AI to have consciousness,
> human-like emotions, or the ability to set its own goals, and without those
> there is no need to fear them.
>
> -Dave
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/a54c94f4/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Mon May  9 20:57:27 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 16:57:27 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFj48pq1oEUxa2gwcmQFeJG54g=ALNmryHn+pt_+NQCGoA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhEzbHjj1FUta1qQkdECjYeMkN1FAEa-GQCDNGTX0UW=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0qsydcP=GWZpUYwJ1ibuKum1VMo0Tn=7BHLDeqy=XY9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhv-EhzJC=Cg5q5MhVgX-hRUbVsZcx88khbrTnKtuDopQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNQe4sxNDsu=7xzMfJBxeg6m452yrHt0shB2hKtcBxN88w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0c3BV1MmvY7CTi1tjVctsCFmZpj3ay+aZ7f0F7_Ubugg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFj48pq1oEUxa2gwcmQFeJG54g=ALNmryHn+pt_+NQCGoA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv2H2Jk3pgzMyU=ULP_ZhEdOVTzDRvM_ZTRneKg9bDvt=w@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at  Rafal Smigrodzki rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:

?> ?
> Do you honestly think she did not commit felonies?
>

?My guess, and it's only a guess, is yes; but not more than any other
president in the nation's history and less than most. I likewise have no
evidence that Trump has committed a felony and I don't much care if he did
or not because I do have evidence that Donald Trump is a imbecile or a
madman or both.       ?



> ?> ?
> It's all as insubstantial and untrue as that stain on the blue dress?
>

?So we shouldn't vote for ?Hillary because her husband was unfaithful.

?> ?
> Hardly any trustworthy information about his views on anything is
> available to the public
>

?All we have to go on are the noises ?that emanate from Donald Trump's
mouth and they don't make a pleasant sound.

? John K Clark?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/3278b2cb/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Mon May  9 21:40:13 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 14:40:13 -0700
Subject: [ExI] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFjq=a_GNe3ww39aVQoZme_1x6S61nsbt3-v=ciXgUqGkQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFgJLT0KLJRF3LsE5B=bhTvsYdN0vDOt3tXStXeOHad+pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRr3YzLbWtXSXfEQWY6+d7e2jt1YbnGV1AdfKT23vxrKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjPFyUvTp5D=Pu_wg+_4nREP1LVhCd5h+Q47=kK0qbi6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNSCxXj5CWSg7pdhTFaXEgceQ-ixCbsHgEqn-NW__0hqog@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgcq0utW-YzJodV+GfWXfZ0o86g9-juq09XB_Wq5M7S-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNTkWMZqpTGBJJZ6DmuWduV4V-Y=hVGsdBu5FG_kopASZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF5CFkhYe1nNx_uTgkRNvmjAH+z3VdJObYe+-nXACHDcupFAKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRades8Fpza1yg5yPzf57bLSy3kAjq31ok-AT7DHGeO0w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjq=a_GNe3ww39aVQoZme_1x6S61nsbt3-v=ciXgUqGkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNSHaawz+7-+n6bWALB=W0dACU5Sc5TiA+Xgp0F4C6mUzw@mail.gmail.com>

On May 9, 2016 1:07 PM, "Rafal Smigrodzki" <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
wrote:
> The references you adduce provide no information in support of FDA's
attack on vapes.

If you're going to flat-out lie, in a way that anyone who reads the links
can easily verify as a lie, why do you bother posting to this list?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/a9a65bc4/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Mon May  9 21:48:14 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 16:48:14 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Aristotle on trolling
In-Reply-To: <5730DFDB.1020106@aleph.se>
References: <572F8CC2.9010501@aleph.se>
 <CAO+xQEZ0gWfF+2kiac8h5fn0zMQwdRrS=rkcrR+WdPwTruuMuw@mail.gmail.com>
 <5730DFDB.1020106@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEY1rcwqZMOipbHy79fU7crCvZd-426Bk=dm5wD4H3d8Sg@mail.gmail.com>

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=frankfurt&sts=t&tn=on+bullshit

At least one copy ships from the UK, so you should have no trouble getting
it.  This company is the one I use when Amazon lacks a book or the price is
higher.  bill w

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> On 2016-05-08 21:08, William Flynn Wallace wrote:
>
> ?
>
> I am reminded of Frankfurt's classic "On bullshit":
> http://www.stoa.org.uk/topics/bullshit/pdf/on-bullshit.pdf
>
>
> I am not sure what this is - perhaps the author's summer?.  I have the
> book, available from Amazon, and it's 67 pages.
>
>
> It has been published in at least three different forms. The book is
> probably the most common, but I did not find it online.
>
> The Swedish humorist Tage Danielsson wrote an independent and brilliant
> precursor, "Grallimatik" (1966) where he argues that most talking is not
> about communicating information, but simply social status games and nice
> sounds. So he outlines a grammar, semantics and style guide for vacuous
> talking. It is a hilarious satire, but actually making Frankfurt's point
> decades earlier. Nothing new under the sun, as Aristotle tweeted.
>
> --
> Anders Sandberg
> Future of Humanity Institute
> Oxford Martin School
> Oxford University
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/8a96df3f/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Mon May  9 21:51:45 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 23:51:45 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Aristotle on trolling
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEY1rcwqZMOipbHy79fU7crCvZd-426Bk=dm5wD4H3d8Sg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <572F8CC2.9010501@aleph.se>
 <CAO+xQEZ0gWfF+2kiac8h5fn0zMQwdRrS=rkcrR+WdPwTruuMuw@mail.gmail.com>
 <5730DFDB.1020106@aleph.se>
 <CAO+xQEY1rcwqZMOipbHy79fU7crCvZd-426Bk=dm5wD4H3d8Sg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57310671.9020003@aleph.se>

Yes, I have given copies to friends in politics. I just wanted a link 
for my post.


On 2016-05-09 23:48, William Flynn Wallace wrote:
> http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=frankfurt&sts=t&tn=on+bullshit
>
> At least one copy ships from the UK, so you should have no trouble 
> getting it.  This company is the one I use when Amazon lacks a book or 
> the price is higher.  bill w
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se 
> <mailto:anders at aleph.se>> wrote:
>
>     On 2016-05-08 21:08, William Flynn Wallace wrote:
>>     ?
>>
>>     I am reminded of Frankfurt's classic "On bullshit":
>>     http://www.stoa.org.uk/topics/bullshit/pdf/on-bullshit.pdf
>>
>>
>>     I am not sure what this is - perhaps the author's summer?.  I
>>     have the book, available from Amazon, and it's 67 pages.
>
>     It has been published in at least three different forms. The book
>     is probably the most common, but I did not find it online.
>
>     The Swedish humorist Tage Danielsson wrote an independent and
>     brilliant precursor, "Grallimatik" (1966) where he argues that
>     most talking is not about communicating information, but simply
>     social status games and nice sounds. So he outlines a grammar,
>     semantics and style guide for vacuous talking. It is a hilarious
>     satire, but actually making Frankfurt's point decades earlier.
>     Nothing new under the sun, as Aristotle tweeted.
>
>     -- 
>     Anders Sandberg
>     Future of Humanity Institute
>     Oxford Martin School
>     Oxford University
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     extropy-chat mailing list
>     extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org <mailto:extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>     http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

-- 
Anders Sandberg
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Oxford University

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/05f13597/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Mon May  9 22:11:59 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 18:11:59 -0400
Subject: [ExI] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNSHaawz+7-+n6bWALB=W0dACU5Sc5TiA+Xgp0F4C6mUzw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFgJLT0KLJRF3LsE5B=bhTvsYdN0vDOt3tXStXeOHad+pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRr3YzLbWtXSXfEQWY6+d7e2jt1YbnGV1AdfKT23vxrKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjPFyUvTp5D=Pu_wg+_4nREP1LVhCd5h+Q47=kK0qbi6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNSCxXj5CWSg7pdhTFaXEgceQ-ixCbsHgEqn-NW__0hqog@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgcq0utW-YzJodV+GfWXfZ0o86g9-juq09XB_Wq5M7S-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNTkWMZqpTGBJJZ6DmuWduV4V-Y=hVGsdBu5FG_kopASZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF5CFkhYe1nNx_uTgkRNvmjAH+z3VdJObYe+-nXACHDcupFAKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRades8Fpza1yg5yPzf57bLSy3kAjq31ok-AT7DHGeO0w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjq=a_GNe3ww39aVQoZme_1x6S61nsbt3-v=ciXgUqGkQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNSHaawz+7-+n6bWALB=W0dACU5Sc5TiA+Xgp0F4C6mUzw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFhDqNObyNV=3NLHcBOJBDQJgcG-2+1Kw_hVpJnHJZVTPw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 9, 2016 1:07 PM, "Rafal Smigrodzki" <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > The references you adduce provide no information in support of FDA's
> attack on vapes.
>
> If you're going to flat-out lie, in a way that anyone who reads the links
> can easily verify as a lie, why do you bother posting to this list?
>

### I read your references. Give me the exact quotations from these
references that are sufficient to support banning vapes.

Tell me where did I lie.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/77809e98/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Mon May  9 22:13:24 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 18:13:24 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv2H2Jk3pgzMyU=ULP_ZhEdOVTzDRvM_ZTRneKg9bDvt=w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhEzbHjj1FUta1qQkdECjYeMkN1FAEa-GQCDNGTX0UW=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0qsydcP=GWZpUYwJ1ibuKum1VMo0Tn=7BHLDeqy=XY9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhv-EhzJC=Cg5q5MhVgX-hRUbVsZcx88khbrTnKtuDopQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNQe4sxNDsu=7xzMfJBxeg6m452yrHt0shB2hKtcBxN88w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0c3BV1MmvY7CTi1tjVctsCFmZpj3ay+aZ7f0F7_Ubugg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFj48pq1oEUxa2gwcmQFeJG54g=ALNmryHn+pt_+NQCGoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2H2Jk3pgzMyU=ULP_ZhEdOVTzDRvM_ZTRneKg9bDvt=w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFiZPLKEsM4nqRMXSvS7UqjeeewGLPwnzS+gPt3bmGFWVg@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 4:57 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at  Rafal Smigrodzki rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> ?> ?
>> Hardly any trustworthy information about his views on anything is
>> available to the public
>>
>
> ?All we have to go on are the noises ?that emanate from Donald Trump's
> mouth and they don't make a pleasant sound.
>
>
### You don't trust Trump to tell us what he really thinks, do you?

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/a6e46d0f/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Mon May  9 22:16:21 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 18:16:21 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <009201d1aa2d$01685500$0438ff00$@att.net>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhEzbHjj1FUta1qQkdECjYeMkN1FAEa-GQCDNGTX0UW=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0qsydcP=GWZpUYwJ1ibuKum1VMo0Tn=7BHLDeqy=XY9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhv-EhzJC=Cg5q5MhVgX-hRUbVsZcx88khbrTnKtuDopQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNQe4sxNDsu=7xzMfJBxeg6m452yrHt0shB2hKtcBxN88w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0c3BV1MmvY7CTi1tjVctsCFmZpj3ay+aZ7f0F7_Ubugg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFj48pq1oEUxa2gwcmQFeJG54g=ALNmryHn+pt_+NQCGoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNQZu6vH_cW3j_sWbywUWBudE+eFgqVbh=dQBXWMJJ_UwQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <009201d1aa2d$01685500$0438ff00$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv0eabWjHK16gTjWojM5CaZfNZs2gS7mSy6gk=TzUp_k6Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 3:57 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

?> ?
> she is a felon for with that email,


?
Well, if by "felon" you mean anybody who has ever commented a felony rather
than somebody who was indited or convicted of a felony then yes, she may be
a felon. But then lots of people are felons.I have, I mean to say a friend
of mine has downloaded music he shouldn't have
?
and that makes me, I mean him a felon.
?
I'm sure nobody on this list has ever smoked marijuana
?
but some people have and they're all of them are felons. And it's entirely
possible that Mrs. Clinton
?
once
?
gave an
?
account of
?
a
?
baseball game without the express written consent of Major League Baseball
?.?


 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/57f1ec8e/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Mon May  9 22:26:24 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 18:26:24 -0400
Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?A_Nobel_Prize_=E2=80=8Bwinner_on_Trump?=
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv2T_hQnEiBVqHaL54t_ZbXt9ExXyATuHpzcMdWKrj0f0Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv1vJNDVg4tQDz4HRAdE9ViM4HrgA2xNpXx4H4ROcOpDvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhKyD0gtC2_KZhsvOT1gGYSf+vuDQVunnH3kdtzYXetpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2T_hQnEiBVqHaL54t_ZbXt9ExXyATuHpzcMdWKrj0f0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFjDcFeLsqBiTTGGfqXTxa5C_D9nQ0CnMPu=A+2pxJvJdQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 4:33 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, May 9, 2016 , Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ?> ?
>> Krugman is nothing but a political hack.
>>
>
> ?Are you saying defaulting on the national debt would be good economic
> policy? Are you really saying that???
>
>
> ?> ?
>> Back in the day he was a defender of free trade and a brilliant economist
>> who received the NP
>>
>
> ?
> And since the Great Depression no presidential candidate has been a bigger *OPPONENT
> *of free trade than Donald Trump.  Oh and Trump thinks we should boycott
> Apple because they refuse to *insert a backdoor* into
> ?
> all
> ?
> their products so the NSA can get into whatever they want whenever they
> want.
> ? And it's not some leftoid saying these things, it's Donald Fucking
> Trump.?
>
> Are you *really* sure you want to defend this man?
>
> ### He is a skillful populist, a demagogue. Every demagogue bashes free
trade, it's an appeal to xenophobia that forms the backbone of most
demagoguery.  His views are unknown. He is the mystery man about town. Does
that represent a defense of Trump?

Dunno. I know that the alternative is worse. With Trump you don't know what
you get, with Clinton you know you are in deep shit. Although not as deep
as with Sanders.

Sure, Rand Paul would have been better. Ted Cruz would have been better
(and just in case you wonder, I am still an atheist). Maybe even Fiorina
might have been better. Unfortunately, the demos spoke and Trump it is.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/35b1a5d6/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Mon May  9 23:07:51 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 19:07:51 -0400
Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?A_Nobel_Prize_=E2=80=8Bwinner_on_Trump?=
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFjDcFeLsqBiTTGGfqXTxa5C_D9nQ0CnMPu=A+2pxJvJdQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv1vJNDVg4tQDz4HRAdE9ViM4HrgA2xNpXx4H4ROcOpDvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhKyD0gtC2_KZhsvOT1gGYSf+vuDQVunnH3kdtzYXetpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2T_hQnEiBVqHaL54t_ZbXt9ExXyATuHpzcMdWKrj0f0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjDcFeLsqBiTTGGfqXTxa5C_D9nQ0CnMPu=A+2pxJvJdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv0_OM2FcO4WNiwV9J3se_srE6b1jvPQJHFzsLavRN4TqA@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 9, 2016  Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:


> ?> ?
> Every demagogue bashes free trade,
>

?Clinton?

?hasn't bashed free trade, so I guess she's not a demagogue. ?


> I know that the alternative is worse. With Trump you don't know what you
> get, with Clinton you know you are in deep shit.
>

?Did Clinton say the USA should help Saudi Arabia get Nuclear Weapons? No
but Trump did. Did Clinton say Silicon Valley companies should be forced to
insert backdoors into all their products for easy government access? No but
Trump did? Did Clinton say defaulting on debt is a good idea? No but Trump
did. Did Clinton say we should build a fucking wall? No but Trump did.


> ?> ?
> Although not as deep as with Sanders.
>

?Do both Trump and Sanders? hate free trade? Yes but Clinton doesn't.

?> ?
> Ted Cruz would have been better
>

*?TED CRUZ??!?!! *

?> ?
> and just in case you wonder, I am still an atheist
>

?OK, there's still hope for you then. ?

? John K Clark

?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/e71a9dbd/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Mon May  9 23:12:58 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 16:12:58 -0700
Subject: [ExI] fun outsider's view on ai
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEZBiyH2bdUV2iuaTkvDg0pqkTP4t5Da=KL0aOsR8JER=w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <002b01d1aa01$4a1def20$de59cd60$@att.net>
 <CAM5aL2dNPA71CjJ4-LDd8_At+F7jh_+FuCjfmktFBAnW3vK_AA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZBiyH2bdUV2iuaTkvDg0pqkTP4t5Da=KL0aOsR8JER=w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <013501d1aa48$54220d20$fc662760$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace



 

>?If you want an AI to be superintelligent, why reference the neuron, Spike?  Human brains are so fallible it's just silly?

 

We don?t know a better way to true AI than by studying and emulating actual I.  

 

In any dynamic system being modeled by computer, you need super-detailed models of the subsystems if you want a good high-fidelity simulation.  For instance, if you want a jet aircraft sim good enough to train pilots, you will likely need to have structural characteristics of all the parts, since high-performance jets flex under load, things act in unexpected ways when you push to the limits etc.  You need to model things like the moment of inertia of the elevators, rudder, ailerons and so forth.  There are no shortcuts, if your sim precision is critical, as it is in some cases.

 

If we want to get AI, we have one really good example of I.  We have one good example of what we need, one example of a machine which can generate software.  To create a sim which can write software, we simulate the one example we have of that.  To do that, we sim every subsystem, every single one, all the way down.  Then we run it as a background process on a bunch of interconnected computers.  We might find we can simulate a second of human-like thought per hour.  

 

This approach requires that we understand how dendrites and glials and synapses and all the rest of it works.  Currently we don?t.  Certainly not entirely.

 

 

>?All told, we are many decades away from a good grasp of the brain, maybe 100 years.  A super smart AI will likely not function at all like a human brain.  No reason it should.  (boy am I going to get flak on this one) bill w

 

No flak, you might be right.  We might find an alternative path to AI.  I will note however that I took Thune?s class online, the one Stanford offered free a couple years ago.  I noticed the text hasn?t changed all that much in the last 20 years.  The insights offered in the mainstream courses is really not progressing all that much, which tells me we need to try something else.

 

spike

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/4f414dd3/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Mon May  9 23:43:11 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 16:43:11 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv2H2Jk3pgzMyU=ULP_ZhEdOVTzDRvM_ZTRneKg9bDvt=w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhEzbHjj1FUta1qQkdECjYeMkN1FAEa-GQCDNGTX0UW=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0qsydcP=GWZpUYwJ1ibuKum1VMo0Tn=7BHLDeqy=XY9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhv-EhzJC=Cg5q5MhVgX-hRUbVsZcx88khbrTnKtuDopQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNQe4sxNDsu=7xzMfJBxeg6m452yrHt0shB2hKtcBxN88w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0c3BV1MmvY7CTi1tjVctsCFmZpj3ay+aZ7f0F7_Ubugg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFj48pq1oEUxa2gwcmQFeJG54g=ALNmryHn+pt_+NQCGoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2H2Jk3pgzMyU=ULP_ZhEdOVTzDRvM_ZTRneKg9bDvt=w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <016601d1aa4c$8cdf83f0$a69e8bd0$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 1:57 PM
To: rafal at smigrodzki.org; ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] Donald Trump

 

 

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at  Rafal Smigrodzki rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com <mailto:rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> > wrote:

 

?>>? ?Do you honestly think she did not commit felonies?

 

?>?My guess, and it's only a guess, is yes; but not more than any other president in the nation's history and less than most?John K Clark?

 

 

 

We are dead.  Dead.  Dead doobeedoo dead dead.  As soon as we are to the point where we say we are letting a known felon have command of the military under the theory that the other choices are also felons or that it is OK, then we are dead.  It isn?t just us.  This particular felon is a known war hawk.  Anyone in our gunsights is dead too.  I damn sure am dead.  This particular felon is a known first amendment opponent, has stated it explicitly in September 2012, then denied the comments in contradiction to at least four witnesses whose versions were very similar.  I have posted blasphemy online.  It is all still there.  It may become retroactively illegal.  ?comma comma dead doobeedoo dead dead?

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/0a8bf729/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Tue May 10 01:07:54 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 20:07:54 -0500
Subject: [ExI] fun outsider's view on ai
In-Reply-To: <013501d1aa48$54220d20$fc662760$@att.net>
References: <002b01d1aa01$4a1def20$de59cd60$@att.net>
 <CAM5aL2dNPA71CjJ4-LDd8_At+F7jh_+FuCjfmktFBAnW3vK_AA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZBiyH2bdUV2iuaTkvDg0pqkTP4t5Da=KL0aOsR8JER=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <013501d1aa48$54220d20$fc662760$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEYT9uFuT9=kkM5RxG+j4DHx2-+=L7Myn0FdvSn_ik0gMA@mail.gmail.com>

No flak, you might be right.  We might find an alternative path to AI.  I
will note however that I took Thune?s class online, the one Stanford
offered free a couple years ago.  I noticed the text hasn?t changed all
that much in the last 20 years.  The insights offered in the mainstream
courses is really not progressing all that much, which tells me we need to
try something else.
spike

OK, now I am getting somewhere.  At the start I assume you define just what
it is that you want it to do.  What the whole process seems to me to be is
to create a machine that can duplicate a human, only it is faster, not
different in quality in any way. (Is this correct?)  And that's because we
can't think of any way to think other than human because we are human and
limited by that.

So we don't need outside the box thinking - we need outside the human
thinking.  Right so far?

Think of all those variables in my post.  Suppose you could hold every one
of them constant except one, so as to do a real experiment.  Then you
repeat that with the other variables, adding one at a time to see the
statistical interactions.  This is just totally impossible.  To get two
people to be in the same state except for one variable..... can't be done.
One reason psychology is so hard to do properly.  So we use groups.

Even if you could do all of that, suppose that the brain works in more of a
Gestalt fashion, so that the output is not the sum of all the variables at
all, but something different.  Some variables may be ignored, some
suppressed by other variables, some kicked up, and so on.  And some outputs
may be the same even with different quantities of some of the variables.

And just what will be the corresponding variable in an AI to the influence
of hormones?  It's just so complex that I can't get my head around it.
Maybe I have a lot of company.

I think we will never ever in a billion years be able to accurately predict
much of the behavior of an individual except in a very general way -
groups, yes, we can do that now.

bill w

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 6:12 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On
> Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace
>
>
>
> >?If you want an AI to be superintelligent, why reference the neuron,
> Spike?  Human brains are so fallible it's just silly?
>
>
>
> We don?t know a better way to true AI than by studying and emulating
> actual I.
>
>
>
> In any dynamic system being modeled by computer, you need super-detailed
> models of the subsystems if you want a good high-fidelity simulation.  For
> instance, if you want a jet aircraft sim good enough to train pilots, you
> will likely need to have structural characteristics of all the parts, since
> high-performance jets flex under load, things act in unexpected ways when
> you push to the limits etc.  You need to model things like the moment of
> inertia of the elevators, rudder, ailerons and so forth.  There are no
> shortcuts, if your sim precision is critical, as it is in some cases.
>
>
>
> If we want to get AI, we have one really good example of I.  We have one
> good example of what we need, one example of a machine which can generate
> software.  To create a sim which can write software, we simulate the one
> example we have of that.  To do that, we sim every subsystem, every single
> one, all the way down.  Then we run it as a background process on a bunch
> of interconnected computers.  We might find we can simulate a second of
> human-like thought per hour.
>
>
>
> This approach requires that we understand how dendrites and glials and
> synapses and all the rest of it works.  Currently we don?t.  Certainly not
> entirely.
>
>
>
>
>
> >?All told, we are many decades away from a good grasp of the brain,
> maybe 100 years.  A super smart AI will likely not function at all like a
> human brain.  No reason it should.  (boy am I going to get flak on this one) bill
> w
>
>
>
> No flak, you might be right.  We might find an alternative path to AI.  I
> will note however that I took Thune?s class online, the one Stanford
> offered free a couple years ago.  I noticed the text hasn?t changed all
> that much in the last 20 years.  The insights offered in the mainstream
> courses is really not progressing all that much, which tells me we need to
> try something else.
>
>
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/1f5f241a/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Tue May 10 01:12:44 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 20:12:44 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <016601d1aa4c$8cdf83f0$a69e8bd0$@att.net>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhEzbHjj1FUta1qQkdECjYeMkN1FAEa-GQCDNGTX0UW=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0qsydcP=GWZpUYwJ1ibuKum1VMo0Tn=7BHLDeqy=XY9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhv-EhzJC=Cg5q5MhVgX-hRUbVsZcx88khbrTnKtuDopQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNQe4sxNDsu=7xzMfJBxeg6m452yrHt0shB2hKtcBxN88w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0c3BV1MmvY7CTi1tjVctsCFmZpj3ay+aZ7f0F7_Ubugg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFj48pq1oEUxa2gwcmQFeJG54g=ALNmryHn+pt_+NQCGoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2H2Jk3pgzMyU=ULP_ZhEdOVTzDRvM_ZTRneKg9bDvt=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <016601d1aa4c$8cdf83f0$a69e8bd0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZP4Qs6=mknbH3yr2ng8MmOa0NpkkaVU3X5v8j9ex8Q9w@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 6:43 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On
> Behalf Of *John Clark
> *Sent:* Monday, May 09, 2016 1:57 PM
> *To:* rafal at smigrodzki.org; ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Donald Trump
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at  Rafal Smigrodzki rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> ?>>? ?Do you honestly think she did not commit felonies?
>
>
>
> ?>?My guess, and it's only a guess, is yes; but not more than any other
> president in the nation's history and less than most?John K Clark?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We are dead.  Dead.  Dead doobeedoo dead dead.  As soon as we are to the
> point where we say we are letting a known felon have command of the
> military under the theory that the other choices are also felons or that it
> is OK, then we are dead.  It isn?t just us.  This particular felon is a
> known war hawk.  Anyone in our gunsights is dead too.  I damn sure am
> dead.  This particular felon is a known first amendment opponent, has
> stated it explicitly in September 2012, then denied the comments in
> contradiction to at least four witnesses whose versions were very similar.
> I have posted blasphemy online.  It is all still there.  It may become
> retroactively illegal.  ?comma comma dead doobeedoo dead dead?
>
>
>
> spike
>

?I am going to vote for a felon and a demagogue.  I think Hilary wants to
be president so badly that she will say or do anything that she thinks will
get her there, so of course she contradicts herself.  Thus we know very
little about what she really believes.  But the
alternative..................Horrors.

bill w?


>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/67b6f44b/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Tue May 10 01:30:41 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 21:30:41 -0400
Subject: [ExI] s&p 500 growth, was: RE:
In-Reply-To: <014e01d1aa1a$a8f42820$fadc7860$@att.net>
References: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv28qXEe=VAPzEbibT6CqbqxDFO68h-T-vew=40Y3eMSWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <003f01d1a989$4b50df60$e1f29e20$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1Bj20bTje_2k7nEUKbN4HLAL5nyvzCWaWbXdfqCWobmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00db01d1a997$b6ee9560$24cbc020$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0V5_YG1AxPO6uUjPLWyi96T+zgfkQhYjpDPZ8p=9tnyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <014e01d1aa1a$a8f42820$fadc7860$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv1fVnj50yjYA2aHYyWohvDLTAVQwWRHJj12ptz2udq2Xw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 1:46 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:



> ?> ?
> Had she
> ? [
> Carly Fiorina
> ?]
> not wrecked HP, we wouldn?t even need to bother with an election in the
> fall; cheering masses of Americans would carry her to the White House on
> their shoulders.


?And to quote the immortal words of
Frederick Treesh
?:?

*"Other than the two we killed, the two we wounded, the woman we
pistol-whipped, and the light bulbs we stuck in people's mouths, we didn't
really hurt anybody."*


> ?> ?
> On the bright side: Carly is still almost young; she has at least one more
> shot at it,
>
> ?That's the bright side? Carly said Silicon Valley companies should be
forced to engineer their products in such a way that the government can "work
around encryption" and she wants to use force to stop people from getting
abortions.


> >
> ?
> you said something to the effect of Bill Clinton?s blowjobs were none of
> Ken Starr?s damn business.  This is a puzzling commentary indeed
> considering that was Ken Starr?s only business:he was assigned as a special
> prosecutor.  That is what Inspectors General and special prosecutors do:
> investigate and prosecute.  Bill Clinton?s blowjobs were as much his
> business as Nixon?s audiotapes were the damn business of Archie Cox and his
> staff in 1974.


?Hmm, maybe the Nixon scandal and the Clinton scandal really are the same,
burglary is against the law and in the 1990's oral sex was against the law
even between husband and wife and certainly in a adulterous affair. But
it's odd we're talking about a scandal that happened 20 years ago, I can't
help but wonder if it came out that the wife of the Libertarian
?p?
residential candidate Mr.Whatshisname had oral sex 20 years ago you'd think
that was a important factor in the present election too.       ?

?As I understand it you think Ken Starr should be interested in
presidential blowjobs because it could lead to blackmail, but blackmail
will only work if bad things would come if something is revealed. So if it
became public what would the negative consequences be for the president and
from whom would they come from? From the president's wife demanding a
divorce? No it's been 20 years and they're still married. From the American
people? No, despite the "scandal" when Bill Clinton left office he was far
more popular than either Bush was when they left, and as time has gone on
Bill's popularity has only increased.

The truth is the only person Bill had to fear if the blowjob became known
was Ken Starr himself, and Ken Starr was investigating it because of
presidential fear of blackmail, and the only reason the president would be
afraid was because of Ken Starr. And the reason Ken Starr was investigating
...

?> ?
> those polygraphs can?t be fooled as far as I know.
>
> William Marston
? invented 2 things, the polygraph and Wonder Woman. I like Wonder Woman
better. If I was charged with a crime I'd refuse to take a polygraph unless
I was guilty and the police had a lot of evidence against me. If I was
innocent I'd never take a polygraph.  ?


? John K Clark?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/c32db17d/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Tue May 10 01:53:45 2016
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 11:53:45 +1000
Subject: [ExI] fun outsider's view on ai
In-Reply-To: <002b01d1aa01$4a1def20$de59cd60$@att.net>
References: <002b01d1aa01$4a1def20$de59cd60$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAH=2ypV2nOGCmR9fFH47EnkNx3zdds2e9gg7NGcd=eN-4CtKXw@mail.gmail.com>

On 10 May 2016 at 00:44, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
> Nothing particularly profound or insightful in this AI article, but it is
> good clean fun:
>
>
>
>
> https://aeon.co/essays/true-ai-is-both-logically-possible-and-utterly-implausible?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=6469cf0d50-Daily_Newsletter_9_May_20165_9_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-6469cf0d50-68957125
>
>
>
> He reminds me a little of Roger Penrose?s take on the subject from a long
> time ago: he introduces two schools of thought, pokes fun at both while
> offering little or no evidence or support, then reveals he is pretty much a
> follower of one of the two: the Church of AI-theists.
>
>
>
> There are plenty of AI-theists, but nowhere have I ever seen a really good
> argument for why we can never simulate a neuron and a dendrite and
> synapses.  Once we understand them well enough, we can write a sim of one.
> We already have sims of complicated systems, such as aircraft, nuclear
> plants and such.  So why not a brain cell?   And if so, why not two, and
> why not a connectome and why can we not simulate a brain?  I have been
> pondering that question for over 2 decades and have still never found a
> good reason.  That puts me in Floridi-dismissed Church of the
> Singularitarian.
>

Penrose's argument is that neurons utilise exotic physics which is
non-computable. If this were true, we would not be able to emulate neurons
with a computer. But there is no real evidence that it is true.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160510/a2aeae3d/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Tue May 10 02:11:17 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 19:11:17 -0700
Subject: [ExI] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFhDqNObyNV=3NLHcBOJBDQJgcG-2+1Kw_hVpJnHJZVTPw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFgJLT0KLJRF3LsE5B=bhTvsYdN0vDOt3tXStXeOHad+pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRr3YzLbWtXSXfEQWY6+d7e2jt1YbnGV1AdfKT23vxrKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjPFyUvTp5D=Pu_wg+_4nREP1LVhCd5h+Q47=kK0qbi6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNSCxXj5CWSg7pdhTFaXEgceQ-ixCbsHgEqn-NW__0hqog@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgcq0utW-YzJodV+GfWXfZ0o86g9-juq09XB_Wq5M7S-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNTkWMZqpTGBJJZ6DmuWduV4V-Y=hVGsdBu5FG_kopASZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF5CFkhYe1nNx_uTgkRNvmjAH+z3VdJObYe+-nXACHDcupFAKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRades8Fpza1yg5yPzf57bLSy3kAjq31ok-AT7DHGeO0w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjq=a_GNe3ww39aVQoZme_1x6S61nsbt3-v=ciXgUqGkQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNSHaawz+7-+n6bWALB=W0dACU5Sc5TiA+Xgp0F4C6mUzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhDqNObyNV=3NLHcBOJBDQJgcG-2+1Kw_hVpJnHJZVTPw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNQ_eyotvb6LvUkW3MVaPv8EVxL3bku+PTjp0d_mx+QdBA@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Tell me where did I lie.
>

"The references you adduce provide no information in support of FDA's
attack on vapes."

That's the main one.  You provided follow-up cherry picking a few points,
suggesting there was nothing else, but that statement said there was no
supporting information, yet there was.  In addition to the many health
problems noted, things like "The electronic cigarette cartridges that were
labeled as containing no nicotine had low levels of nicotine present in all
cartridges tested, except one." state that e-cigarettes tend to have false
advertising too, which would be reason enough to go after them.

That said, there were inaccuracies in the follow-ups you did provide.
(Though you were correct that the FDA memo suggests the nicotine in
e-cigarettes comes from tobacco - but again, there was far more in the memo
than that.)

"The BMJ article summarizes the low reliability of research on vapes"

The variability was in the e-cigarettes studied.  That of course causes
variability in the studies; it doesn't say the research itself isn't
reliable.

"the third one shows actually a reasonably good level of precision in
labeling of nicotine content of vapes"

Actually, the third one states, "Electronic cigarette solutions may have
nicotine concentrations that are significantly (i.e., 30%) different than
manufacturer claims."  So by its standards, there is not "a reasonably good
level of precision in labeling of nicotine content".

"Also, you are engaging in manipulative rhetoric ("garbage-quality
product")."

That may be your opinion (even if you try to frame it as objective fact),
but I was summarizing this from the FDA reference, backed up by the BHJ
study: "DPA's testing also suggested that quality control processes used to
manufacture these products are inconsistent or non-existent."  A complete
lack of quality control is garbage quality, relative to what is normally
expected for something meant to go in our bodies.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/7fb3a49f/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Tue May 10 02:27:23 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 22:27:23 -0400
Subject: [ExI] The upper limit on brain complexity
Message-ID: <CAJPayv1x3gY-sO92ej3W6F1VZbajCBWX=6agSWK4Cj78xaNu8g@mail.gmail.com>

We don't yet know what the brain's master learning algorithm is but we can
put upper limits on how complex that algorithm can be, and we know for a
fact it can't be all that complex. In the entire human genome there are
only 3 billion base pairs. There are 4 bases so each base can represent 2
bits, there are 8 bits per byte so that comes out to  750 meg. Just 750
meg!  And all that 750 meg certainly can be used just for the master
learning software algorithm, you've got to leave room for instructions on
how to build a human body as well as the brain hardware.  So the
instructions MUST contain wiring instructions such as "wire a neuron up
this way and then repeat that procedure exactly the same way 917 billion
times". And the 750 meg isn't even efficiently coded, there is a ridiculous
amount of redundancy in the human genome. So there is no way, absolutely no
way, the algorithm can be very complex, and if Evolution could find it then
it's just a matter of time before we do too.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/4f37f4db/attachment.html>

From brent.allsop at canonizer.com  Tue May 10 02:43:17 2016
From: brent.allsop at canonizer.com (Brent Allsop)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 20:43:17 -0600
Subject: [ExI] fun outsider's view on ai
In-Reply-To: <CAH=2ypV2nOGCmR9fFH47EnkNx3zdds2e9gg7NGcd=eN-4CtKXw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <002b01d1aa01$4a1def20$de59cd60$@att.net>
 <CAH=2ypV2nOGCmR9fFH47EnkNx3zdds2e9gg7NGcd=eN-4CtKXw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <424026dc-e502-4d5a-1392-400e087dcfaa@canonizer.com>


On 5/9/2016 7:53 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On 10 May 2016 at 00:44, spike <spike66 at att.net 
> <mailto:spike66 at att.net>> wrote:
>
>     Nothing particularly profound or insightful in this AI article,
>     but it is good clean fun:
>
>     https://aeon.co/essays/true-ai-is-both-logically-possible-and-utterly-implausible?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=6469cf0d50-Daily_Newsletter_9_May_20165_9_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-6469cf0d50-68957125
>
>     He reminds me a little of Roger Penrose?s take on the subject from
>     a long time ago: he introduces two schools of thought, pokes fun
>     at both while offering little or no evidence or support, then
>     reveals he is pretty much a follower of one of the two: the Church
>     of AI-theists.
>
>     There are plenty of AI-theists, but nowhere have I ever seen a
>     really good argument for why we can never simulate a neuron and a
>     dendrite and synapses.  Once we understand them well enough, we
>     can write a sim of one.  We already have sims of complicated
>     systems, such as aircraft, nuclear plants and such.  So why not a
>     brain cell?   And if so, why not two, and why not a connectome and
>     why can we not simulate a brain?  I have been pondering that
>     question for over 2 decades and have still never found a good
>     reason.  That puts me in Floridi-dismissed Church of the
>     Singularitarian.
>
>
> Penrose's argument is that neurons utilise exotic physics which is 
> non-computable. If this were true, we would not be able to emulate 
> neurons with a computer. But there is no real evidence that it is true.
> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou

And simulated neurons and dendrite synapses are surely possible, but not 
the point.  Sure a word like "red" can represent, and thereby simulate a 
redness quality, but it clearly does not have the quality it can 
represent.  And unless you know how to qualitatively interpret any 
abstract representation such as a word like "red"  you can't know what 
it does represent.  The same is true for any simulation of 
consciousness.  Sure, you can simulate any consciousness, and its 
qualities, but, again, unless you know how to interpret what it is 
representing, and simulating, you can't ,now, qualitatively what that 
simulation is qualitatively representing. After all, to me, red may be 
more like your green, for all we currently know.

Brent Allsop



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/d58ccd28/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Tue May 10 02:47:47 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 22:47:47 -0400
Subject: [ExI] fun outsider's view on ai
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEZBiyH2bdUV2iuaTkvDg0pqkTP4t5Da=KL0aOsR8JER=w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <002b01d1aa01$4a1def20$de59cd60$@att.net>
 <CAM5aL2dNPA71CjJ4-LDd8_At+F7jh_+FuCjfmktFBAnW3vK_AA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZBiyH2bdUV2iuaTkvDg0pqkTP4t5Da=KL0aOsR8JER=w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv21BysMSAveT9vkocZH=6Y+6uHPRRiR0Xgib3=r8UFPzw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at  William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:


> ?> ?
> I don't think that there is any magic in the neuron.  It's in the
> connections.
>

?I don't think there is any magic in the connections either. And I don't
think I know from the fundamentals of biology that there is a upper bound
on the amount of complexity in those connections ?and it's only 750 meg. Or
to say it more precisely, 750 meg is the most a human programmer would need
to provide to make a AI, the remaining complexity that would be needed the
AI could suck out of the environment in same way that a human baby does.

And it's probably a good deal less than 750 meg.

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/51dec25a/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Tue May 10 03:54:24 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 20:54:24 -0700
Subject: [ExI] fun outsider's view on ai
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEYT9uFuT9=kkM5RxG+j4DHx2-+=L7Myn0FdvSn_ik0gMA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <002b01d1aa01$4a1def20$de59cd60$@att.net>
 <CAM5aL2dNPA71CjJ4-LDd8_At+F7jh_+FuCjfmktFBAnW3vK_AA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZBiyH2bdUV2iuaTkvDg0pqkTP4t5Da=KL0aOsR8JER=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <013501d1aa48$54220d20$fc662760$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEYT9uFuT9=kkM5RxG+j4DHx2-+=L7Myn0FdvSn_ik0gMA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00ca01d1aa6f$a4e492b0$eeadb810$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace
?

 

>?OK, now I am getting somewhere.  At the start I assume you define just what it is that you want it to do.  What the whole process seems to me to be is to create a machine that can duplicate a human, only it is faster, not different in quality in any way. (Is this correct?)  And that's because we can't think of any way to think other than human because we are human and limited by that?  BillW

 

 

Not necessarily faster than a human, but perhaps more scalable.  We don?t know for sure what it will do.  If we manage to create a sim of a brain, we can be pretty sure it will be slower than humans, because of the signal latency inherent in running a bunch of processors in parallel.

 

We have no concept of a machine which can come up with an idea then code it in software.  But we are living inside a machine that does exactly that.  So? we can use existing machines to try to create a simulation of a human brain, then see if we can get it to write software, and if so, can it optimize itself.

 

Human brains don?t really scale, but if we could sim a small brain, such as a nematode, then we could perhaps sim the brain of a bee, a mouse, a human, and perhaps we could keep scaling it right on up.

 

We don?t know what will happen. 

 

spike  

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/293f996b/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Tue May 10 04:54:46 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 21:54:46 -0700
Subject: [ExI] s&p 500 growth, was: RE:
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv1fVnj50yjYA2aHYyWohvDLTAVQwWRHJj12ptz2udq2Xw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv28qXEe=VAPzEbibT6CqbqxDFO68h-T-vew=40Y3eMSWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <003f01d1a989$4b50df60$e1f29e20$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1Bj20bTje_2k7nEUKbN4HLAL5nyvzCWaWbXdfqCWobmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00db01d1a997$b6ee9560$24cbc020$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0V5_YG1AxPO6uUjPLWyi96T+zgfkQhYjpDPZ8p=9tnyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <014e01d1aa1a$a8f42820$fadc7860$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1fVnj50yjYA2aHYyWohvDLTAVQwWRHJj12ptz2udq2Xw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00f201d1aa78$13d971b0$3b8c5510$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark
?

 

>>?That is what Inspectors General and special prosecutors do: investigate and prosecute.  Bill Clinton?s blowjobs were as much his business as Nixon?s audiotapes were the damn business of Archie Cox and his staff in 1974.

 

?>?Hmm, maybe the Nixon scandal and the Clinton scandal really are the same, burglary is against the law and in the 1990's oral sex was against the law?

 

John, it isn?t the blowjob.  It really isn?t, they don?t care about that.  The crime was trying to cover it up by not reporting it to the security people, and when legitimately questioned, perjury.  A top level security clearance holder had placed himself in a position to be blackmailed.  When questioned, he lied, which is perjury, which ja is illegal, was then, is now.  If the security people know a clearance holder did something for which he could be blackmailed, they set up a team to watch and listen to the girlfriend.  They make sure she doesn?t attempt blackmail.  They would probably tap her phone, hack into her server, watch everything incoming and outgoing.  In her case, they would have caught her, for she actually did try blackmail, but the security team didn?t know about that until later, for she confessed it under oath.

 

Chronology: blowjob.  She talks.  Story makes it back to security, they ask about it, Clinton lies, they drop the matter.  Later she attempts blackmail.  He refuses to see her, she carries out the threat, produces the evidence.  Now they know Clinton perjured himself.  Ken Starr is assigned as special prosecutor.  Hell how could he fail?  He had sworn testimony, with the infamous is-is comment, he had the DNA evidence.  What could Ken Starr have done, assuming he wanted to let this go?  Think about it: he is hired to prosecute a crime, and he had incontrovertible evidence.  What could he do?  Just look the other way?  In what sense would this not be fraud and complicity on his part?  Can we seriously say it was none of his damn business?  That was his only business.  That was his assignment.  What could he do?

 

 

>??As I understand it you think Ken Starr should be interested in presidential blowjobs because it could lead to blackmail, but blackmail will only work if bad things would come if something is revealed?

 

No, Ken Starr was interested in perjury, not blowjobs.  Something was revealed, by Monica?s blue dress.  There is no way Ken Starr or anyone could have suppressed that.  Oh how the press had a field day with that.  It was like kids getting out of school for the summer, oh the joy of newfound freedom.  Suddenly all these news people were free to write stories with all kinds of words they never thought they could ever use in the line of duty.  They did so, cheerfully, repeatedly.  That must have been a fun time to be a news writer.  The stories had such irrational exuberance. 

 

>? So if it became public what would the negative consequences be for the president and from whom would they come from? From the president's wife demanding a divorce? 

 

No, from the senate demanding impeachment for perjury.

 

>?The truth is the only person Bill had to fear if the blowjob became known was Ken Starr himself? John K Clark?

 

Ja, he definitely had Ken Starr to fear.  But it isn?t lawman?s fault if he actually catches the bad guy.  Ken Starr did the job he was hired to do.  But it wasn?t the blowjob John, it was perjury he was looking for.  Blowjobs are legal.  Perjury is big big trouble.  That causes anyone else to lose their clearance.  We didn?t know (and still don?t) what happens when a president does something that would cause anyone else to have his clearance suspended (such as perjury.)  Presidents need a clearance.  Otherwise his own military brass may not legally brief him.

 

The weirdness persisted, until the senate finally decided perjury about a blowjob is kind of a special-case minor-league perjury that doesn?t really count.  Since the vote went along party lines, we set up a worrisome precedent: any attempt to prosecute Bill became part of a vast right wing conspiracy, a story Hillary is still holding to this day, a story she stuck with even after the blue dress.

 

OK so are there any other kinds of perjury that doesn?t really count?  And if the person on the giving end of that blowjob commits or attempts blackmail, does it not count?  Another side note: Kennedy misbehaved while in office, the nude swimming and so forth, but the security people knew about it.  Johnson boned a secretary in the oval, but the security people knew of that one too.  In both cases, they watched and made sure those cases didn?t get out of hand.

 

So then, what if we go ahead and say we need some special rules for the president in these matters?  What about the VP?  The SecState would not need those special considerations, since he or she is appointed by the president and can be replaced if they lose their clearance, for such things as? carelessness.  But the VP cannot be fired by the president.  So those who need security briefings would include at the least: the president, the VP, the SecState, the senate majority leader and the speaker of the house.  Of those, the president can only remove one: the SecState.

 

By my reasoning, we have a situation where the POTUS should have known the SecState was doing wrong.  He is responsible for that position, since he can fire a SecState.  We know Barack sent email to Hillary on the unsecured server.  We don?t know if he was aware she never used a secured server.  But that question will eventually be answered perhaps.  It raises another interesting pair of questions: how could a SecState possibly do her job if there was no legal means to communicate classified information?  Who in the State Department knew of this situation?

 

We might end up with yet another odd logic loop.  What if evidence suggests Barack knew Hillary was handling State Department business on an unsecured server.  We could end up in a situation where Barack issues a Ford-style pre-emptive pardon to Hillary in exchange for a promise that if she gets elected, she issues a pre-emptive pardon to him for complicity in mishandling State Department messages.  That would be a hell of a note.  Sheesh, had the Republicans chosen aaaaaany reasonable candidate, even recruiting the blank stare guy (Lincoln?) and convincing him to switch to Republican, this case would likely have been over by now.  But the way things turned out, our nation is in peril.  Our next leader is being chosen by the FBI.

 

But while we are on the topic of special considerations for the SecState, does it apply to her staff?  If we find out who was getting messages across the gap to an unsecured server, what happens to him or her?  Does the staffer go to prison for passing sensitive information to an unsecured server?  If so, do we go ahead and extend a blanket pardon to a group of conspirators?  Wouldn?t there be plenty of people in the State Department who either knew or should have known?  Do they all get pardons?

 

In the end, the question can only get messier.  I must conclude that ours is a nation of laws, and our government officials are obligated to follow them, as are the citizens.  In any case, it is possible our wager will be settled before 8 November. 

 

spike

 

? 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/99614e68/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Tue May 10 07:14:31 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 00:14:31 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <009201d1aa2d$01685500$0438ff00$@att.net>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhEzbHjj1FUta1qQkdECjYeMkN1FAEa-GQCDNGTX0UW=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0qsydcP=GWZpUYwJ1ibuKum1VMo0Tn=7BHLDeqy=XY9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhv-EhzJC=Cg5q5MhVgX-hRUbVsZcx88khbrTnKtuDopQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNQe4sxNDsu=7xzMfJBxeg6m452yrHt0shB2hKtcBxN88w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0c3BV1MmvY7CTi1tjVctsCFmZpj3ay+aZ7f0F7_Ubugg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFj48pq1oEUxa2gwcmQFeJG54g=ALNmryHn+pt_+NQCGoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNQZu6vH_cW3j_sWbywUWBudE+eFgqVbh=dQBXWMJJ_UwQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <009201d1aa2d$01685500$0438ff00$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNSs+T245KU0cezL6SMMCZQXHBG_q1o53W=Z4UAMGGXojg@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 12:57 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Adrian Tymes
> *Sent:* Monday, May 09, 2016 12:28 PM
> *To:* ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>; rafal at smigrodzki.org
> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Donald Trump
>
>
>
> On May 9, 2016 12:20 PM, "Rafal Smigrodzki" <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>? But to make somebody think that Clinton is not a felonious traitor?
>
> >?Takes simple observation of the facts.  She never was either a felon or
> a traitor, even before Trump came along? Adrian
>
> Indeed sir?  Did not Mrs. Clinton write a leaked email which explicitly
> ordered a subordinate to commit a felony?  To ??remove the security
> markings and send it unclassified?? is a felonious act, as is ordering or
> requesting a subordinate to do so, which is to commit a felony.
>
Did she?  I heard this was about talking points - some political speech to
be served in an unclassified context.  I have also heard she had the
authority to declassify said material.

Now, Trump (since this email thread still has him in the subject)?
http://deadstate.org/donald-trump-could-face-felony-charges-after-allegedly-bribing-ben-carson-for-endorsement/

I wonder, if you go back to the 2000 & 2004 elections, how many felonies
were committed on both sides?  (Suspecting those will prove more fertile
than 2008 & 2012.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160510/344088fc/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Tue May 10 13:52:37 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 15:52:37 +0200
Subject: [ExI] The upper limit on brain complexity
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv1x3gY-sO92ej3W6F1VZbajCBWX=6agSWK4Cj78xaNu8g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv1x3gY-sO92ej3W6F1VZbajCBWX=6agSWK4Cj78xaNu8g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5731E7A5.6050202@aleph.se>

Yup, agree with John here. Of course, a simple genetic program can still 
"cheat" by getting existing physics and biochemistry to do complex 
things like assemble structures, but the truth remains that the recipe 
for a mind can be surprisingly small.

On a mildly related note, Scott Aaronson has a new cool result:
http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2725
There exist a one-tape, two-symbol Turing machine with 7,918 states, 
whose behavior (when run on a blank tape) can never be proven from the 
usual axioms of set theory. This is a constructive upper bound on how 
small TMs can be and yet produce profoundly nontrivial behavior - there 
are surely simpler ones, but this is a machine that fits into the 
appendix of a paper.


On 2016-05-10 04:27, John Clark wrote:
> We don't yet know what the brain's master learning algorithm is but we 
> can put upper limits on how complex that algorithm can be, and we know 
> for a fact it can't be all that complex. In the entire human genome 
> there are only 3 billion base pairs. There are 4 bases so each base 
> can represent 2bits, there are 8 bits per byte so that comes out to 
>  750 meg. Just 750 meg!  And all that 750 meg certainly can be used 
> just for the master learning software algorithm, you've got to leave 
> room for instructions on how to build a human body as well as the 
> brain hardware.  So the instructions MUST contain wiring instructions 
> such as "wire a neuron up this way and then repeat that procedure 
> exactly the same way 917 billion times". And the 750 meg isn't even 
> efficiently coded, there is a ridiculous amount of redundancy in the 
> human genome. So there is no way, absolutely no way, the algorithm can 
> be very complex, and if Evolution could find it then it's just a 
> matter of time before we do too.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

-- 
Anders Sandberg
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Oxford University

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160510/d1ce1e29/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Tue May 10 14:50:48 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 07:50:48 -0700
Subject: [ExI] fbi primary, was:  RE:  Donald Trump
Message-ID: <007201d1aacb$5781c360$06854a20$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes



 

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 12:57 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net> > wrote:

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org <mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org> ] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes
?

>>?Indeed sir?  Did not Mrs. Clinton write a leaked email which explicitly ordered a subordinate to commit a felony?  To ??remove the security markings and send it unclassified?? is a felonious act, as is ordering or requesting a subordinate to do so, which is to commit a felony.

>?Did she?

I think so.  No one is claiming that email is a forgery.  We do need to think about what happens if a pile of yoga starts being leaked and we don?t know how much of it is genuine.  It is easy to foresee crowds of unemployed Nigerian spammers will turn to writing phony Clinton yoga email and offering archives for sale.

Heeeeeeyyyyyy, that?s an idea!  You know some yahoos would fall for that.  Big money to be made here.

>? I heard this was about talking points - some political speech to be served in an unclassified context?

Ja, the blowjob argument.  The subject of Bill?s perjury turned out to be the senate?s argument for letting him go free.  Now I am already hearing similar arguments regarding the subject of the leaked email.  However that isn?t the charge.  In Bill?s case he was charged with perjury, not receiving a BJ, or being a conspiracy victim (according to sworn testimony, Monica couldn?t have gotten his explicit consent (he was on the phone with a senator at the time the blue dress was besmirched (this makes him a rape victim (uh? sorta.))))  The charge in Hillary?s case mishandling State Department information and ordering a subordinate to do so, which isn?t a function of the contents of the document.  

>? I have also heard she had the authority to declassify said material?

We (the voters) would have bought that argument, but to perform the declassification would have required her to log on to the server in which the document existed and follow the procedure for doing that.  This she could not do, for we have learned she never activated her secure server.  Removing security markings and headings is illegal for anyone, including the author, including all persons authorized to declassify the document, including the president and everyone else.  There is a procedure for declassifying documents.  Hillary could not have done it for she did not even have the password to her own secure server.

Compounding the problem is that in this case she would be requesting a subordinate to illegally declassify a document or portion of a document, and he definitely did not have the authority to do that, with or without orders.  He could not have carried out the procedure without the requisite codes and he could not have legally had those codes and passwords.  He was being requested to do an illegal shortcut.  He physically could not carry out the act, regardless of legality, because of where he was located (in an area where he could access the server in question (they make sure there are no unguarded printers, no unguarded fax machines (all for a good reason (so bad guys cannot compromise the material on those servers (and why no one accidentally compromising anything (it would be analogous to accidentally breaking into Fort Knox and accidentally slipping a brick of gold into one?s pocket.))))))

Again we are back to the original question: do we consider this a special case?  And if so, should it have extended to Nixon?  Could not he have argued that it was a matter of national security to listen to what Ted Kennedy was plotting?  So his team bugged the offices, but in this case it was OK?  Do we make special case arguments for sufficiently high ranking government officials?  Which ones?  Which rules are to be suspended?

>?I wonder, if you go back to the 2000 & 2004 elections, how many felonies were committed?

 

We are dead.

 

>? on both sides?

 

There are more than two sides.  But we are still dead.

 

spike

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160510/8ac00721/attachment.html>

From jasonresch at gmail.com  Tue May 10 16:24:26 2016
From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 11:24:26 -0500
Subject: [ExI] s&p 500 growth, was: RE:
In-Reply-To: <018301d1aa1d$e1750090$a45f01b0$@att.net>
References: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv28qXEe=VAPzEbibT6CqbqxDFO68h-T-vew=40Y3eMSWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <003f01d1a989$4b50df60$e1f29e20$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1Bj20bTje_2k7nEUKbN4HLAL5nyvzCWaWbXdfqCWobmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00db01d1a997$b6ee9560$24cbc020$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0V5_YG1AxPO6uUjPLWyi96T+zgfkQhYjpDPZ8p=9tnyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+BCJUhn0qbY8+eFWm6LXh+0bpQgqJP=i4Y3597Dv1V9H7LBZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <018301d1aa1d$e1750090$a45f01b0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CA+BCJUiXp6sdSnETfc-xv7j4J=ZtZzTMJji9MKFBFp9g4a96mQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 1:09 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Jason Resch
> *Sent:* Monday, May 09, 2016 9:01 AM
> *To:* ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] s&p 500 growth, was: RE:
>
>
>
> John McAfee (a silicon valley CEO) is running.
>
>
>
> http://www.bealibertarian.com/
>
>
>
> Jason
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Jason, ja.  But McAffee is even older than Hillary Clinton (people do
> sometimes survive for that long in these modern times) and that drunk
> driving while in possession of a loaded shootin? arn last year could hurt
> his chances at the Libertarian convention.
>
>
>
> If one gets arrested for drunken misbehavior in Tennessee of all places,
> that?s pretty good evidence the drunken misbehavior was distinctive enough
> that the local constables were able to isolate one?s case from the other
> locals doing likewise.  I have a hard time imagining a vast down-wing
> conspiracy being responsible for the whole incident.
>
>
>
> But, other than that?
>
>
>
> {8^D
>
>
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>


According to McAfee he was impaired due to a prescription drug he had
recently taken for the first time, it was not alcohol intoxication:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4479233616001/uncut-john-mcafee-on-why-hes-running-for-president/?#sp=show-clips
(10 minutes in)

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160510/93fabcc5/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Tue May 10 16:12:14 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 09:12:14 -0700
Subject: [ExI] we are not alone...
Message-ID: <009001d1aad6$b7a28620$26e79260$@att.net>

 

No, SETI didn?t discover a signal.  These are polls released by Huffington less than an hour ago.  We are not the only ones who think these major candidates would make a terrible president.  These numbers are stunning. 

 

 

 



 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-bad-ratings_us_5731d2a6e4b0bc9cb047e596

 

I would have been counted in the 43% columns for both.

 

And yet, we keep being told a third party cannot win, regardless.  We are told we will elect one or the other, when their terrible numbers punched a hole in the glass ceiling for both.  

 

We are dead.  We might as well just meet down at Alcor, hand Max our money and dive into the dewar head first.  

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160510/723e4b42/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 27908 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160510/723e4b42/attachment.jpg>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Tue May 10 16:47:53 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 11:47:53 -0500
Subject: [ExI] we are not alone...
In-Reply-To: <009001d1aad6$b7a28620$26e79260$@att.net>
References: <009001d1aad6$b7a28620$26e79260$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZTfku4TTzJ8V4ssRniUrtzWc33NnzRjgZM2z1wV41FBg@mail.gmail.com>

No, SETI didn?t discover a signal.  These are polls released by Huffington
less than an hour ago.  We are not the only ones who think these major
candidates would make a terrible president.  These numbers are stunning.
spike

Trouble is, any third party needs to be in gear extremely fast and get
millions upon million of dollars asap if not before.  I would vote for some
third party even if i did not like him or her, just to shake things up in
DC.

If Hilary wins we will see some, but not a lot of trouble.  If she wants to
be a hawk, well now's the time for Congress to put a stop to president's
starting undeclared wars.  If Trump wins, we will see his own party against
him - it just might be hilarious!  If he wins we might see the same thing
as with Clinton:  putting stops to the power of the president to do things
without Congress.  And that's a good thing.

bill w

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 11:12 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
> No, SETI didn?t discover a signal.  These are polls released by Huffington
> less than an hour ago.  We are not the only ones who think these major
> candidates would make a terrible president.  These numbers are stunning.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-bad-ratings_us_5731d2a6e4b0bc9cb047e596
>
>
>
> I would have been counted in the 43% columns for both.
>
>
>
> And yet, we keep being told a third party cannot win, regardless.  We are
> told we will elect one or the other, when their terrible numbers punched a
> hole in the glass ceiling for both.
>
>
>
> We are dead.  We might as well just meet down at Alcor, hand Max our money
> and dive into the dewar head first.
>
>
>
> spike
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160510/88c907d9/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 27908 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160510/88c907d9/attachment.jpg>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Tue May 10 16:56:55 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 11:56:55 -0500
Subject: [ExI] s&p 500 growth, was: RE:
In-Reply-To: <CA+BCJUiXp6sdSnETfc-xv7j4J=ZtZzTMJji9MKFBFp9g4a96mQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv28qXEe=VAPzEbibT6CqbqxDFO68h-T-vew=40Y3eMSWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <003f01d1a989$4b50df60$e1f29e20$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1Bj20bTje_2k7nEUKbN4HLAL5nyvzCWaWbXdfqCWobmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00db01d1a997$b6ee9560$24cbc020$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0V5_YG1AxPO6uUjPLWyi96T+zgfkQhYjpDPZ8p=9tnyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+BCJUhn0qbY8+eFWm6LXh+0bpQgqJP=i4Y3597Dv1V9H7LBZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <018301d1aa1d$e1750090$a45f01b0$@att.net>
 <CA+BCJUiXp6sdSnETfc-xv7j4J=ZtZzTMJji9MKFBFp9g4a96mQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZvX2HwYL8=MZDAeKkbLBZ1QCCLOvNV45zW3G1OzAWu7A@mail.gmail.com>

If I was charged with a crime I'd refuse to take a polygraph unless I was
guilty and the police had a lot of evidence against me. If I was innocent
I'd never take a polygraph.  ?


? John K Clark?

This is really smart.  If you were guilty you should take some yoga lessons
and lessons in biofeedback so that you can learn to control your heartrate,
anxiety, etc.  Maybe we all should.  But refusing a polygraph does not look
good to jurors.  The damned thing is just not reliable anyway, and thus not
valid, so it's not accepted as anything definitive, but people believe it
anyway (what else would fit into that sentence?  Thousands of things.)

bill w

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Jason Resch <jasonresch at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 1:09 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On
>> Behalf Of *Jason Resch
>> *Sent:* Monday, May 09, 2016 9:01 AM
>> *To:* ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] s&p 500 growth, was: RE:
>>
>>
>>
>> John McAfee (a silicon valley CEO) is running.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.bealibertarian.com/
>>
>>
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Jason, ja.  But McAffee is even older than Hillary Clinton (people do
>> sometimes survive for that long in these modern times) and that drunk
>> driving while in possession of a loaded shootin? arn last year could hurt
>> his chances at the Libertarian convention.
>>
>>
>>
>> If one gets arrested for drunken misbehavior in Tennessee of all places,
>> that?s pretty good evidence the drunken misbehavior was distinctive enough
>> that the local constables were able to isolate one?s case from the other
>> locals doing likewise.  I have a hard time imagining a vast down-wing
>> conspiracy being responsible for the whole incident.
>>
>>
>>
>> But, other than that?
>>
>>
>>
>> {8^D
>>
>>
>>
>> spike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> According to McAfee he was impaired due to a prescription drug he had
> recently taken for the first time, it was not alcohol intoxication:
>
>
> http://video.foxnews.com/v/4479233616001/uncut-john-mcafee-on-why-hes-running-for-president/?#sp=show-clips
> (10 minutes in)
>
> Jason
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160510/c07d8867/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Tue May 10 16:58:09 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 11:58:09 -0500
Subject: [ExI] offshore leaks database
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEbi7rrpAuTLa4ENeE-nAAP-21TwiNtS2eug+ChjMy742A@mail.gmail.com>

https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/?utm_source=Daily+Pnut&utm_campaign=b8d3ec238b-Daily_Pnut_May_10_New_Template5_9_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b3e2710bf5-b8d3ec238b-279760289
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160510/2b3da246/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Tue May 10 17:12:13 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 10:12:13 -0700
Subject: [ExI] we are not alone...
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEZTfku4TTzJ8V4ssRniUrtzWc33NnzRjgZM2z1wV41FBg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <009001d1aad6$b7a28620$26e79260$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEZTfku4TTzJ8V4ssRniUrtzWc33NnzRjgZM2z1wV41FBg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <001f01d1aadf$1942c450$4bc84cf0$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace



 

>?Trouble is, any third party needs to be in gear extremely fast and get millions upon million of dollars asap if not before.  I would vote for some third party even if i did not like him or her, just to shake things up in DC.

 

>?If Hilary wins we will see some, but not a lot of trouble.  If she wants to be a hawk, well now's the time for Congress to put a stop to president's starting undeclared wars.  If Trump wins, we will see his own party against him - it just might be hilarious!  If he wins we might see the same thing as with Clinton:  putting stops to the power of the president to do things without Congress.  And that's a good thing.  bill w

 

 

Thanks BillW, truer words are seldom spoken, or written.  And soon they may become illegal.  We are being told there is a multi-million dollar PAC called Stop the Smears, aimed at those who would post uncomfortable or unauthorized comments about a political leader to social media.  The article doesn?t actually say, but it is easy enough to imagine both major party candidates with something analogous to this.  I have certainly posted online more than my share of negative comments about both of these, so I am now probably on the target list for both major candidates.

 

Even I recognize the Libertarian party is a longshot under the very best of circumstances.  It requires the masses to think independently, something the masses are not known to do.  As Adrian pointed out, a serious run requires huge piles of money, but the LP doesn?t have that.  But there is something else important.

 

Suppose in one of those really oddball years such as this one, the LP candidate makes a hell of a showing, wins 40% of the popular vote and the two majors each get say 30%, wooohooo!  Ja?  Nein.  The electoral college convenes, then it would logically follow that the LP candidate gets about 40% of those votes, with the other two majors sharing 30%.  Wooohooo?  Nein.  If no candidate gets a majority in the EC, then the states get to choose the president, one vote per state.  States are controlled by either Democrat or Republican governors and senators, almost all of them.  Suppose they would choose a guy who isn?t either party?  I don?t either.

 

So, good chance the LP candidate could win a plurality in both the popular vote and the EC, and still lose the office.

 

Either way:

 

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-digital-trolling-20160506-snap-htmlstory.html

 

And we can be sure Trump probably has something vaguely analogous to this too.  So? libertarians, greens, commies, all #NeverTrump and #NeverHillary, all those wacky little parties no one ever heard of, all are dead.  To even suggest a third way online is likely to retroactively become hate speech (as did the YouTube video in September 2012) or somehow not covered under the first amendment.  We are so dead.

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160510/d54bf0bd/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Tue May 10 18:31:57 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 13:31:57 -0500
Subject: [ExI] we are not alone...
In-Reply-To: <001f01d1aadf$1942c450$4bc84cf0$@att.net>
References: <009001d1aad6$b7a28620$26e79260$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEZTfku4TTzJ8V4ssRniUrtzWc33NnzRjgZM2z1wV41FBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <001f01d1aadf$1942c450$4bc84cf0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZZSYKuaC=TfbAZax6jnF_MiKZojLq58TK+Jd2BJ2Kyvw@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks BillW, truer words are seldom spoken, or written.  And soon they may
become illegal.  We are being told there is a multi-million dollar PAC
called Stop the Smears, aimed at those who would post uncomfortable or
unauthorized comments about a political leader to social media.  spike

Are we talking about a posse of morons who think little of free speech?
How can they think they can get away with it?  There is nothing more
American than trashing people in government.  Do they think they can stop
the other party from saying anything negative?  This is way beyond nuts.

You say 'we are being told' - who is being told?  Who is telling?

Oh well, there are always going to be people who want to control other
people - we call them authoritarians, and our group is anathema to them.
Maybe we'll be attacked.  Wouldn't that be great?

bill w

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 12:12 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On
> Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace
>
>
>
> >?Trouble is, any third party needs to be in gear extremely fast and get
> millions upon million of dollars asap if not before.  I would vote for some
> third party even if i did not like him or her, just to shake things up in
> DC.
>
>
>
> >?If Hilary wins we will see some, but not a lot of trouble.  If she
> wants to be a hawk, well now's the time for Congress to put a stop to
> president's starting undeclared wars.  If Trump wins, we will see his own
> party against him - it just might be hilarious!  If he wins we might see
> the same thing as with Clinton:  putting stops to the power of the
> president to do things without Congress.  And that's a good thing.  bill w
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks BillW, truer words are seldom spoken, or written.  And soon they
> may become illegal.  We are being told there is a multi-million dollar PAC
> called Stop the Smears, aimed at those who would post uncomfortable or
> unauthorized comments about a political leader to social media.  The
> article doesn?t actually say, but it is easy enough to imagine both major
> party candidates with something analogous to this.  I have certainly posted
> online more than my share of negative comments about both of these, so I am
> now probably on the target list for both major candidates.
>
>
>
> Even I recognize the Libertarian party is a longshot under the very best
> of circumstances.  It requires the masses to think independently, something
> the masses are not known to do.  As Adrian pointed out, a serious run
> requires huge piles of money, but the LP doesn?t have that.  But there is
> something else important.
>
>
>
> Suppose in one of those really oddball years such as this one, the LP
> candidate makes a hell of a showing, wins 40% of the popular vote and the
> two majors each get say 30%, wooohooo!  Ja?  Nein.  The electoral college
> convenes, then it would logically follow that the LP candidate gets about
> 40% of those votes, with the other two majors sharing 30%.  Wooohooo?
> Nein.  If no candidate gets a majority in the EC, then the states get to
> choose the president, one vote per state.  States are controlled by either
> Democrat or Republican governors and senators, almost all of them.  Suppose
> they would choose a guy who isn?t either party?  I don?t either.
>
>
>
> So, good chance the LP candidate could win a plurality in both the popular
> vote and the EC, and still lose the office.
>
>
>
> Either way:
>
>
>
>
> http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-digital-trolling-20160506-snap-htmlstory.html
>
>
>
> And we can be sure Trump probably has something vaguely analogous to this
> too.  So? libertarians, greens, commies, all #NeverTrump and #NeverHillary,
> all those wacky little parties no one ever heard of, all are dead.  To even
> suggest a third way online is likely to retroactively become hate speech
> (as did the YouTube video in September 2012) or somehow not covered under
> the first amendment.  We are so dead.
>
>
>
> spike
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160510/f28de9c8/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Tue May 10 19:19:31 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 12:19:31 -0700
Subject: [ExI] s&p 500 growth, was: RE:
In-Reply-To: <CA+BCJUhn0qbY8+eFWm6LXh+0bpQgqJP=i4Y3597Dv1V9H7LBZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv28qXEe=VAPzEbibT6CqbqxDFO68h-T-vew=40Y3eMSWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <003f01d1a989$4b50df60$e1f29e20$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1Bj20bTje_2k7nEUKbN4HLAL5nyvzCWaWbXdfqCWobmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00db01d1a997$b6ee9560$24cbc020$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0V5_YG1AxPO6uUjPLWyi96T+zgfkQhYjpDPZ8p=9tnyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+BCJUhn0qbY8+eFWm6LXh+0bpQgqJP=i4Y3597Dv1V9H7LBZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNRm9-cdAdhDNMgoFf6xGru+ysO9hAWzpyjUAGY_PY6mjQ@mail.gmail.com>

On May 9, 2016 9:01 AM, "Jason Resch" <jasonresch at gmail.com> wrote:
> John McAfee (a silicon valley CEO) is running.
>
> http://www.bealibertarian.com/

Good luck to him even getting the Libertarian nomination.  But if he does,
he's got at least a little name recognition from the recent Apple vs FBI
brouhaha, let alone the security software much of the public has at least
read about.  He might just possibly have a chance at raising the necessary
funds to buy enough media to break into mainstream consideration.

If all that does happen, how would he pull away from Trump, those voters
who think they have to vote for whoever the Republican nominee is just
because he is the Republican nominee?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160510/ca54363a/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Tue May 10 19:25:11 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 12:25:11 -0700
Subject: [ExI] s&p 500 growth, was: RE:
In-Reply-To: <014e01d1aa1a$a8f42820$fadc7860$@att.net>
References: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv28qXEe=VAPzEbibT6CqbqxDFO68h-T-vew=40Y3eMSWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <003f01d1a989$4b50df60$e1f29e20$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1Bj20bTje_2k7nEUKbN4HLAL5nyvzCWaWbXdfqCWobmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00db01d1a997$b6ee9560$24cbc020$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0V5_YG1AxPO6uUjPLWyi96T+zgfkQhYjpDPZ8p=9tnyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <014e01d1aa1a$a8f42820$fadc7860$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNSc-URH+oe4=ML7qZLF8+d-Dd7DmS2iyiW_H4syf2Sb5w@mail.gmail.com>

On May 9, 2016 11:00 AM, "spike" <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> I am absolutely astonished he would risk a multi-million-dollar dream job
running the company for whatever he was doing back there in the old
soundproof room.

Love and lust sometimes happen among those who trust each other (such as
from having worked closely together for a while) and are otherwise
compatible.  It can be a challenge to handle it appropriately in cases like
this.  (Assuming hanky panky was in fact happening.)

What was that old adage?  "Don't dip your pen in the company inkwell"?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160510/f8669d2d/attachment.html>

From gsantostasi at gmail.com  Tue May 10 19:47:48 2016
From: gsantostasi at gmail.com (Giovanni Santostasi)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 15:47:48 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <572E9C31.30200@gmail.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <572E9C31.30200@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAL+RtPew5wYeL3RkpidyPtzKfoMT9E3Zj7mR5+qOvNSF4KX-rg@mail.gmail.com>

Samantha,
The problem is not the wealth inequality is created by people like Elon
Musk. He is the exception. In fact, it would be fine if wealth was gained
in this way by creating real value in the world.
Most wealth though is in the hands of people that have inherited without
any personal merit and the wealth is not used to create further value but
for speculation and rent seeking.
Look up the research on this. These agents are really parasites on the
system.
Giovanni


On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at gmail.com> wrote:

> Income inequality is a complete non-problem.  There is no reason in
> reality that the relative income of intelligent agents (people for now)
> should be confined to some arbitrary narrow range relative to one another.
> Wealth is created, it is not static.  So if Elon Musk creates $billions in
> value we should cheer like mad because that much more value now exist in
> the world we share.  And the $billions that are counted as his personal net
> worth are a small fraction of the actual value he created.   Do we want to
> limit an Elon Musk to no more value creation than some arbitrary factor
> times the average value created by persons of his generation and society?
> What for?
>
> Or do we want to limit the amount of the wealth he produced that he can
> personally control?  Who would we rather control some resources, someone
> who has shown they have the Midas touch turning a given quantity of
> resources into the gold of more resources or someone that has shown no such
> thing and seems to somehow always consume approximately as much as they
> produce?   I would want rationally to see that person expert in increasing
> value/wealth to have as much of it to multiply as possible.    And of
> course the private space program and the real viable electric car would not
> exist without some real wealth in the hands of a few with sufficient vision
> and skill.
>
> Under accelerating change I would expect and increase in income/wealth
> inequality.   Technology is a force multiplier.  Those who avail themselves
> of it earlier and/or better will have their efforts multiplied more,
> including efforts that have economic consequences.
>
> In reality unequal actions do not produce equal results.   This is nothing
> to cry over and certainly nothing to impose limitations on anyone over.
>
> Or is the perceived "problem" that more money might buy more political
> favor?  Well the answer to that is that government's should have no favors
> to sell as legitimate government is severely limited in what it can exert
> major power over.     It is not the fault of the wealthy that government
> has so gotten out of hand that it controls aspects of about everything in
> our lives.   Nor that it has so drained the economy that despite how much
> it has taken for so long it has put (US) us nearly $20 trillion in debt as
> well and over $100 trillion if you counted unfunded liabilities (promise of
> bread and circuses tomorrow).
>
> - samantha
>
>
> On 05/07/2016 03:21 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Bill Hibbard < <test at ssec.wisc.edu>
> test at ssec.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
> ? > ?
>> He
>> ? [Dumb Donald]?
>> is one of many symptoms of a global phenomenon of
>> social disruption caused by technological change. In
>> ?
>> particular, lots of people are not needed by the
>> ?
>> market, or no longer needed at the price they used to
>> get
>
>
> ?Yes.?
>
> ? There are 7 billion people on the Earth and in 2014 the richest 85
> people had as much money as the poorest 3.5 billion did, ?in 2015 the
> richest 80 did, in 2016 the richest 62 did. This trend does not promote
> social cohesion or stability and if the Libertarian Party wishes to gain
> power its going to have to address it. I'm not making a moral judgement
> just stating a fact.
>
> ? > ?
>> Trump is just a symptom
>
>
> ? Dumb Donald?
>  is more than that,
> ? T?
> rump is a
> ?
> existential threat
> ? .?
>
> ? > ?
>> My bet is that the world will survive the Trump
>> ?
>> vs Clinton election.
>
>
> ?I agree, we'll probably survive, the betting market only gives Trump a
> 23.5% chance of winning.?
>
> ? John K Clark?
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing listextropy-chat at lists.extropy.orghttp://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160510/8b3154fc/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Tue May 10 20:08:34 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 15:08:34 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAL+RtPew5wYeL3RkpidyPtzKfoMT9E3Zj7mR5+qOvNSF4KX-rg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <572E9C31.30200@gmail.com>
 <CAL+RtPew5wYeL3RkpidyPtzKfoMT9E3Zj7mR5+qOvNSF4KX-rg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZDJch6j=GzRQNvUCkxOfx8j-v=Y07Cxe-1zNfsWpPSpw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <gsantostasi at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Samantha,
> The problem is not the wealth inequality is created by people like Elon
> Musk. He is the exception. In fact, it would be fine if wealth was gained
> in this way by creating real value in the world.
> Most wealth though is in the hands of people that have inherited without
> any personal merit and the wealth is not used to create further value but
> for speculation and rent seeking.
> Look up the research on this. These agents are really parasites on the
> system.
> Giovanni
>
> ?If I am not mistaken, Congress got rid of death taxes several years ago.
> Too bad.
>

?bill w?


> ?
>
> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Income inequality is a complete non-problem.  There is no reason in
>> reality that the relative income of intelligent agents (people for now)
>> should be confined to some arbitrary narrow range relative to one another.
>> Wealth is created, it is not static.  So if Elon Musk creates $billions in
>> value we should cheer like mad because that much more value now exist in
>> the world we share.  And the $billions that are counted as his personal net
>> worth are a small fraction of the actual value he created.   Do we want to
>> limit an Elon Musk to no more value creation than some arbitrary factor
>> times the average value created by persons of his generation and society?
>> What for?
>>
>> Or do we want to limit the amount of the wealth he produced that he can
>> personally control?  Who would we rather control some resources, someone
>> who has shown they have the Midas touch turning a given quantity of
>> resources into the gold of more resources or someone that has shown no such
>> thing and seems to somehow always consume approximately as much as they
>> produce?   I would want rationally to see that person expert in increasing
>> value/wealth to have as much of it to multiply as possible.    And of
>> course the private space program and the real viable electric car would not
>> exist without some real wealth in the hands of a few with sufficient vision
>> and skill.
>>
>> Under accelerating change I would expect and increase in income/wealth
>> inequality.   Technology is a force multiplier.  Those who avail themselves
>> of it earlier and/or better will have their efforts multiplied more,
>> including efforts that have economic consequences.
>>
>> In reality unequal actions do not produce equal results.   This is
>> nothing to cry over and certainly nothing to impose limitations on anyone
>> over.
>>
>> Or is the perceived "problem" that more money might buy more political
>> favor?  Well the answer to that is that government's should have no favors
>> to sell as legitimate government is severely limited in what it can exert
>> major power over.     It is not the fault of the wealthy that government
>> has so gotten out of hand that it controls aspects of about everything in
>> our lives.   Nor that it has so drained the economy that despite how much
>> it has taken for so long it has put (US) us nearly $20 trillion in debt as
>> well and over $100 trillion if you counted unfunded liabilities (promise of
>> bread and circuses tomorrow).
>>
>> - samantha
>>
>>
>> On 05/07/2016 03:21 PM, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Bill Hibbard < <test at ssec.wisc.edu>
>> test at ssec.wisc.edu> wrote:
>>
>> ? > ?
>>> He
>>> ? [Dumb Donald]?
>>> is one of many symptoms of a global phenomenon of
>>> social disruption caused by technological change. In
>>> ?
>>> particular, lots of people are not needed by the
>>> ?
>>> market, or no longer needed at the price they used to
>>> get
>>
>>
>> ?Yes.?
>>
>> ? There are 7 billion people on the Earth and in 2014 the richest 85
>> people had as much money as the poorest 3.5 billion did, ?in 2015 the
>> richest 80 did, in 2016 the richest 62 did. This trend does not promote
>> social cohesion or stability and if the Libertarian Party wishes to gain
>> power its going to have to address it. I'm not making a moral judgement
>> just stating a fact.
>>
>> ? > ?
>>> Trump is just a symptom
>>
>>
>> ? Dumb Donald?
>>  is more than that,
>> ? T?
>> rump is a
>> ?
>> existential threat
>> ? .?
>>
>> ? > ?
>>> My bet is that the world will survive the Trump
>>> ?
>>> vs Clinton election.
>>
>>
>> ?I agree, we'll probably survive, the betting market only gives Trump a
>> 23.5% chance of winning.?
>>
>> ? John K Clark?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing listextropy-chat at lists.extropy.orghttp://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160510/277d7b18/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Tue May 10 20:11:50 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 15:11:50 -0500
Subject: [ExI] s&p 500 growth, was: RE:
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNSc-URH+oe4=ML7qZLF8+d-Dd7DmS2iyiW_H4syf2Sb5w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv28qXEe=VAPzEbibT6CqbqxDFO68h-T-vew=40Y3eMSWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <003f01d1a989$4b50df60$e1f29e20$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1Bj20bTje_2k7nEUKbN4HLAL5nyvzCWaWbXdfqCWobmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00db01d1a997$b6ee9560$24cbc020$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0V5_YG1AxPO6uUjPLWyi96T+zgfkQhYjpDPZ8p=9tnyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <014e01d1aa1a$a8f42820$fadc7860$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNSc-URH+oe4=ML7qZLF8+d-Dd7DmS2iyiW_H4syf2Sb5w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEa7iDrG3F8KNuqeGBJpZb1R26oy8D0LS5-wCvLZ_HpEHA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 9, 2016 11:00 AM, "spike" <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> > I am absolutely astonished he would risk a multi-million-dollar dream
> job running the company for whatever he was doing back there in the old
> soundproof room.
>
> Love and lust sometimes happen among those who trust each other (such as
> from having worked closely together for a while) and are otherwise
> compatible.  It can be a challenge to handle it appropriately in cases like
> this.  (Assuming hanky panky was in fact happening.)
>
> What was that old adage?  "Don't dip your pen in the company inkwell"?
> ?A maxim ignored by college professors everywhere.  In fact I married a
> student.
>

?bill w?


> ?
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160510/1ea26218/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Tue May 10 20:31:23 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 13:31:23 -0700
Subject: [ExI] s&p 500 growth, was: RE:
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEa7iDrG3F8KNuqeGBJpZb1R26oy8D0LS5-wCvLZ_HpEHA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv28qXEe=VAPzEbibT6CqbqxDFO68h-T-vew=40Y3eMSWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <003f01d1a989$4b50df60$e1f29e20$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1Bj20bTje_2k7nEUKbN4HLAL5nyvzCWaWbXdfqCWobmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00db01d1a997$b6ee9560$24cbc020$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0V5_YG1AxPO6uUjPLWyi96T+zgfkQhYjpDPZ8p=9tnyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <014e01d1aa1a$a8f42820$fadc7860$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNSc-URH+oe4=ML7qZLF8+d-Dd7DmS2iyiW_H4syf2Sb5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEa7iDrG3F8KNuqeGBJpZb1R26oy8D0LS5-wCvLZ_HpEHA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNSaT8fW7tWHiyG3NWVVRD9tE8GJgOv34tyZdQhGVpgoDg@mail.gmail.com>

On May 10, 2016 1:12 PM, "William Flynn Wallace" <foozler83 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
>> What was that old adage?  "Don't dip your pen in the company inkwell"?
>>
> ?A maxim ignored by college professors everywhere.  In fact I married a
student.

But at some point - preferably before the marriage - she was not your
student, yes?  Removal of one party from the chain of authority (by
rearrangement or whatever other method) is the most common solution to this.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160510/580f547a/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Tue May 10 20:55:40 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 16:55:40 -0400
Subject: [ExI] s&p 500 growth, was: RE:
In-Reply-To: <00f201d1aa78$13d971b0$3b8c5510$@att.net>
References: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv28qXEe=VAPzEbibT6CqbqxDFO68h-T-vew=40Y3eMSWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <003f01d1a989$4b50df60$e1f29e20$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1Bj20bTje_2k7nEUKbN4HLAL5nyvzCWaWbXdfqCWobmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00db01d1a997$b6ee9560$24cbc020$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0V5_YG1AxPO6uUjPLWyi96T+zgfkQhYjpDPZ8p=9tnyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <014e01d1aa1a$a8f42820$fadc7860$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1fVnj50yjYA2aHYyWohvDLTAVQwWRHJj12ptz2udq2Xw@mail.gmail.com>
 <00f201d1aa78$13d971b0$3b8c5510$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv1Kd9G7xcrCSDmXgk18YHqMHxRYJj=5ey_BU9a2b+==JA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 12:54 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:



> ?> ?
> John, it isn?t the blowjob.  It really isn?t, they don?t care about that.
>
> ?
Balcony. The Republicans had an
?
unhealthy obsession with other people's sex lives
?
20 years ago
?
and they still do.


> ?>?
> The crime was trying to cover it up by not reporting it to the security
> people,
>
> Exactly what law is it that says the President of the United States has
?
to tell security people, or anybody else
?
for that matter
?
, whenever he gets a blowjob?

?> ?
> and when legitimately questioned, perjury.
>
> ?You've got the chronology backward. Ken Starr decided to investigate.
Ken Starr found that no crime had been committed yet. Ken Starr theorized
he could induce perjury in the future by asking the President of the Unites
States of America if he ever had a blowjob. Ken Starr was correct.


> ?> ?
> A top level security clearance holder
>
> ?
The president is elected by the people and they have given him the
*ULTIMATE* security clearance
?,?
?so?
 he needs no other. Who on Earth would the president even go to for a
?mere ?"
top
?"?
security clearance? And who gave the guy who gave the president a top
security clearance
? ?
a
?
top security clearance
?
? And who gave the guy
?
who
? ....?

....
The buck has to stop somewhere and under our constitutional
?
system
? it stops with the president. ?
The president as commander in chief is the guy who gives
?

top
?
level security clearance
?
s to other people.
? ?


> ?> ?
> Ken Starr was interested in perjury, not blowjobs.
>
> ?Born again Ken Starr ?not interested in other people's blowjobs?
*Ridiculous! *


>
>> ?>?
>> ? So if it became public what would the negative consequences be for the
>> president and from whom would they come from? From the president's wife
>> demanding a divorce?
>
>


> ?>
> No, from the senate demanding impeachment for perjury.
>
> ?Incorrect. The Senate a *ACQUITTED* Bill Clinton of perjury, and of the
high crime of getting a blowjob too, and that's why he remained president
for his full 8 years term. It was the house controlled by priggish
republicans that demanded and got impeachment.  ?



> ?>?
> Presidents need a clearance.  Otherwise his own military brass may not
> legally brief him.
>
> *?*That's just nuts. The president was elected commander in chief by the
people of the United States, he's the boss of the military brass and he's
the one who gives the military brass top secret clearance not the other way
around. Presidents tell Generals secrets, Generals don't tell Presidents
secrets, and no secret is too secret for the President.

But why are we even talking about this? What does a 20 year old sex scandal
have to do with the 2016 presidential election?



> ?>?
> Our next leader is being chosen by the FBI.
>
> ?Look on the bright side, if the above turns out to be true you'll be
$200 richer, but I wouldn't start spending that money just yet if I were
you. As for me I already have big plans for my $10.

 John K Clark




>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160510/5e97c6da/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Tue May 10 20:49:16 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 13:49:16 -0700
Subject: [ExI] s&p 500 growth, was: RE:
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNSc-URH+oe4=ML7qZLF8+d-Dd7DmS2iyiW_H4syf2Sb5w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv28qXEe=VAPzEbibT6CqbqxDFO68h-T-vew=40Y3eMSWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <003f01d1a989$4b50df60$e1f29e20$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1Bj20bTje_2k7nEUKbN4HLAL5nyvzCWaWbXdfqCWobmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00db01d1a997$b6ee9560$24cbc020$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0V5_YG1AxPO6uUjPLWyi96T+zgfkQhYjpDPZ8p=9tnyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <014e01d1aa1a$a8f42820$fadc7860$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNSc-URH+oe4=ML7qZLF8+d-Dd7DmS2iyiW_H4syf2Sb5w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <011501d1aafd$6bb755c0$43260140$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes
Subject: Re: [ExI] s&p 500 growth, was: RE:

 

On May 9, 2016 11:00 AM, "spike" <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net> > wrote:
>>? I am absolutely astonished he would risk a multi-million-dollar dream job running the company for whatever he was doing back there in the old soundproof room.

>?Love and lust sometimes happen among those who trust each other (such as from having worked closely together for a while) and are otherwise compatible.  It can be a challenge to handle it appropriately in cases like this.  (Assuming hanky panky was in fact happening.)  What was that old adage?  "Don't dip your pen in the company inkwell"?

 

Ja.  When the security people hear a credible rumor, they can call the clearance holder in for an interview, without even telling why.  If the holder refuses, clearance is suspended.  If the holder accepts and confesses everything, then the holder is in trouble for not coming forth earlier before he was caught, but might hold on to the clearance if the investigation decides national security was not compromised.  If they find the holder intentionally tried to cover his tracks, or if the other participant wasn?t cleared at the same level, or they want to make an example of the guy, or if the ranking official is in a bad mood that day, or any number of other factors, the holder gets his clearance suspended or revoked.

Any big aerospace company is populated with straight-arrow law-abiding types, which is how they qualified for those clearances to start with.  If any high-up leader has a clearance suspended, word quickly gets around why it happened, and that guy can no longer effectively lead that crowd: they have no respect for him.  This is what happened to the LM second in command a few years ago.

Funny aside: a long time ago, I was in a proposal group where we were trying to find civilian uses for a whole bunch of surplus military stuff we could buy for about a nickel on the dollar, stuff that was idled by a treaty that took effect right at the tail end of Bush41?s term.  It included rocket motors, guidance systems, not the nukes of course but all kinds of cool rocket stuff, originally designed to carry nukes but now all of it surplus and ready to haul rich people to space, that kinda thing.

In that building where we were generating proposals, we had a soundproof meeting room.  It was seldom used for anything: it was a pain in the ass to even get there, since it was a structure within a structure, kinda like a massive refrigerator inside a building, and you had to code in, etc, so they could archive who went in and when.  We decided to find out if it really was sound proof.  We had exactly one woman in that group, mid thirties, fun sense of humor type.  We said ?Hey Lurleen, go in there and close up, then scream like you are being murdered or something.?

Leave it to her to respond, ?Or something, OK.?  

{8^D

Took us several minutes to stop laughing.  Then, she went in there, closed up, screamed.  We couldn?t hear it.  The structure worked as advertised.

We didn?t need Lurleen to point out to us what that facility enabled.  I don?t know if anyone ever used it for that purpose, but I wouldn?t be a bit surprised.  If they did that and self-reported, the security people probably wouldn?t tell the company (I wouldn?t think (they would have nothing to gain by telling.))

In any case, the security people make it clear during initial training and all subsequent periodic updates: they get it that people are not saints.  They understand.  They are not your priest.  But they do need to know what you did, so they can watch out for negative consequences.  If you cross them, they can hurt you.  If you lie to them, this is a bad thing.

spike

 

  

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160510/1edbd2d3/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Tue May 10 21:19:14 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 23:19:14 +0200
Subject: [ExI] s&p 500 growth, was: RE:
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNRm9-cdAdhDNMgoFf6xGru+ysO9hAWzpyjUAGY_PY6mjQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv28qXEe=VAPzEbibT6CqbqxDFO68h-T-vew=40Y3eMSWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <003f01d1a989$4b50df60$e1f29e20$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1Bj20bTje_2k7nEUKbN4HLAL5nyvzCWaWbXdfqCWobmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00db01d1a997$b6ee9560$24cbc020$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0V5_YG1AxPO6uUjPLWyi96T+zgfkQhYjpDPZ8p=9tnyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+BCJUhn0qbY8+eFWm6LXh+0bpQgqJP=i4Y3597Dv1V9H7LBZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRm9-cdAdhDNMgoFf6xGru+ysO9hAWzpyjUAGY_PY6mjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57325052.6090506@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-10 21:19, Adrian Tymes wrote:
>
> On May 9, 2016 9:01 AM, "Jason Resch" <jasonresch at gmail.com 
> <mailto:jasonresch at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > John McAfee (a silicon valley CEO) is running.
> >
> > http://www.bealibertarian.com/
>
> Good luck to him even getting the Libertarian nomination.  But if he 
> does, he's got at least a little name recognition from the recent 
> Apple vs FBI brouhaha, let alone the security software much of the 
> public has at least read about. He might just possibly have a chance 
> at raising the necessary funds to buy enough media to break into 
> mainstream consideration.
>

Hmm, have people already forgotten his adventures in Belize? Or his 
various statements? Oh, of course - he could perhaps give Trump a run 
for his money! Fight fire with fire!

At least he is not Augustus Sol Invictus.

-- 
Anders Sandberg
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Oxford University

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160510/9db37c91/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Tue May 10 22:09:30 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 18:09:30 -0400
Subject: [ExI] fun outsider's view on ai
In-Reply-To: <424026dc-e502-4d5a-1392-400e087dcfaa@canonizer.com>
References: <002b01d1aa01$4a1def20$de59cd60$@att.net>
 <CAH=2ypV2nOGCmR9fFH47EnkNx3zdds2e9gg7NGcd=eN-4CtKXw@mail.gmail.com>
 <424026dc-e502-4d5a-1392-400e087dcfaa@canonizer.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv007QmfXv2VKa6QudRi18exz75ZmKZdGnaAYf04fpe3WA@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 9, 2016 , Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at canonizer.com> wrote:

?> ?
> simulated neurons and dendrite synapses are surely possible, but not the
> point.
>

?I think that's exactly the point.?



> ?> ?
> Sure a word like "red" can represent, and thereby simulate a redness
> quality, but it clearly does not have the quality it can represent.
>

?We don't yet know what all the steps in the recipe to produce the
subjective sensation of red are but we know the maximum size of the entire
cookbook. ?The human genome is about 750 million bytes but has massive
redundancy, run it through a loss-less compression program like ZIP and
it's down to 50 million bytes. About half the genome deals with the brain
so that's 25 million bytes or about a million lines of code. So although we
don't know exactly what it is yet we do know that a program with a million
lines of code can manufacture the qualia "red".

By comparison MAC OS X has 85 million lines of code.

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160510/3ac38899/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Tue May 10 22:17:18 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 17:17:18 -0500
Subject: [ExI] prometheus magazine
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEboz++1XdMv76kmk+BA1=RsarPWXXxbQPq5TzgT86wvLA@mail.gmail.com>

Maybe some of you libertarians take this magazine.  $30 for membership
ain't cheap, so I am angling for some feedback about the worth of the
articles.

bill w
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160510/710c5f4a/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Tue May 10 22:24:35 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 15:24:35 -0700
Subject: [ExI] prometheus magazine
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEboz++1XdMv76kmk+BA1=RsarPWXXxbQPq5TzgT86wvLA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEboz++1XdMv76kmk+BA1=RsarPWXXxbQPq5TzgT86wvLA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E494AE9B-7E6D-4967-925A-4782403ECB50@gmail.com>

On May 10, 2016, at 3:17 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe some of you libertarians take this magazine.  $30 for membership ain't cheap, so I am angling for some feedback about the worth of the articles.

Do you mean this:

http://lfs.org/newsletter/index.shtml

If so, looks like their content is online for free.

Regards,

Dan
  Sample my Kindle books via:
http://author.to/DanUst


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160510/dafbc721/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Tue May 10 23:42:23 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 16:42:23 -0700
Subject: [ExI] s&p 500 growth, was: RE:
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv1Kd9G7xcrCSDmXgk18YHqMHxRYJj=5ey_BU9a2b+==JA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv28qXEe=VAPzEbibT6CqbqxDFO68h-T-vew=40Y3eMSWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <003f01d1a989$4b50df60$e1f29e20$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1Bj20bTje_2k7nEUKbN4HLAL5nyvzCWaWbXdfqCWobmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00db01d1a997$b6ee9560$24cbc020$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0V5_YG1AxPO6uUjPLWyi96T+zgfkQhYjpDPZ8p=9tnyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <014e01d1aa1a$a8f42820$fadc7860$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1fVnj50yjYA2aHYyWohvDLTAVQwWRHJj12ptz2udq2Xw@mail.gmail.com>
 <00f201d1aa78$13d971b0$3b8c5510$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1Kd9G7xcrCSDmXgk18YHqMHxRYJj=5ey_BU9a2b+==JA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <01b601d1ab15$9adfb4b0$d09f1e10$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark
Subject: Re: [ExI] s&p 500 growth, was: RE:

 

?

?> ?>?A top level security clearance holder

?

>?The president is elected by the people and they have given him the ULTIMATE security clearance?

 

You answered my question John.  You are OK with the president having the ultimate security clearance.  By that reasoning Nixon was justified in gathering intelligence on possible rivals.  By the standards we have set for presidents, Nixon could have easily beaten the charges leveled against him in 1974.  He could have been elected with that in his past.

 

The power of the presidency is carefully limited for a good reason.  If we decide perjury is OK if it is about some subjects, we need a list somewhere.  Is it only bedroom matters (or in this case oval office?)

 

Is it only the president?  The VP is also elected.  Does the VP get to commit perjury so long as it is about bedroom matters?  Does the SecState get to commit perjury?  Does the SecState get to do things her own way on security?  What if the SecState is clueless about security?  What if she doesn?t know how it all works digitally?  Then she orders subordinates to break the laws, do they all get the ultimate security clearance?

 

You see where I am going with this John.  Hilliary is telling us that she knows she did not get hacked.  Her proof: the hacked did not leak the material.  At least one suspected hacker is telling us he did get in there, but wasn?t particularly interested in it.  He was interested in a previous SecState, because he had bikini photos of a hot Romanian bureaucrat.  Hilliary?s server only had a bunch of political stuff on there, a yoga routine or two.  But? Hiliary is at least half a century past her prime hot bikini years.

 

OK now.  A hacker says her server was an ?open orchid on the internet.?  He offered a plausible explanation of how he got it, along with at least two other examples of it, one of which was a former SecState.  Our own security people tell us the way Hilliary?s server was set up, there is no way to know if intruders hacked in.  State Department servers have those facilities; this one did not.  We cannot tell if it was compromised.  Mrs. Clinton assures us her server was not hacked offering as evidence the hacker didn?t leak anything (yet.)  Hilliary deliberately wiped over half her email, knowing exactly what that would look like.

 

Well John, I am having an epic fail to be assured by that evidence.

 

>?The Senate a ACQUITTED Bill Clinton of perjury?

 

I see.  Does that mean he didn?t lie?  What do you suppose he meant when he said on national television ?I lied.?

 

  

?>?>?Our next leader is being chosen by the FBI.

?

>?Look on the bright side, if the above turns out to be true you'll be $200 richer, but I wouldn't start spending that money just yet if I were you. As for me I already have big plans for my $10.

 

 

Ja, there is that.  

 

We are electing a president, not a king, not an emperor.  A president is accountable for his or her actions.  Secretaries of State are accountable for their actions.  We don?t elect those.  They are required to follow the same laws the rest of us must follow.  If they do not, they are subject to criminal prosecution.

 

Stand by sir!  The FBI primary will be coming.

 

spike  

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160510/aa87a30e/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Wed May 11 01:33:11 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 21:33:11 -0400
Subject: [ExI] we are not alone...
In-Reply-To: <001f01d1aadf$1942c450$4bc84cf0$@att.net>
References: <009001d1aad6$b7a28620$26e79260$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEZTfku4TTzJ8V4ssRniUrtzWc33NnzRjgZM2z1wV41FBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <001f01d1aadf$1942c450$4bc84cf0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFivFHAV+xRTqyM5_BtNHUt17Ck5f3eFrW=Rg7gdQVyVRA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 1:12 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>
> Thanks BillW, truer words are seldom spoken, or written.  And soon they
> may become illegal.  We are being told there is a multi-million dollar PAC
> called Stop the Smears, aimed at those who would post uncomfortable or
> unauthorized comments about a political leader to social media.  The
> article doesn?t actually say, but it is easy enough to imagine both major
> party candidates with something analogous to this.  I have certainly posted
> online more than my share of negative comments about both of these, so I am
> now probably on the target list for both major candidates.
>

### Sorry to puncture your bubble but we all here are nobodies, and no
matter what we say we will remain under the radar of the thought police, at
least for another 20 - 30 years.

Unless they follow us into the nursing home, or into the dewar, we won't
get in trouble. We can feel free to smear the candidates to our hearts'
content.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160510/bf59c961/attachment.html>

From jasonresch at gmail.com  Wed May 11 01:53:22 2016
From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 20:53:22 -0500
Subject: [ExI] fun outsider's view on ai
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEZBiyH2bdUV2iuaTkvDg0pqkTP4t5Da=KL0aOsR8JER=w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <002b01d1aa01$4a1def20$de59cd60$@att.net>
 <CAM5aL2dNPA71CjJ4-LDd8_At+F7jh_+FuCjfmktFBAnW3vK_AA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZBiyH2bdUV2iuaTkvDg0pqkTP4t5Da=KL0aOsR8JER=w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+BCJUgHrpKMhbtF3S9xERcrTJ3MzPxFV3DSTJQb+27aHOs12A@mail.gmail.com>

I can strongly recommend this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Superintelligence-Dangers-Strategies-Nick-Bostrom/dp/0198739834/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1462931554&sr=8-1&keywords=super+intelligence

Jason

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 3:46 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I'm neither a Singularitarian nor an AItheist. I think human-level AI is
> inevitable, if President Trump doesn't manage to wipe out the human race
> first :-). But I don't buy the notion that super intelligence is akin to a
> superpower, and don't think it's necessary for an AI to have consciousness,
> human-like emotions, or the ability to set its own goals, and without those
> there is no need to fear them.  dave
>
> If you want an AI to be superintelligent, why reference the neuron,
> Spike?  Human brains are so fallible it's just silly.  A person super
> intelligent about one thing is totally at a loss about many other things.
> I think brains must be still evolving, because as they are, they are
> cobbled together among available equipment and have functioned well enough
> to get us to the present.  You don't have to be a psychologist to see the
> irrationality, the emotional involvement, the selfishness, of the output of
> human brains.  There are many functions of brains that we can do well
> without entirely.  Start with all the cognitive errors we already know
> about.
>
> OK, so what else can we do?  Every decision we make is wrapped up in
> emotions. That alone does not make them wrong or irrational, but often they
> are. Take them out and see what we get.  Of course they are already out of
> the AIs we have now.  So here is the question:  do we really want an AI to
> function like a human brain?  I say no.  We are looking for something
> better, right?
>
> Since by definition we are not yet posthumans, how would we even know that
> an AI decision was super intelligent?  I don't know enough about computer
> simulations to criticize them, but sooner or later we have to put an AI
> decision to experimental tests in the real world not knowing what will
> happen.
>
> In any case, I don't think that there is any magic in the neuron.  It's in
> the connections.  And let's not forget about the role of glial cells, about
> which we are just barely aware.  (see The Other Brain by Douglas Fields)
>  Oh yeah, and the role of the gut microbiome - also just barely aware of
> its functions.  Not even to mention all the endocrine glands and their
> impact on brain functions.  Raising and lowering hormones has profound
> effects on functioning of the brain.  Ditto food,  sunspots (?), humidity
> and temperature, chemicals in the dust we breathe, pheromones, and drugs
> (I take over 20 pills of various sorts,  Who or what could figure out the
> results of that?)  All told, an incredible number of variables, some of
> which we may not know about at present, all interacting with one another,
> our learning, and our genes.
>
> All told, we are many decades away from a good grasp of the brain, maybe
> 100 years.  A super smart AI will likely not function at all like a human
> brain.  No reason it should.  (boy am I going to get flak on this one)
>
> bill w
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Dave Sill <sparge at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:44 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nothing particularly profound or insightful in this AI article, but it
>>> is good clean fun:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://aeon.co/essays/true-ai-is-both-logically-possible-and-utterly-implausible?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=6469cf0d50-Daily_Newsletter_9_May_20165_9_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-6469cf0d50-68957125
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, not bad. Mostly on the mark, IMO, but he says a few things that are
>> just not rational.
>>
>> He reminds me a little of Roger Penrose?s take on the subject from a long
>>> time ago: he introduces two schools of thought, pokes fun at both while
>>> offering little or no evidence or support, then reveals he is pretty much a
>>> follower of one of the two: the Church of AI-theists.
>>>
>>
>> To be fair, he says both camps are wrong and the truth is probably
>> somewhere in between. And I agree.
>>
>>
>>> There are plenty of AI-theists, but nowhere have I ever seen a really
>>> good argument for why we can never simulate a neuron and a dendrite and
>>> synapses.  Once we understand them well enough, we can write a sim of one.
>>> We already have sims of complicated systems, such as aircraft, nuclear
>>> plants and such.  So why not a brain cell?   And if so, why not two, and
>>> why not a connectome and why can we not simulate a brain?  I have been
>>> pondering that question for over 2 decades and have still never found a
>>> good reason.  That puts me in Floridi-dismissed Church of the
>>> Singularitarian.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, his "True AI is not logically impossible, but it is utterly
>> implausible" doesn't seem to be based on reality.
>>
>> I'm neither a Singularitarian nor an AItheist. I think human-level AI is
>> inevitable, if President Trump doesn't manage to wipe out the human race
>> first :-). But I don't buy the notion that super intelligence is akin to a
>> superpower, and don't think it's necessary for an AI to have consciousness,
>> human-like emotions, or the ability to set its own goals, and without those
>> there is no need to fear them.
>>
>> -Dave
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160510/be337d2d/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Wed May 11 02:04:32 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 22:04:32 -0400
Subject: [ExI] s&p 500 growth, was: RE:
In-Reply-To: <01b601d1ab15$9adfb4b0$d09f1e10$@att.net>
References: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv28qXEe=VAPzEbibT6CqbqxDFO68h-T-vew=40Y3eMSWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <003f01d1a989$4b50df60$e1f29e20$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1Bj20bTje_2k7nEUKbN4HLAL5nyvzCWaWbXdfqCWobmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00db01d1a997$b6ee9560$24cbc020$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0V5_YG1AxPO6uUjPLWyi96T+zgfkQhYjpDPZ8p=9tnyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <014e01d1aa1a$a8f42820$fadc7860$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1fVnj50yjYA2aHYyWohvDLTAVQwWRHJj12ptz2udq2Xw@mail.gmail.com>
 <00f201d1aa78$13d971b0$3b8c5510$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1Kd9G7xcrCSDmXgk18YHqMHxRYJj=5ey_BU9a2b+==JA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01b601d1ab15$9adfb4b0$d09f1e10$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv1+JtyO3ev3ApdgBo=jh5ZuF0h4r3x9h8hMvj-Vd13SyQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 7:42 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:



> ?> ?
> You answered my question John.  You are OK with the president having the
> ultimate security clearance.
>
> ?Who in the world wouldn't be OK with that? In a finite population
somebody has to be ?at the end of the security granting chain.


> ?> ?
> By that reasoning Nixon was justified in gathering intelligence on
> possible rivals.
>
> ?Don't be silly. No security clearance no matter
? how?
high authorizes you to commit crimes, it just authorizes you to hear
secrets. ?And burglary is a crime but getting a blowjob is not, or at least
it shouldn't be.


> >
>> ?>?
>> ?The Senate a *ACQUIT* *TED* Bill Clinton of perjury?
>
>
>
> ?> ?
> I see.  Does that mean he didn?t lie?
>
> ?It means the Senate didn't give a shit
?
if
?
he lied
?
or not
?
because he never should have been asked the question. It means the Senate
was acting like a jury
?just as?
 the constitution says it should
?,?
and it means the Senate was OK with the idea of Jury Nullification. I'm OK
with Jury Nullification too, I though all Libertarians were.

I've
? ?
had some experience with it
?
myself
?.?
?
I was called for jury duty and
?
was
?
still in the big jury pool room before being assigned
?
a specific case with hundreds of
?
other
?
potential jurors
?.
They
?
asked
?
all of us one by one regular boilerplate questions like "will your personal
opinion of the justice of a law have any effect on your verdict?" and
everybody said "no" until they got to me, I said "well
? yes?
, I believe in Jury Nullification because..."
?
and
?
wow, in a flash the Judge said "
??Thank
?
you Mr. Clark you are dismissed" and 30 second later I was on the sidewalk
outside the courthouse on my way home.

Judges don't want juries to know anything about Jury Nullification, they
just hate it when they do. I had almost contaminated hundreds of jurors
with libertarian ideas
?,?
but thanks to the judge's fast reflexes the situation was saved.
? John K Clark?




>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160510/02fc9b3e/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Wed May 11 02:53:55 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 19:53:55 -0700
Subject: [ExI] s&p 500 growth, was: RE:
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv1+JtyO3ev3ApdgBo=jh5ZuF0h4r3x9h8hMvj-Vd13SyQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv28qXEe=VAPzEbibT6CqbqxDFO68h-T-vew=40Y3eMSWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <003f01d1a989$4b50df60$e1f29e20$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1Bj20bTje_2k7nEUKbN4HLAL5nyvzCWaWbXdfqCWobmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00db01d1a997$b6ee9560$24cbc020$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0V5_YG1AxPO6uUjPLWyi96T+zgfkQhYjpDPZ8p=9tnyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <014e01d1aa1a$a8f42820$fadc7860$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1fVnj50yjYA2aHYyWohvDLTAVQwWRHJj12ptz2udq2Xw@mail.gmail.com>
 <00f201d1aa78$13d971b0$3b8c5510$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1Kd9G7xcrCSDmXgk18YHqMHxRYJj=5ey_BU9a2b+==JA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01b601d1ab15$9adfb4b0$d09f1e10$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1+JtyO3ev3ApdgBo=jh5ZuF0h4r3x9h8hMvj-Vd13SyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <020b01d1ab30$5c6be5d0$1543b170$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 7:05 PM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] s&p 500 growth, was: RE:

 

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 7:42 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net> > wrote:

 

?>> ??You answered my question John.  You are OK with the president having the ultimate security clearance. 

?

>?Who in the world wouldn't be OK with that? In a finite population somebody has to be ?at the end of the security granting chain?

 

Everyone must answer to the law.  We have a review process.  If laws are broken, a review takes place, a recommendation from an agency such as the FBI can recommend indictment of anyone, including a sitting president.  The senate takes action.

 

 

?> ?By that reasoning Nixon was justified in gathering intelligence on possible rivals. 

 



?Don't be silly. No security clearance no matter how?

high authorizes you to commit crimes?

 

Including perjury?

 

>? it just authorizes you to hear secrets?

 

And keep them?  From the government?

 

>? ?And burglary is a crime but getting a blowjob is not, or at least it shouldn't be?

 

It isn?t.  Perjury is.  John do you think it was Ken Starr who outed Bill?  It was Monica who did that.

 

 

>>?The Senate a ACQUIT TED Bill Clinton of perjury?

?> ?I see.  Does that mean he didn?t lie? 

?

>?It means the Senate didn't give a shit if he lied or not

? because he never should have been asked the question?

 

OK so what should have happened when the blue dress had Bill?s DNA then?  He was a top clearance holder.  You give up a lot of privacy rights when you hold one of those.  John you are aware of who it was who revealed Bill?s activities to start with, ja?  Monica was talking to at least five of her girlfriends in public places about the incident.  The National Enquirer ilk ?news? agencies were already reporting it.  Bill denied it, that was the end of it.  Until? she said she had DNA evidence.  So again please, what did Ken Starr do wrong?  How was this not his business?  Would not he be part of a coverup had he done nothing?  What of those who did the DNA test?  By this time, perhaps a moderate roomful of people knew what happened.

 

Pretending this was about a blowjob is really getting tiresome John.  Clinton went on trial for perjury.  There was at that time no exception that I know of for a particular topic.  

 

>? It means the Senate was acting like a jury just as? the constitution says it should and it means the Senate was OK with the idea of Jury Nullification. I'm OK with Jury Nullification too, I though all Libertarians were?

 

I am OK with that too John.  No worries.  I don?t agree Bill shouldn?t have faced impeachment for perjury however.  We need to keep reminding presidents that if they commit a crime, the senate outranks them.

 

 

>? I said "well yes?, I believe in Jury Nullification because..." John K Clark?

 

That?s what I would have said too.  If pressed I would give the example of some states which have laws against using firearms in self-defense.  Of course those laws are absurd, and if I were on a jury where someone gave some sleazy perp half a round of ammunition delivered at faster than the speed of sound, of course I would vote to dismiss that case, vote to acquit the defendant, regardless of what stupid unconstitutional state or local law felt the homeowner was at fault.  

 

I would probably be dismissed, which is not the goal.  I have always wanted to be on a jury, but I always answer their questions honestly and completely, speaking in grammatically correct sentences.  For some unknown reason, the defense attorney always dismisses me first.

 

If I may return to the relevance of this entire discussion, I had a theory to share which you might find entertaining, one which might explain everything that happened.

 

Do let me start it in a new post, since it has more to do with a current relevant situation however.  Stand by please.

 

spike

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160510/22707540/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Wed May 11 03:27:53 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 20:27:53 -0700
Subject: [ExI] my unified theory on what really happened at the state
	department
Message-ID: <021701d1ab35$1af3d9a0$50db8ce0$@att.net>

 

 

We have been given contradictory information, implausible explanations,
excuses and such, but I have for those interested in these matters a unified
theory on what actually happened at the Department of State.  Clinton was
appointed SecState in Jan 2009.  She wanted a secure blackberry like the one
used by Barack.  But the security team told her no, for perfectly
understandable reasons: the technology did not exist (and still doesn't) for
doing what she asked.  She wanted a secure blackberry which could be carried
abroad.  These cannot be secured abroad with current technology.

 

My theory is that it was not sufficiently explained to Hillary why her
request was denied.  She didn't know enough about science or technology to
understand that Barack's blackberry could be secured as long as it was
physically located in the Whitehouse, but that he could not carry it abroad.
That will be perfectly understandable to nearly everyone on this list: the
State Department can monitor all EM signals right there on station.  Abroad,
they cannot.  So any blackberry outside the control area can be monitored by
the bad guys wherever the SecState went.  Any messages to that blackberry
could be received and eventually be decoded by the bad guys, and we would
have no way of knowing the system had been compromised.  Viruses could
perhaps be placed on that blackberry which would allow them to infiltrate
the system back in the states.

 

There is a way to secure a blackberry in the Whitehouse, but not one which
travels.  So. the security team told her no.  Regardless of whether they
offered a sufficient explanation, my theory is that Hillary was extremely
annoyed, failing to understand why the president could have a secure
blackberry but she could not.  Perhaps she took it as a personal insult.
So, she decided to hell with the law, used her own blackberry and requested
staff use it, which was unsecured and could only be accessed from an
unsecured non-government server.

 

That explains a lot of weirdness: why it is that Hillary keeps insisting
that her server was not hacked, while our own government experts have said
the way this server was set up, there is no way to know if it was hacked.
Reason: she doesn't know how it works digitally at all.  It explains the use
of a private blackberry: the State Department did not issue her one.  She
didn't know those things can be hacked because she doesn't know how it works
digitally at all.  It explains why she keeps insisting that Guccifer and
others did not hack the server: she is certain the emails would have leaked
by now.  But I think not: all that email is worth so much more if she gets
elected president, so much more.  In Guccifer's case it isn't that: he
really didn't care about politics.

 

So this was all caused by two factors: a Secretary of State willing to break
laws for her own convenience, and is either unaware or is in denial of
hacking threats.

 

With that theory in mind, and Guccifer's plausible explanations for how he
got in there, how easy it was and how the server was "an open orchid on the
internet" I must conclude that others found the same weakness, military
organizations who damn sure were and are interested in politics, parties who
have vested interest in keeping quiet for now that they have the entire
archives, who now have vested interest in seeing Hilliary elected president.

 

Meanwhile, in what would have otherwise been a walk-in for the other major
party because of this clear and present danger, this glaring stab in the
back by our own Secretary of State, it chooses. Donald Trump.

 

Long broken sigh.

 

spike

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160510/2d83c5ee/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Wed May 11 05:51:29 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 22:51:29 -0700
Subject: [ExI] reason for optimism, was:  RE:  my unified theory etc
Message-ID: <000001d1ab49$2ab0fee0$8012fca0$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf
Of spike
Subject: [ExI] my unified theory on what really happened at the state
department

 

 

>.We have been given contradictory information, implausible explanations,
excuses and such, but I have for those interested in these matters a unified
theory on what actually happened at the Department of State.Long broken
sigh.  Spike

 

 

After writing my unified theory on that State Department business, in such a
way that it might vaguely let Hilliary almost skate past an actual criminal
indictment (but not her staff) I came up with a really interesting reason
for optimism.

 

I have long been an openness advocate, definitely for government officials.
What I think we are seeing in our times is more and more people watching
everything.  When any crime or anomaly takes place, there are plenty of
people who notice it.  Perhaps many eyes are finding more now.

 

New technologies are enabling a lot of new angles on things.  Imagine a
woman is raped and she has no idea whodunit.  The cops cannot figure it out
and in most cases won't work on it all that hard.  Now she has a bunch of
options not available before.  She could recover some of the evidence, put
it in the freezer, order a spit kit from AncestryDNA or 23andMe or Family
Tree DNA, or all three if she wants to put out the money.  The kits arrive
in the mail.  She takes the DNA evidence out of the freezer, lets it thaw.
Takes the spit kit, adds a couple cc of water, a trace of the DNA sample (a
few hundredths of a gram is plenty) sends it off under a code name.  Wait.
Five weeks later, a long list of his cousins arrives, plenty of them with
family trees.  Some of them write.  Oh just think of the revenge scenarios
possible.  She could write to everyone on the list, explaining that this
cousin is a rapist, and is still at large.

 

That kinda stuff.

 

Perhaps sunshine really is the best disinfectant.

 

spike

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160510/97c97d6e/attachment.html>

From protokol2020 at gmail.com  Wed May 11 06:30:15 2016
From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 08:30:15 +0200
Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?A_Nobel_Prize_=E2=80=8Bwinner_on_Trump?=
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv0_OM2FcO4WNiwV9J3se_srE6b1jvPQJHFzsLavRN4TqA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv1vJNDVg4tQDz4HRAdE9ViM4HrgA2xNpXx4H4ROcOpDvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhKyD0gtC2_KZhsvOT1gGYSf+vuDQVunnH3kdtzYXetpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2T_hQnEiBVqHaL54t_ZbXt9ExXyATuHpzcMdWKrj0f0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjDcFeLsqBiTTGGfqXTxa5C_D9nQ0CnMPu=A+2pxJvJdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0_OM2FcO4WNiwV9J3se_srE6b1jvPQJHFzsLavRN4TqA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALMrAFTGs7S-gnfb625hrMUZ7pm5b=FDrz61uS_cuctjNbUs7Q@mail.gmail.com>

>
*TED CRUZ??!?!! *

What kind of argument is this? The kind I see in my post-communist country
frequently. Some (of the right wing politicians) names are tabooed just
like this. The left says - "he is not cool".



On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 1:07 AM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, May 9, 2016  Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> ?> ?
>> Every demagogue bashes free trade,
>>
>
> ?Clinton?
>
> ?hasn't bashed free trade, so I guess she's not a demagogue. ?
>
>
>> I know that the alternative is worse. With Trump you don't know what you
>> get, with Clinton you know you are in deep shit.
>>
>
> ?Did Clinton say the USA should help Saudi Arabia get Nuclear Weapons? No
> but Trump did. Did Clinton say Silicon Valley companies should be forced to
> insert backdoors into all their products for easy government access? No but
> Trump did? Did Clinton say defaulting on debt is a good idea? No but Trump
> did. Did Clinton say we should build a fucking wall? No but Trump did.
>
>
>
>> ?> ?
>> Although not as deep as with Sanders.
>>
>
> ?Do both Trump and Sanders? hate free trade? Yes but Clinton doesn't.
>
> ?> ?
>> Ted Cruz would have been better
>>
>
> *?TED CRUZ??!?!! *
>
> ?> ?
>> and just in case you wonder, I am still an atheist
>>
>
> ?OK, there's still hope for you then. ?
>
> ? John K Clark
>
> ?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>


-- 
https://protokol2020.wordpress.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/2ff09464/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Wed May 11 06:43:40 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 23:43:40 -0700
Subject: [ExI] my unified theory on what really happened at the state
	department
In-Reply-To: <021701d1ab35$1af3d9a0$50db8ce0$@att.net>
References: <021701d1ab35$1af3d9a0$50db8ce0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNS37NftP-Q9H5iecB5SZ0pNX3QSb4r6c8BYtCB9w2wV9w@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 8:27 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> With that theory in mind, and Guccifer?s plausible explanations for how he
> got in there, how easy it was and how the server was ?an open orchid on the
> internet? I must conclude that others found the same weakness, military
> organizations who damn sure were and are interested in politics, parties
> who have vested interest in keeping quiet for now that they have the entire
> archives, who now have vested interest in seeing Hilliary elected president.
>

Granting your theory for sake of argument, it does not necessarily follow
that others must necessarily have hacked in.

It's certainly possible.  It'd be foolish to assume they definitely did
not.  But...it is also incorrect, and can lead to problems, if one assumes
that anyone did, let alone any specific one.

In order to hack something, one must know that it is there.  Who would have
thought that the Secretary of State would have had her own email server?
If you think it isn't there, you aren't going to attack it except by
accident.

Also, for all the fear and paranoia about the capabilities of foreign
hackers...most of them, even the professionals, are script kiddies,
"untrained" by the standards of most senior software engineers in the US.
Which is not to say there aren't good ones out there, but seriously, most
of the hacking is banal stuff that most people on this list - even the
non-IT-specialists, but who have read about the basics of computer security
thanks to this list - would casually brush off.

So we don't know whether it was hacked.  Assuming that foreign operators
have the emails - and that they will act rationally based on that info -
leads to predictions that will not match what actually happens.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160510/34526a84/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Wed May 11 06:49:45 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 23:49:45 -0700
Subject: [ExI] reason for optimism, was: RE: my unified theory etc
In-Reply-To: <000001d1ab49$2ab0fee0$8012fca0$@att.net>
References: <000001d1ab49$2ab0fee0$8012fca0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNRXYoAL7fQATLsz7hymTDJw9OrByH01QqYe4Xru7p17Jw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:51 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> Perhaps sunshine really is the best disinfectant.
>

And that is why you'll find all the emails (that were allowed to be
released, anyway) at http://www.readhillarysemail.com/ .  You'll want to
search on "turn into nonpaper"; most of the results are from an irrelevant
thread, but one of them is the specific email you have made hay of (though
I don't see the response you mentioned).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160510/3b2c1a54/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Wed May 11 14:16:25 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 07:16:25 -0700
Subject: [ExI] reason for optimism, was: RE: my unified theory etc
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNRXYoAL7fQATLsz7hymTDJw9OrByH01QqYe4Xru7p17Jw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <000001d1ab49$2ab0fee0$8012fca0$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNRXYoAL7fQATLsz7hymTDJw9OrByH01QqYe4Xru7p17Jw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <007201d1ab8f$b4cc0e80$1e642b80$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes
Subject: Re: [ExI] reason for optimism, was: RE: my unified theory etc

 

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:51 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net> > wrote:

>>?Perhaps sunshine really is the best disinfectant.

 

>?And that is why you'll find all the emails (that were allowed to be released, anyway) at http://www.readhillarysemail.com/ .  You'll want to search on "turn into nonpaper"; most of the results are from an irrelevant thread, but one of them is the specific email you have made hay of (though I don't see the response you mentioned)?

 

 

 

Ja, so regarding those yoga routines, wedding plans and love notes, does Guccifer have them?  Who else?  We don?t.  We might need to buy those from the Russians, if they will sell.  We can be sure we will see that kind of material eventually.  We will not know which are genuine.  We can be sure all of it will be denied.

 

spike 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/c5bc5193/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Wed May 11 16:32:13 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 12:32:13 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Justifiable Lies
Message-ID: <CAJPayv2aFUoJ5fXGaY1+tL9PQ+P8pos7xuLdK_qxQwCt=pOwiQ@mail.gmail.com>

In 1996 a novel came out called "Primary Colors" that made a big splash, it
was a fictionalized account of Bill Clinton's 1992 election campaign and it
was written anonymously. Nobody knew who the author was but whoever it was
must have been deeply involved with the Clinton campaign and had a lot of
inside knowledge, and one of the suspects was a man named "Joe Klein". He
was asked if he had written it and he flat out said "No, I did not write
Primary Colors". A few years later it came out that Joe Klein had indeed
written Primary Colors. Klein received a lot of criticism not for writing
the book but for, horror of horrors,
?l?
ying. But what was the poor man supposed to do?  I believe people have the
right to say things anonymously and if he had said "I refuse to answer" it
would have been universally interpreted as a confirmation that he had
written it
?,?
so he did the only thing he could, he lied. I would have done the same
thing in his position and lied without the slightest feeling of guilt
because THE QUESTION SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ASKED
.?
Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies.

Another example: A fireman hears a baby crying inside a burning building
and runs inside gets the terrified child and runs out just in time. Later
some TV reporter always asks the fireman the same dreaded question "Do you
feel like a hero?". He can't tell the truth ( look it was hot as hell there
were flames everywhere but I raced in anyway dodging falling beams and
grabbed the kid and ran out 3 seconds before the entire building collapsed,
of course I feel like a goddamn hero!) because he would sound like a
conceited asshole even to his own ears, so he must instead give the
standard lie that everybody knows is a lie but is nevertheless demanded and
say "Ah shucks Ma'am I ain't no hero, I'm just a lowly fireman doing his
job". Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies.

So did Bill Clinton lie when he said "No I did not have sex with that
woman"? Yes he lied. If I was a Senator would I have voted in favor of
removing the president from office because of that lie? No because THE
QUESTION SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ASKED.  Ask me no questions and I'll tell
you no lies.

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/1b389733/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Wed May 11 16:55:13 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 11:55:13 -0500
Subject: [ExI] my unified theory on what really happened at the state
	department
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNS37NftP-Q9H5iecB5SZ0pNX3QSb4r6c8BYtCB9w2wV9w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <021701d1ab35$1af3d9a0$50db8ce0$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNS37NftP-Q9H5iecB5SZ0pNX3QSb4r6c8BYtCB9w2wV9w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZE7vWj6YcXk8W9_iaU5QvALxgNhc6NhXr-U8GAtaYLTg@mail.gmail.com>

Also, for all the fear and paranoia about the capabilities of foreign
hackers...most of them, even the professionals, are script kiddies,
"untrained" by the standards of most senior software engineers in the US.
Which is not to say there aren't good ones out there, but seriously, most
of the hacking is banal stuff that most people on this list - even the
non-IT-specialists, but who have read about the basics of computer security
thanks to this list - would casually brush off.  adrian

Dark Territory - history of the cyberwar.  I have finished it and recommend
it to everyone who thinks they know something about hacking, the NSA, Cia,
FBI, and numerous bureaus in DC involved as well as private business, and
what foreign countries are doing and their capabilities.  It's up to date
to April 2015.  A real inside job, so to speak.  Got mine at the library.

We have been in everyone's computers and they have been in ours, government
and private business, for a long time.  REad how Iran got into thousands of
computers and erased the drives because an Israeli who owns a casino
organization criticized Iran.  They could have stolen millions of dollars
but did not, presumably because they just wanted to make a point.  It is
far, far more sophisticated than Adrian implies.  And large = hundreds of
people dealing with thousands of cyberthreats daily.

bill w

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:43 AM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 8:27 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
>> With that theory in mind, and Guccifer?s plausible explanations for how
>> he got in there, how easy it was and how the server was ?an open orchid on
>> the internet? I must conclude that others found the same weakness, military
>> organizations who damn sure were and are interested in politics, parties
>> who have vested interest in keeping quiet for now that they have the entire
>> archives, who now have vested interest in seeing Hilliary elected president.
>>
>
> Granting your theory for sake of argument, it does not necessarily follow
> that others must necessarily have hacked in.
>
> It's certainly possible.  It'd be foolish to assume they definitely did
> not.  But...it is also incorrect, and can lead to problems, if one assumes
> that anyone did, let alone any specific one.
>
> In order to hack something, one must know that it is there.  Who would
> have thought that the Secretary of State would have had her own email
> server?  If you think it isn't there, you aren't going to attack it except
> by accident.
>
> Also, for all the fear and paranoia about the capabilities of foreign
> hackers...most of them, even the professionals, are script kiddies,
> "untrained" by the standards of most senior software engineers in the US.
> Which is not to say there aren't good ones out there, but seriously, most
> of the hacking is banal stuff that most people on this list - even the
> non-IT-specialists, but who have read about the basics of computer security
> thanks to this list - would casually brush off.
>
> So we don't know whether it was hacked.  Assuming that foreign operators
> have the emails - and that they will act rationally based on that info -
> leads to predictions that will not match what actually happens.
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/3b7dce47/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Wed May 11 16:46:55 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 09:46:55 -0700
Subject: [ExI] my unified theory on what really happened at the
	state	department
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNS37NftP-Q9H5iecB5SZ0pNX3QSb4r6c8BYtCB9w2wV9w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <021701d1ab35$1af3d9a0$50db8ce0$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNS37NftP-Q9H5iecB5SZ0pNX3QSb4r6c8BYtCB9w2wV9w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <009301d1aba4$baa9a000$2ffce000$@att.net>

 

 

>? On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes
Subject: Re: [ExI] my unified theory on what really happened at the state department

 

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 8:27 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net> > wrote:

>>?With that theory in mind, and Guccifer?s plausible explanations for how he got in there, how easy it was and how the server was ?an open orchid on the internet? I must conclude that others found the same weakness...

 

>?Granting your theory for sake of argument, it does not necessarily follow that others must necessarily have hacked in...It's certainly possible.  It'd be foolish to assume they definitely did not.  But...it is also incorrect, and can lead to problems, if one assumes that anyone did, let alone any specific one?

Adrian that is a damning admission that Hillary and her people cannot make.

The secure world isn?t like criminal court where the prosecutor must prove that the defendant committed the act.  In the security world, if anyone compromises a document, source, info, anything like that, it is the task of the clearance holder to prove that the info was not compromised.  That?s why they set up those secure servers the way they do, and the reason we know the State Department?s unclassified server was hacked, who hacked it and what was compromised: the security people set it up so that it finds that kind of thing, and limits the damage if it is compromised.

In the info-secure world, everything is archived, everything is monitored, everything is set up such that if mistakes are made, we can determine what was compromised, who could have the info, how they did it, etc.

But the point is this, and watch for it, all over the news, a failure to understand or perhaps an intentional effort to obfuscate a critical distinction: in criminal court, there is a presumption of innocence.  In the secure world, there is not.  

If something goes wrong in the secure world, it is the task of the defendant to prove innocence.  There are plenty of tools for doing that: the archives, the logs, the other tricks they use, some pretty cool ones, the security cameras everywhere, the yakkity yak and the bla bla.  In the unsecure world, well, if you set it up that way, sure, you might be able to prove no one hacked in.  But? the server in question was not set up that way.  (Why not?)

In the secure world, if there is any indication of a compromise, such as an unsubstantiated claim by anyone that he did it, and you can?t prove innocence, oh boy.  In the criminal court world, any he-said-she-said situation is a draw, and the defendant goes free.  In that similar he-said-she-said situation in the secure world, he wins if she cannot prove her side.  He wins if she cannot produce all that material which she intentionally deleted.  If there is a trace of evidence he is telling the truth, such as? an actual example of an email? uh oh.  He definitely wins, as he sits in prison and she campaigns for still more power.  And if she intentionally erases those yoga routines which would have been desperately needed to prove innocence, she just proved her guilt, as much (or more so) than Tricky Dick?s missing 18 minutes of audiotape implicated the hell outta him.  Nixon knew what that looked like.  He knew whatever he erased was worse than having everyone make assumptions.  Mrs. Clinton knew all this when she started wiping evidence.

Now we hear this morning that the FBI asked Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills a simple and obvious question:  What criteria were used to determine which of the private emails would be erased?

How easy would it have been to just say:  Word search and erase any email containing the words ?yoga? ?wedding? ?Chelsea? or ?Bill.?  Can?t let those leak, far too embarrassing dontchaknow.  Simple.  Instead, she walked out of the interview.  Mills could not plead the fifth, for she wasn?t testifying under oath.  But she could walk out, for she was not under arrest or deposition.  

We must now ask the obvious: why didn?t she answer that simple question?  And: is it an improper question?  And: Is it the fault of the FBI?  And: is the FBI involved in some vast Bernie-wing conspiracy?  And: is there some line of reasoning whereby we can dismiss this whole thing as a witch hunt?  And: is there some line of reasoning to explain why Mills could not have just offered those four key words?  And: does this refusal to answer suggest there were other keywords in the seek-and-destroy mission on the server?  And: does not CoS Mills realize that by punting on that question, she has just implicated the hell out of Huma Abedin, Jake Sullivan, Bryan Pagliano, Timmy Davis, Patrick Kennedy, Phil Reines, David Kendall, Sid Blumenthal and perhaps others?  Does she think the FBI will not talk to them too?  Then compare their stories?

I detect a strategy however.  We have Mr. Gruber bragging that the voters are stupid, and that the government takes advantage of that (he?s right.)  We have Ben Rhodes telling the NYT that the government shapes public opinion by doing Jedi mind tricks on child reporters by creating an echo chamber of phony experts (he?s right.)  We have Jen Psaki telling us that it is OK for the government to lie or mislead the public (she?s wrong.)  

So? the strategy for the Clinton syndicate was to write off the minority who understand the critical distinction between criminal court and the security world, and intentionally blur the distinction between the two.  If they can pull that off, destroying the evidence even while under subpoena, is perfectly understandable.  Governments have been doing that forever.  But this time? they have been caught.  This time, we caught them.  Like the barking dog chasing cars, one day he catches one.  Now what?

I am seeing all the same tired arguments now as a previous case.  We are told that some investigations are improper, the questions should never have been asked.  We see Trey Gowdy?s commission being Starred, criticized and treated as if the investigation itself is improper.  We see the FBI being Starred, criticized, treated as part of a vast right-wing conspiracy.  After a while, it starts to look and feel like the events of 30 June to 2 July 1934 in Germany.  Anyone who objected must be part of some vast conspiracy, ja?  The victims? fates justified?

Then? if this were not bad enough, both major party apparent nominees appear to be hardline warhawks and authoritarians.  They are out and out totalitarians from my point of veiw.  It is difficult to determine which one is worse (I still haven?t been able to figure it out.)  We are left longing for the benign mental absence of that vacuous blank-stare guy whose name no one can ever remember (Linc somebody?)  He was brain-dead, but that is preferable to actively malicious.

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/ee4992a7/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Wed May 11 17:11:46 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 10:11:46 -0700
Subject: [ExI] my unified theory on what really happened at the state
	department
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEZE7vWj6YcXk8W9_iaU5QvALxgNhc6NhXr-U8GAtaYLTg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <021701d1ab35$1af3d9a0$50db8ce0$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNS37NftP-Q9H5iecB5SZ0pNX3QSb4r6c8BYtCB9w2wV9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZE7vWj6YcXk8W9_iaU5QvALxgNhc6NhXr-U8GAtaYLTg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNQEd9uiwx8LK8fVQ43q61bwKM1msMOjEKoSR32+eGC=dw@mail.gmail.com>

On May 11, 2016 9:56 AM, "William Flynn Wallace" <foozler83 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> It is far, far more sophisticated than Adrian implies.

As someone who has actually worked in this field and knows from first hand
experience what he is talking about...no, it really is not, on average.
Sure, there are sophisticated hacks here and there, but those are the
outliers, even among those who seek to hack the US government.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/68e2a7bb/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Wed May 11 17:15:38 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 13:15:38 -0400
Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?A_Nobel_Prize_=E2=80=8Bwinner_on_Trump?=
In-Reply-To: <CALMrAFTGs7S-gnfb625hrMUZ7pm5b=FDrz61uS_cuctjNbUs7Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv1vJNDVg4tQDz4HRAdE9ViM4HrgA2xNpXx4H4ROcOpDvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhKyD0gtC2_KZhsvOT1gGYSf+vuDQVunnH3kdtzYXetpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2T_hQnEiBVqHaL54t_ZbXt9ExXyATuHpzcMdWKrj0f0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjDcFeLsqBiTTGGfqXTxa5C_D9nQ0CnMPu=A+2pxJvJdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0_OM2FcO4WNiwV9J3se_srE6b1jvPQJHFzsLavRN4TqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALMrAFTGs7S-gnfb625hrMUZ7pm5b=FDrz61uS_cuctjNbUs7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv2y9WiZ1VSP-ck55DQtphn38OTU3hHO=XKuzt1_18yfmQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:30 AM, Tomaz Kristan <protokol2020 at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>> ?>?
>>
>> *TED CRUZ??!?!! *
>
>
> ?> ?
> What kind of argument is this? The kind I see in my post-communist country
> frequently. Some (of the right wing politicians) names are tabooed just
> like this. The left says - "he is not cool".
>

?In 2008 Ted Cruz wrote a 76 page legal brief in ?
?an unsuccessful attempt to get the Supreme Court ?make dildos illegal in
Texas. In it Cruz said:

?"?
*There? ?is a? ?government interest in discouraging? ?autonomous sex.?
?There is no substantive-due-process right to stimulate one's genitals for
non-medical purposes unrelated to procreation? ?*
*?*"  ?

?I'm not part of the left but that makes Ted Cruz seem not cool to me.
Apparently  you disagree. ?

? John K Clark?



>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/fc95defa/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Wed May 11 17:20:34 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 12:20:34 -0500
Subject: [ExI] my unified theory on what really happened at the state
	department
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNQEd9uiwx8LK8fVQ43q61bwKM1msMOjEKoSR32+eGC=dw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <021701d1ab35$1af3d9a0$50db8ce0$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNS37NftP-Q9H5iecB5SZ0pNX3QSb4r6c8BYtCB9w2wV9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZE7vWj6YcXk8W9_iaU5QvALxgNhc6NhXr-U8GAtaYLTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNQEd9uiwx8LK8fVQ43q61bwKM1msMOjEKoSR32+eGC=dw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEY6Qr=bWbi9HSQQjv5hLvm+H6KaY-vwm21q=KUt4c93gQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 11, 2016 9:56 AM, "William Flynn Wallace" <foozler83 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > It is far, far more sophisticated than Adrian implies.
>
> As someone who has actually worked in this field and knows from first hand
> experience what he is talking about...no, it really is not, on average.
> Sure, there are sophisticated hacks here and there, but those are the
> outliers, even among those who seek to hack the US government.
>

?Maybe we are talking about different populations.  I am talking about the
Chinese army's section devoted to hacking, the Russians, the Israelis, the
Iranians and others - all government people, not individuals living in San
Diego or somewhere just hacking for a lark.

Please read the book and tell me I am wrong.  bill w?


>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/a69cea74/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Wed May 11 17:20:54 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 10:20:54 -0700
Subject: [ExI] my unified theory on what really happened at the state
	department
In-Reply-To: <009301d1aba4$baa9a000$2ffce000$@att.net>
References: <021701d1ab35$1af3d9a0$50db8ce0$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNS37NftP-Q9H5iecB5SZ0pNX3QSb4r6c8BYtCB9w2wV9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <009301d1aba4$baa9a000$2ffce000$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNS_Eyb84NtcRNvtxb6x_4KFGpdhnAwmAKo+ijLHkDTv4Q@mail.gmail.com>

On May 11, 2016 10:02 AM, "spike" <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> >? On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes
> Subject: Re: [ExI] my unified theory on what really happened at the state
department
>
> >?Granting your theory for sake of argument, it does not necessarily
follow that others must necessarily have hacked in...It's certainly
possible.  It'd be foolish to assume they definitely did not.  But...it is
also incorrect, and can lead to problems, if one assumes that anyone did,
let alone any specific one?
>
> Adrian that is a damning admission that Hillary and her people cannot
make.

Fortunately, it's not up to her people to make it.  It's up to the FBI.

> The secure world isn?t like criminal court where the prosecutor must
prove that the defendant committed the act.

You speak of felonies.  That is the criminal justice system.

The secure world is concerned with whether the info was, was not, or might
have been compromised, not directly with punishments (beyond loss of
access) for said compromise.  It does not have a concept of "felon".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/8510bdbd/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Wed May 11 17:22:06 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 12:22:06 -0500
Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?A_Nobel_Prize_=E2=80=8Bwinner_on_Trump?=
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv2y9WiZ1VSP-ck55DQtphn38OTU3hHO=XKuzt1_18yfmQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv1vJNDVg4tQDz4HRAdE9ViM4HrgA2xNpXx4H4ROcOpDvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhKyD0gtC2_KZhsvOT1gGYSf+vuDQVunnH3kdtzYXetpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2T_hQnEiBVqHaL54t_ZbXt9ExXyATuHpzcMdWKrj0f0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjDcFeLsqBiTTGGfqXTxa5C_D9nQ0CnMPu=A+2pxJvJdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0_OM2FcO4WNiwV9J3se_srE6b1jvPQJHFzsLavRN4TqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALMrAFTGs7S-gnfb625hrMUZ7pm5b=FDrz61uS_cuctjNbUs7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2y9WiZ1VSP-ck55DQtphn38OTU3hHO=XKuzt1_18yfmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEYjm7pXQQTM=Lq+oRAACwH3Pv--FbvDAS4n8QGGSFjxGg@mail.gmail.com>

John Boehner called Cruz a son of a bitch, the worst person he ever dealt
with in government.  So much for never dissing a fellow Repub.

bill w

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 12:15 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:30 AM, Tomaz Kristan <protokol2020 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
>>> ?>?
>>>
>>> *TED CRUZ??!?!! *
>>
>>
>> ?> ?
>> What kind of argument is this? The kind I see in my post-communist
>> country frequently. Some (of the right wing politicians) names are tabooed
>> just like this. The left says - "he is not cool".
>>
>
> ?In 2008 Ted Cruz wrote a 76 page legal brief in ?
> ?an unsuccessful attempt to get the Supreme Court ?make dildos illegal in
> Texas. In it Cruz said:
>
> ?"?
> *There? ?is a? ?government interest in discouraging? ?autonomous sex.?
> ?There is no substantive-due-process right to stimulate one's genitals for
> non-medical purposes unrelated to procreation? ?*
> *?*"  ?
>
> ?I'm not part of the left but that makes Ted Cruz seem not cool to me.
> Apparently  you disagree. ?
>
> ? John K Clark?
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/199ed4c4/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Wed May 11 17:31:01 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 10:31:01 -0700
Subject: [ExI] my unified theory on what really happened at the state
	department
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEY6Qr=bWbi9HSQQjv5hLvm+H6KaY-vwm21q=KUt4c93gQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <021701d1ab35$1af3d9a0$50db8ce0$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNS37NftP-Q9H5iecB5SZ0pNX3QSb4r6c8BYtCB9w2wV9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZE7vWj6YcXk8W9_iaU5QvALxgNhc6NhXr-U8GAtaYLTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNQEd9uiwx8LK8fVQ43q61bwKM1msMOjEKoSR32+eGC=dw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY6Qr=bWbi9HSQQjv5hLvm+H6KaY-vwm21q=KUt4c93gQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNSCVGxQ4pjHdM4DKTZt1Xc80fB79b+zaWG0uqM_QgwF5g@mail.gmail.com>

On May 11, 2016 10:21 AM, "William Flynn Wallace" <foozler83 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> ?Maybe we are talking about different populations.  I am talking about
the Chinese army's section devoted to hacking, the Russians, the Israelis,
the Iranians and others - all government people, not individuals living in
San Diego or somewhere just hacking for a lark.
>
> Please read the book and tell me I am wrong.

Don't have to.  I have dealt with people like that.  You are wrong.

I don't know about the book, but I suspect it is only showing the
extremes.  If it is claiming they're all or even mostly like that, it is
wrong too.  (Again, some are.  But not most.)

Sadly, most of them don't need to be sophisticated in order to do much
damage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/9ad68cdb/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Wed May 11 17:24:16 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 10:24:16 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Justifiable Lies
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv2aFUoJ5fXGaY1+tL9PQ+P8pos7xuLdK_qxQwCt=pOwiQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv2aFUoJ5fXGaY1+tL9PQ+P8pos7xuLdK_qxQwCt=pOwiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00e001d1aba9$f23a8840$d6af98c0$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark
Subject: [ExI] Justifiable Lies

 

>?In 1996 a novel came out called "Primary Colors" ? "Joe Klein". He was asked if he had written it and he flat out said "No, I did not write Primary Colors"?

 

{8^D  I loooooove Primary Colors, both the movie and the book.  So dark, yet so funny, and so insightful.  

 

John, Klein?s comment was a classic ?is-is.?  Joe Klein wrote that book under a different title.  The publisher, in a half-hearted attempt to conceal his identity (or perhaps as a little joke) changed the title to ?Primary Colors? but Klein himself never wrote those two words.  Klein could have further is-ised us by saying ?Random House wrote Primary Colors? for we know Joe Klein?s sense of humor.  He really is a funny writer; I have enjoyed all his stuff.  He is an equal-opportunity political critic, ridiculing all of them.  Sure, Joe Klein lied, he knows that is-is was misleading, even if technically true.  Recall that at the moment Bill Clinton made the now-infamous comment ??there is not a sexual relationship?? etc, the statement was technically true, for he was not at that moment in the process of copulating with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.  This we know, for someone in the room would surely have noticed.

 

Everyone knew it is easy enough to figure out who wrote Primary Colors.  There was enough insider stuff in there, the list of suspects had to be short, and he was the one with the sense of humor and sufficient writing talent to pull it off.  

 

Joe Klein pulled an is-is.  Joe Klein is not running for high office, has no clearance, has no command of the military.  He is a talented novelist.  He can is-is us all he wants.  His writings are populist pretend-nonfiction, as rassling is populist pretend fighting.  We treat all his writings as fiction, even with an entertaining grain of truth, such as we do with Trudeau?s Doonesbury.  See Doonesbury?s Donald Trump strips.  Uncle Duke gets in on the action.  That?s how I learned about Trump?s eminent domain treachery, and made me realize how much trouble we are in.  Doonesbury and Klein are funny, and they serve their purpose.

 

But thanks for reminding me, for now I hafta wonder if Klein had a secret hand in writing the similar but more darkly hilarious ?Wag the Dog.?  Recall that when that movie hit the theatres, it was a few weeks before anyone heard of a blue dress, but well after Monica was bragging to her friends.  Klein works quickly, there was time to hear rumors, get the story as told by the intern, write the script, make a movie.  That would be fun to figure out if his fingerprints are on that anywhere. 

 

>?Another example: A fireman hears a baby crying inside a burning building and runs inside gets the terrified child and runs out just in time? of course I feel like a goddamn hero!... "Ah shucks Ma'am I ain't no hero, I'm just a lowly fireman doing his job".  John K Clark

 

The sports world has handed us the solution: ?Well?I just did what I had to do??  If you have the patience, you can find hundreds of examples of the MVP on the winning team, a reporter fishing for a feels-good story, the athlete will utter that comment most of the time.  It is really amazing, they even somehow adopt the same cadence and accent, regardless of where they are from.  We could probably google YouTube ?I just did what I had to do?? and find hundreds of examples all of which might as well have been uttered by the same person.  Sure we know that athlete is flying high, is in awe of himself.  But someone somewhere discovered the magic words. 

 

{8^D

 

Oh I love it.  I looove living the 21st century, I really do.  I am really enjoying myself in these times, enjoying the power of finding stuff out.  I am old enough to remember not having that power.  Don?t want to go back.  The internet is our friend; it is enormously empowering.  

 

Lying is legal.  Lying under oath is not.  If there is enough evidence to force one to testify under oath, one must tell the truth, regardless of rank, regardless of the subject.  Questions should be asked.  Truth should be spoken to power.  And power must be held strictly accountable.  That keeps power honest.  That?s the only force keeping power honest.  

 

spike

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/ff44958f/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Wed May 11 17:39:14 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 13:39:14 -0400
Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?A_Nobel_Prize_=E2=80=8Bwinner_on_Trump?=
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv2y9WiZ1VSP-ck55DQtphn38OTU3hHO=XKuzt1_18yfmQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv1vJNDVg4tQDz4HRAdE9ViM4HrgA2xNpXx4H4ROcOpDvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhKyD0gtC2_KZhsvOT1gGYSf+vuDQVunnH3kdtzYXetpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2T_hQnEiBVqHaL54t_ZbXt9ExXyATuHpzcMdWKrj0f0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjDcFeLsqBiTTGGfqXTxa5C_D9nQ0CnMPu=A+2pxJvJdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0_OM2FcO4WNiwV9J3se_srE6b1jvPQJHFzsLavRN4TqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALMrAFTGs7S-gnfb625hrMUZ7pm5b=FDrz61uS_cuctjNbUs7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2y9WiZ1VSP-ck55DQtphn38OTU3hHO=XKuzt1_18yfmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFiEhQwePA0xT+NtgbmwuuuUJ11gYYkd14Q7Qbro5FNh6w@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:15 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:30 AM, Tomaz Kristan <protokol2020 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> ?In 2008 Ted Cruz wrote a 76 page legal brief in ?
> ?an unsuccessful attempt to get the Supreme Court ?make dildos illegal in
> Texas. In it Cruz said:
>
> ?"?
> *There? ?is a? ?government interest in discouraging? ?autonomous sex.?
> ?There is no substantive-due-process right to stimulate one's genitals for
> non-medical purposes unrelated to procreation? ?*
> *?*"  ?
>
> ?I'm not part of the left but that makes Ted Cruz seem not cool to me.
> Apparently  you disagree. ?
>

### See here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/434212/ted-cruz-didnt-ban-dildoes-he-did-his-job-reliable-consultants-inc-phe-v-earle

You may want to lay off Mother Jones, John. You could become a part of the
left.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/30787ec0/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Wed May 11 17:41:42 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 13:41:42 -0400
Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?A_Nobel_Prize_=E2=80=8Bwinner_on_Trump?=
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv2vckjPWoVBKVMzTUTnJ=0ky47P2veyV+cXkyM9dmAfhg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv1vJNDVg4tQDz4HRAdE9ViM4HrgA2xNpXx4H4ROcOpDvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhKyD0gtC2_KZhsvOT1gGYSf+vuDQVunnH3kdtzYXetpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2T_hQnEiBVqHaL54t_ZbXt9ExXyATuHpzcMdWKrj0f0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjDcFeLsqBiTTGGfqXTxa5C_D9nQ0CnMPu=A+2pxJvJdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0_OM2FcO4WNiwV9J3se_srE6b1jvPQJHFzsLavRN4TqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjhbFv9G7v0Ms+VQtQqLu30Lo7UmPyHq9D=0vMVcao65Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2vckjPWoVBKVMzTUTnJ=0ky47P2veyV+cXkyM9dmAfhg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFiFx37As0Mz_=_9yTnE-M1ScXxe-gPqmWB1zQUL5rroLw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:31 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> (about Ted Cruz)
>
> ?By trying to default on the national debt and collapse the world economy.
> ?
>
>

### Another Mother Jones story?

------------------------

>
> ?> ?
>> His religiosity doesn't bother me.
>>
>
> *?Why not?? *It bothers the hell out of me.
>
>  John K Clark?
>
>
> ### His religiosity is his private issue.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/280c691b/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Wed May 11 17:46:07 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 13:46:07 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Justifiable Lies
In-Reply-To: <00e001d1aba9$f23a8840$d6af98c0$@att.net>
References: <CAJPayv2aFUoJ5fXGaY1+tL9PQ+P8pos7xuLdK_qxQwCt=pOwiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <00e001d1aba9$f23a8840$d6af98c0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFiruPGyqbBQpqBu4XxV16HZF_Pz4HfyiM2gprMj9t8UxA@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:24 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote
>
>
>
> Lying is legal.  Lying under oath is not.  If there is enough evidence to
> force one to testify under oath, one must tell the truth, regardless of
> rank, regardless of the subject.  Questions should be asked.  Truth should
> be spoken to power.  And power must be held strictly accountable.  That
> keeps power honest.  That?s the only force keeping power honest.
>
>
>
### Spike, you are fighting the good fight.

Spike for POTUS!

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/06af75e1/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Wed May 11 17:51:20 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 13:51:20 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEZDJch6j=GzRQNvUCkxOfx8j-v=Y07Cxe-1zNfsWpPSpw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <572E9C31.30200@gmail.com>
 <CAL+RtPew5wYeL3RkpidyPtzKfoMT9E3Zj7mR5+qOvNSF4KX-rg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZDJch6j=GzRQNvUCkxOfx8j-v=Y07Cxe-1zNfsWpPSpw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFidjoOKT2--Nj=3hfaAPpO0xx9-kHS1N7rwHC3iK8L4tg@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 4:08 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <
> gsantostasi at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Samantha,
>> The problem is not the wealth inequality is created by people like Elon
>> Musk. He is the exception. In fact, it would be fine if wealth was gained
>> in this way by creating real value in the world.
>> Most wealth though is in the hands of people that have inherited without
>> any personal merit and the wealth is not used to create further value but
>> for speculation and rent seeking.
>> Look up the research on this. These agents are really parasites on the
>> system.
>> Giovanni
>>
>> ?If I am not mistaken, Congress got rid of death taxes several years
>> ago.  Too bad.
>>
>
>
> ### It didn't and it should have. See here:

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2005/05/should-the-estate-tax-go-becker.html


Don't let jealousy cloud your judgment.

I remember I used to be in favor of estate taxes but Becker changed my
mind. It does happen, changing your mind.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/8c512db1/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Wed May 11 17:52:59 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 13:52:59 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAL+RtPew5wYeL3RkpidyPtzKfoMT9E3Zj7mR5+qOvNSF4KX-rg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <572E9C31.30200@gmail.com>
 <CAL+RtPew5wYeL3RkpidyPtzKfoMT9E3Zj7mR5+qOvNSF4KX-rg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFgQQ0M5fXcQpuxyUxkiBg3kJhNGq41MgGhK-v=oFOA2ZA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <gsantostasi at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Samantha,
> The problem is not the wealth inequality is created by people like Elon
> Musk. He is the exception. In fact, it would be fine if wealth was gained
> in this way by creating real value in the world.
> Most wealth though is in the hands of people that have inherited without
> any personal merit and the wealth is not used to create further value but
> for speculation and rent seeking.
> Look up the research on this. These agents are really parasites on the
> system.
> Giovanni
>
> ### This is just envious leftist snark.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/b469ffa1/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Wed May 11 17:57:16 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 10:57:16 -0700
Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?Repudiating_the_national_debt/was_Re=3A__A_Nobel_?=
 =?utf-8?q?Prize_=E2=80=8Bwinner_on_Trump?=
Message-ID: <CE3D4CA8-795B-428A-972B-D366FEA22020@gmail.com>

On May 11, 2016, at 10:41 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:31 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>> (about Ted Cruz)
>> 
>> ?By trying to default on the national debt and collapse the world economy. ?
> 
> ### Another Mother Jones story?

I'm no fan of Trump, Cruz, or any Republicans (or Democrats or Krugman for that matter), but I do not believe repudiating the US (or any other) national debt would collapse the world economy. It would definitely shake it up and cause a lot of pain, but I believe that would be over quickly -- depending on what else happens. I'm not being snarky here either. If the basic policy were repudiate and don't try to make any further radical changes (in the direction of more interventions, that is), I think the pain and confusion would be over rather quickly -- maybe in under two years.

One positive effect such repudiation would have is making lenders more wary of lending to nation states in the first place, especially to First World ones with massive mercantilist apparatuses.

Regards,

Dan
  Sample my Kindle books via:
http://author.to/DanUst

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/1cd228cb/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Wed May 11 18:14:23 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 11:14:23 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFgQQ0M5fXcQpuxyUxkiBg3kJhNGq41MgGhK-v=oFOA2ZA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <572E9C31.30200@gmail.com>
 <CAL+RtPew5wYeL3RkpidyPtzKfoMT9E3Zj7mR5+qOvNSF4KX-rg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgQQ0M5fXcQpuxyUxkiBg3kJhNGq41MgGhK-v=oFOA2ZA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNSVjxYkkyQYp-4ZxBQmtG_LV8oKgMzKrs49KxAVGTDqYw@mail.gmail.com>

On May 11, 2016 10:53 AM, "Rafal Smigrodzki" <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <
gsantostasi at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The problem is not the wealth inequality is created by people like Elon
Musk. He is the exception. In fact, it would be fine if wealth was gained
in this way by creating real value in the world.
>> Most wealth though is in the hands of people that have inherited without
any personal merit and the wealth is not used to create further value but
for speculation and rent seeking.
>> Look up the research on this. These agents are really parasites on the
system.
>>
> ### This is just envious leftist snark.

No, Giovanni's got it right.  Most of the wealth concentration does not
come from value creation.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/036c9a49/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Wed May 11 18:36:07 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 11:36:07 -0700
Subject: [ExI] my unified theory on what really happened at the
	state	department
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNS_Eyb84NtcRNvtxb6x_4KFGpdhnAwmAKo+ijLHkDTv4Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <021701d1ab35$1af3d9a0$50db8ce0$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNS37NftP-Q9H5iecB5SZ0pNX3QSb4r6c8BYtCB9w2wV9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <009301d1aba4$baa9a000$2ffce000$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNS_Eyb84NtcRNvtxb6x_4KFGpdhnAwmAKo+ijLHkDTv4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <019201d1abb3$fbca7460$f35f5d20$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes



>>? The secure world isn?t like criminal court where the prosecutor must prove that the defendant committed the act.

>?You speak of felonies.  That is the criminal justice system.

>?The secure world is concerned with whether the info was, was not, or might have been compromised, not directly with punishments (beyond loss of access) for said compromise.  It does not have a concept of "felon".

 

This will be good news for former CIA guy Jeffery Sterling.  He knows that his current imprisonment (for which his actual conviction was deleting ONE email) was all a big mistake, and that all that really should have happened to him was loss of his tickets.  What a relief that must be, as he sits in prison.  At least he will not need to worry about having to share a cell with Mrs. Clinton.  On the other hand, he wouldn?t perhaps mind sharing one with Cheryl Mills, and would welcome doing so with Huma Abedin.

Snarkiness aside for a moment: on the contrary, if you are a clearance holder, you damn sure can end up in prison, even for sufficiently gross negligence.  

Story: I have a friend and former colleague who was known to have a temper on him.  For some unexplained reason, the security people called him in more often than usual, just to talk.  He had reached economic escape velocity so he really didn?t need the job anymore, and his patience was wearing thin with having to come in often to chat with the friendly ossifers, and would often come back pissed (so we knew what was going on.)

One day he went off for a chat.  Couple hours later, no Joe.  A couple hours later, still no Joe.  Meetings were missed.  An hour later, four security guys showed up with cardboard boxes, packed his desk, hauled away his safe.  Next day his cube was empty without a trace.  Some months later, we had dinner.  He explained he was just tired of the bullshit, got pissed, threw his badge on the floor and shouted ?THAT?S IT!  I am TIRED of this goddam treatment, get these goddam instruments off of me, I am FINISHED with this job, you can HAVE it, I QUIT!?  etc, Joe being Joe, something I had seen at least twice before.

OK Joe, calm down.  You are free to quit, and you would anyway probably because you just had your tickets put on hold.  However? you still aren?t going anywhere.  You still need to answer a few questions?

They investigated him, and eventually they let it go and he is a real estate guy now.  

The secure world damn sure does have a concept of felon, and they remind you of that in very explicit terms at every opportunity, such as every time you log on and acknowledge that you understand, mishandling what you just logged on to is a felony and you could end up sharing a cell with Mr. Sterling.  He is lonely in there.  He misses his wife.  You will do as a temporary bride in the meantime.

spike

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/2af6a6ec/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Wed May 11 18:44:37 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 11:44:37 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Justifiable Lies
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFiruPGyqbBQpqBu4XxV16HZF_Pz4HfyiM2gprMj9t8UxA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv2aFUoJ5fXGaY1+tL9PQ+P8pos7xuLdK_qxQwCt=pOwiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <00e001d1aba9$f23a8840$d6af98c0$@att.net>
 <CAAc1gFiruPGyqbBQpqBu4XxV16HZF_Pz4HfyiM2gprMj9t8UxA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <01a101d1abb5$2c1a33c0$844e9b40$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki
Subject: Re: [ExI] Justifiable Lies

 

 

 

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:24 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net> > wrote 

 

>>?Lying is legal.  Lying under oath is not?  Truth should be spoken to power.  And power must be held strictly accountable.  That keeps power honest.  That?s the only force keeping power honest.  

 

### Spike, you are fighting the good fight.

 

Spike for POTUS!

 

Rafa? 

 

 

 

Rafal don?t do it man!  Big mistake.  Were this nation to give me a big wad of power, I would immediately use it all to demand one thing:  a constitutional amendment to balance the federal budget.  I would demand it to be written very clearly: the federal government may not borrow and spend future generations? money, for that leads to runaway government growth and overspending (now whatever gave me that idea?)  It must spend only what it takes in.

 

States must balance their budgets by law.  Currently the Fed need not, does not and cannot.  This creates a situation where states shirk their duties and hands them over to Daddy Warbucks Fed with the magic printing press.  This will lead to utter catastrophe in the easily foreseeable, borrowing and spending us into a hopeless morass from which we may never recover.  

 

So if elected, I would abuse my power by seeking to make it legally impossible for me to abuse my power.

 

spike  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/ca070cb4/attachment.html>

From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Wed May 11 19:15:43 2016
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 12:15:43 -0700
Subject: [ExI] my unified theory etc
Message-ID: <CAPiwVB5LZ5MNaQAgfq32kWXqXaRrnQqnxW4Hcs8VpOnYmMSudg@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:01 AM,
<extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> We have been given contradictory information, implausible explanations,
> excuses and such, but I have for those interested in these matters a unified
> theory on what actually happened at the Department of State.  Clinton was
> appointed SecState in Jan 2009.  She wanted a secure blackberry like the one
> used by Barack.  But the security team told her no, for perfectly
> understandable reasons: the technology did not exist (and still doesn't) for
> doing what she asked.  She wanted a secure blackberry which could be carried
> abroad.  These cannot be secured abroad with current technology.

Perhaps you can explain why?

If end-to-end encryption isn't good enough, they can always use one time pads.

Keith


From atymes at gmail.com  Wed May 11 19:25:23 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 12:25:23 -0700
Subject: [ExI] my unified theory on what really happened at the state
	department
In-Reply-To: <019201d1abb3$fbca7460$f35f5d20$@att.net>
References: <021701d1ab35$1af3d9a0$50db8ce0$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNS37NftP-Q9H5iecB5SZ0pNX3QSb4r6c8BYtCB9w2wV9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <009301d1aba4$baa9a000$2ffce000$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNS_Eyb84NtcRNvtxb6x_4KFGpdhnAwmAKo+ijLHkDTv4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <019201d1abb3$fbca7460$f35f5d20$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNTOQ1-FLz=ywU4=brBiF-38cc29wQdwRWZVFWo+M1-8tg@mail.gmail.com>

On May 11, 2016 11:51 AM, "spike" <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> Snarkiness aside for a moment: on the contrary, if you are a clearance
holder, you damn sure can end up in prison, even for sufficiently gross
negligence.

Gross negligence, in this usage, is a criminal charge.  It has to be
proven.  Granted, that's often much easier than proving there was a
leak...and if your theory is right, it's either this or incompetence.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/3a92b982/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Wed May 11 19:58:44 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 15:58:44 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Justifiable Lies
In-Reply-To: <00e001d1aba9$f23a8840$d6af98c0$@att.net>
References: <CAJPayv2aFUoJ5fXGaY1+tL9PQ+P8pos7xuLdK_qxQwCt=pOwiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <00e001d1aba9$f23a8840$d6af98c0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv2ZHQc0fWFjg1W6AuiF3+Bb-KkDNTNG9FsyF7hfjRmSjQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:24 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

?> ?
> Lying is legal.  Lying under oath is not.


?I know, but if I was on a jury and determined that the defendant did
?something illegal that wouldn't necessarily be enough for me to vote
guilty, I would vote guilty only if I thought it was immoral too. The judge
repeatedly tells jurors not to do that but I'd do it anyway. The Senate was
acting as a jury and if I was a Senator I'd do what I thought was right.

I agree with you about "Wag the Dog", great movie!

 John K Clark









>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/d7f9b59e/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Wed May 11 20:30:40 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 16:30:40 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Justifiable Lies
In-Reply-To: <01a101d1abb5$2c1a33c0$844e9b40$@att.net>
References: <CAJPayv2aFUoJ5fXGaY1+tL9PQ+P8pos7xuLdK_qxQwCt=pOwiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <00e001d1aba9$f23a8840$d6af98c0$@att.net>
 <CAAc1gFiruPGyqbBQpqBu4XxV16HZF_Pz4HfyiM2gprMj9t8UxA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01a101d1abb5$2c1a33c0$844e9b40$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv3tEHhmnvCNeBmMurbfO+fOsk66xfpxMCLaQvbFCnV4Lw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:44 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

?> ?
> States must balance their budgets by law.  Currently the Fed need not,
> does not and cannot.


That lecherous adulterous fellow Bill Clinton that you think should have
been kicked out of office did.  ?


?> ?
> ?T?
> his creates a situation where states shirk their duties and hands them
> over to Daddy Warbucks Fed with the magic printing press.  This will lead
> to utter catastrophe in the easily foreseeable, borrowing and spending us
> into a hopeless morass from which we may never recover.


?Republicans have been making that ?
?"?
easily foreseeable
?" prediction for well over a decade so if they were right you'd think we'd
see at least a hint of it by now like rising interest rates and growing
inflation, but instead both have been at historic lows for years and the
main economic concern is collapsing oil prices. So maybe just maybe they
don't understand how the economy works quite as well as they think they do.


 John K Clark  ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/5376d063/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Wed May 11 20:17:32 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 13:17:32 -0700
Subject: [ExI] my unified theory etc
In-Reply-To: <CAPiwVB5LZ5MNaQAgfq32kWXqXaRrnQqnxW4Hcs8VpOnYmMSudg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB5LZ5MNaQAgfq32kWXqXaRrnQqnxW4Hcs8VpOnYmMSudg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <004c01d1abc2$26d95f00$748c1d00$@att.net>



-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf
Of Keith Henson
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 12:16 PM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] my unified theory etc

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:01 AM,
<extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> >...  But the security team told her no, for perfectly understandable
reasons: the 
> technology did not exist (and still doesn't) for doing what she asked.  
> She wanted a secure blackberry which could be carried abroad.  These
cannot be secured abroad with current technology.

>...Perhaps you can explain why?

If end-to-end encryption isn't good enough, they can always use one time
pads.

Keith


Keith encryption would help, but they couldn't prevent the signals from
being intercepted, then arbitrary numbers of computers chewing away at it
for arbitrarily long.  Using one-time pads (or the electronic equivalent)
would work to defeat this, however any scheme we could come up with still
requires the kinds of password discipline that we now think Mrs. Clinton
flatly refused to perform (details not available on request (the way they do
passwords make that process a paaaaainnnn in the aaassssss (but it also
explains why Mrs. Clinton never activated her .gov account (and another
insight your question gave me: Mrs. Clinton didn't have a secure account,
never had one, so she was not reminded every day, every single time she
accessed a message that she could end up roommates with Mr. Sterling if she
mishandled the info on that server (but her staff did (which brings up a
whole sticky mess of questions in itself (such as the obvious: how did that
material get across the gap?))))))))

spike



From spike66 at att.net  Wed May 11 20:25:22 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 13:25:22 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Justifiable Lies
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv2ZHQc0fWFjg1W6AuiF3+Bb-KkDNTNG9FsyF7hfjRmSjQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv2aFUoJ5fXGaY1+tL9PQ+P8pos7xuLdK_qxQwCt=pOwiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <00e001d1aba9$f23a8840$d6af98c0$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv2ZHQc0fWFjg1W6AuiF3+Bb-KkDNTNG9FsyF7hfjRmSjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <004d01d1abc3$3f3a68e0$bdaf3aa0$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 12:59 PM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] Justifiable Lies

 

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:24 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net> > wrote:

 

?> ??Lying is legal.  Lying under oath is not.

 

?>? The Senate was acting as a jury and if I was a Senator I'd do what I thought was right?

 

Me too. And I agree with what the senate did.  I agree with what Ken Starr did.  Both were doing their jobs.

 

>?I agree with you about "Wag the Dog", great movie!  John K Clark

 

I watched again recently.  This is a great example of comedy that has aged well.  It has even improved over time, as we have grown wiser with the internet and certainly more cynical about our own leaders.  This was Dustin Hoffman?s best work, and probably DeNiro?s best as well.  Parodies seldom make it into that league or get that much star power.

 

spike

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/9dd4e59b/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Wed May 11 20:50:29 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 13:50:29 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Justifiable Lies
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv3tEHhmnvCNeBmMurbfO+fOsk66xfpxMCLaQvbFCnV4Lw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv2aFUoJ5fXGaY1+tL9PQ+P8pos7xuLdK_qxQwCt=pOwiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <00e001d1aba9$f23a8840$d6af98c0$@att.net>
 <CAAc1gFiruPGyqbBQpqBu4XxV16HZF_Pz4HfyiM2gprMj9t8UxA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01a101d1abb5$2c1a33c0$844e9b40$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3tEHhmnvCNeBmMurbfO+fOsk66xfpxMCLaQvbFCnV4Lw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <007e01d1abc6$c19d97a0$44d8c6e0$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 1:31 PM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] Justifiable Lies

 

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:44 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net> > wrote:

 

?> ?

States must balance their budgets by law.  Currently the Fed need not, does not and cannot. 


That lecherous adulterous fellow Bill Clinton that you think should have been kicked out of office did?

 

If he really did that (not just by accounting tricks such as raiding Social Security) then we should be working to repeal the 22nd amendment and instead elect Bill.  We will also need his House counterpart Newt Gingrich.  Instead we are looking to Mrs. Clinton who has nothing on her resume but one senate term and an epic fail as SecState.  Does this make sense?  Why didn?t the Newtster do any better in his half-hearted run? 

 

 

?>?Republicans have been making that ?

?"?easily foreseeable" prediction for well over a decade so if they were right you'd think we'd see at least a hint of it by now like rising interest rates and growing inflation, but instead both have been at historic lows for years ? John K Clark  ?

 

 

John, you do realize why interest rates are not going up, ja?  If they do, the federal government cannot pay the interest on its own debt.  We are then bankrupt: the Fed has run out of other people?s money.  In the current paradigm, the Fed not only is unable to pay normal interest rates, it cannot even maintain normal operations without continuous new borrowing.  OK now what?  My obvious conclusion: the Fed is too big by about a factor of 2, possibly more.

 

Having interest rates at 1% for years has consequences: it discourages personal savings.  That creates (in the long run) dependence, either on jobs or government safety nets, which results in more concentration of power, which results in more concentration of corruption.

 

Interest rates aren?t going up because they cannot.  See what happens to all those pension funds set up assuming an average of 6% growth: they are forced into riskier options to maintain the assumed growth.

 

There are other dire consequences for artificially holding interest rates down.  No need for me to list them: you can find out if you want to know.

 

spike

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/6ac5801d/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Wed May 11 21:44:44 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 17:44:44 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Justifiable Lies
In-Reply-To: <007e01d1abc6$c19d97a0$44d8c6e0$@att.net>
References: <CAJPayv2aFUoJ5fXGaY1+tL9PQ+P8pos7xuLdK_qxQwCt=pOwiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <00e001d1aba9$f23a8840$d6af98c0$@att.net>
 <CAAc1gFiruPGyqbBQpqBu4XxV16HZF_Pz4HfyiM2gprMj9t8UxA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01a101d1abb5$2c1a33c0$844e9b40$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3tEHhmnvCNeBmMurbfO+fOsk66xfpxMCLaQvbFCnV4Lw@mail.gmail.com>
 <007e01d1abc6$c19d97a0$44d8c6e0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv1w2px=x8EKc4JxFj5hVduiUrN89kx9mYUbcO3Vkb2jMQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 4:50 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

?>>?
>> That lecherous adulterous fellow Bill Clinton that you think should have
>> been kicked out of office did  [balance the budget
>> ? for 4 years?
>> ]
>
>

?> ?
> If he really did that (not just by accounting tricks such as raiding
> Social Security) then we should be working to repeal the 22nd amendment and
> instead elect Bill.


?
You said that not me. And if it was all some mysterious accounting trick
why didn't George Bush use that wonderful trick before Clinton, and why did
George W Bush stop using that wonderful trick as soon as he got into office?


> ?>?
> John, you do realize why interest rates are not going up, ja?  If they do,
> the federal government cannot pay the interest on its own debt.
>
> ?Oh come on Spike, the Republicans have
?
been
?
predicting sky high interest rates and astronomical inflation for
?
well
?
over a decade, and no matter how
? you?
try to spin it or how many excuses
?
you make
?
they were *DEAD WRONG*; exactly the opposite of what they predicted would
happen happened. But perhaps I shouldn't judge them too harshly, as Yogi
Berra said "Predicting is hard, especially about the future".

John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/82cd0151/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Wed May 11 22:40:06 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 18:40:06 -0400
Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?A_Nobel_Prize_=E2=80=8Bwinner_on_Trump?=
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFiFx37As0Mz_=_9yTnE-M1ScXxe-gPqmWB1zQUL5rroLw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv1vJNDVg4tQDz4HRAdE9ViM4HrgA2xNpXx4H4ROcOpDvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhKyD0gtC2_KZhsvOT1gGYSf+vuDQVunnH3kdtzYXetpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2T_hQnEiBVqHaL54t_ZbXt9ExXyATuHpzcMdWKrj0f0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjDcFeLsqBiTTGGfqXTxa5C_D9nQ0CnMPu=A+2pxJvJdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0_OM2FcO4WNiwV9J3se_srE6b1jvPQJHFzsLavRN4TqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjhbFv9G7v0Ms+VQtQqLu30Lo7UmPyHq9D=0vMVcao65Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2vckjPWoVBKVMzTUTnJ=0ky47P2veyV+cXkyM9dmAfhg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFiFx37As0Mz_=_9yTnE-M1ScXxe-gPqmWB1zQUL5rroLw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv0E1KAw22kqOb=_m7gtL-9_6HMOOdBdmyO-bDmZBojEzg@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2016  Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:

?>>?
>> ?By trying to default on the national debt and collapse the world
>> economy. ?
>>
>>
>
> ?> ?
> Another Mother Jones story?
>

?I don't know, I've never read Mother Jones. I answered your question so
now answer mine, were you trapped in a mine cave in or lost at sea in
October of 2013??



> ?>?
>  His religiosity is his private issue.
>

How the hell do you figure that?
?
Ted Cruz
? has said more than once "
I'm a Christian first
? and a?
American second
?" and that seems like relevant information an American voter should have
about a presidential candidate. Ted Cruz also said he
consults with a invisible
?man in the sky before he makes any major decision and that doesn't seem
like a private issue to me either, not if the man having the conversation
with the invisible man has the keys to a Trident Nuclear Submarine.

An
?
invisible man in the sky told George W Bush to invade Iraq and that was
about as far from private as you can get
?;?
so when President Ted Cruz hears voices in his head telling him to do
things I'd like to know what those voices are saying.

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/97d051bf/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Wed May 11 23:03:14 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 19:03:14 -0400
Subject: [ExI]
	=?utf-8?q?Repudiating_the_national_debt/was_Re=3A_A_Nobel_P?=
	=?utf-8?q?rize_=E2=80=8Bwinner_on_Trump?=
In-Reply-To: <CE3D4CA8-795B-428A-972B-D366FEA22020@gmail.com>
References: <CE3D4CA8-795B-428A-972B-D366FEA22020@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv3JSRkOCAz+au4pf7F8g=4beFdnyc+=t14GKCHUyVTmBw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2016Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:

?>?
>  I do not believe repudiating the US (or any other) national debt would
> collapse the world economy.
>

?Other than World War 3 I can't imagine a greater economic catastrophe
?than
??
repudiating the national debt
?, but
Trump
? and?
Cruz
? believe as you do that it would be no big deal. And what absolutely
terrifies me is that there is a 24.1% chance that Donald Trump will be the
next president. And that's way way *WAY* too high!

 John K Clark

 ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/55971fea/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Wed May 11 23:06:22 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 19:06:22 -0400
Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?A_Nobel_Prize_=E2=80=8Bwinner_on_Trump?=
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv0E1KAw22kqOb=_m7gtL-9_6HMOOdBdmyO-bDmZBojEzg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv1vJNDVg4tQDz4HRAdE9ViM4HrgA2xNpXx4H4ROcOpDvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhKyD0gtC2_KZhsvOT1gGYSf+vuDQVunnH3kdtzYXetpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2T_hQnEiBVqHaL54t_ZbXt9ExXyATuHpzcMdWKrj0f0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjDcFeLsqBiTTGGfqXTxa5C_D9nQ0CnMPu=A+2pxJvJdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0_OM2FcO4WNiwV9J3se_srE6b1jvPQJHFzsLavRN4TqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjhbFv9G7v0Ms+VQtQqLu30Lo7UmPyHq9D=0vMVcao65Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2vckjPWoVBKVMzTUTnJ=0ky47P2veyV+cXkyM9dmAfhg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFiFx37As0Mz_=_9yTnE-M1ScXxe-gPqmWB1zQUL5rroLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0E1KAw22kqOb=_m7gtL-9_6HMOOdBdmyO-bDmZBojEzg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFh9Q4rCdD4yjACNupDRM0y-2cRg8dLBN6oVAJMTxC=wsw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 6:40 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> An
> ?
> invisible man in the sky told George W Bush to invade Iraq and that was
> about as far from private as you can get
> ?;?
> so when President Ted Cruz hears voices in his head telling him to do
> things I'd like to know what those voices are saying.
>

### If an invisible friend tells Cruz to vote as he does, then I'd say we
need more of them.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/60504023/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Wed May 11 23:18:50 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 19:18:50 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNSVjxYkkyQYp-4ZxBQmtG_LV8oKgMzKrs49KxAVGTDqYw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <572E9C31.30200@gmail.com>
 <CAL+RtPew5wYeL3RkpidyPtzKfoMT9E3Zj7mR5+qOvNSF4KX-rg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgQQ0M5fXcQpuxyUxkiBg3kJhNGq41MgGhK-v=oFOA2ZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNSVjxYkkyQYp-4ZxBQmtG_LV8oKgMzKrs49KxAVGTDqYw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFjD94e5ADUdkvC35=pu4qzvDCkfyGaDi1OA6Rcc9XpaJQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 11, 2016 10:53 AM, "Rafal Smigrodzki" <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <
> gsantostasi at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The problem is not the wealth inequality is created by people like Elon
> Musk. He is the exception. In fact, it would be fine if wealth was gained
> in this way by creating real value in the world.
> >> Most wealth though is in the hands of people that have inherited
> without any personal merit and the wealth is not used to create further
> value but for speculation and rent seeking.
> >> Look up the research on this. These agents are really parasites on the
> system.
> >>
> > ### This is just envious leftist snark.
>
> No, Giovanni's got it right.  Most of the wealth concentration does not
> come from value creation.
>

### I am not surprised to hear you say that.

Hey, but maybe you can go beyond vague accusations and state rigorously
what percentage of wealth concentration comes from value destruction. Try
to do the numbers, state a measure of wealth concentration (Where? US?
World? When? Throughout history? Or only in capitalist societies?), tell us
how to attribute some of that to wealth creation and some of that to wealth
transfer without net social gains.

Anything short of that is just stone-age envy.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/1ea28e3b/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Wed May 11 23:33:31 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 19:33:31 -0400
Subject: [ExI] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNQ_eyotvb6LvUkW3MVaPv8EVxL3bku+PTjp0d_mx+QdBA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFgJLT0KLJRF3LsE5B=bhTvsYdN0vDOt3tXStXeOHad+pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRr3YzLbWtXSXfEQWY6+d7e2jt1YbnGV1AdfKT23vxrKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjPFyUvTp5D=Pu_wg+_4nREP1LVhCd5h+Q47=kK0qbi6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNSCxXj5CWSg7pdhTFaXEgceQ-ixCbsHgEqn-NW__0hqog@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgcq0utW-YzJodV+GfWXfZ0o86g9-juq09XB_Wq5M7S-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNTkWMZqpTGBJJZ6DmuWduV4V-Y=hVGsdBu5FG_kopASZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF5CFkhYe1nNx_uTgkRNvmjAH+z3VdJObYe+-nXACHDcupFAKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRades8Fpza1yg5yPzf57bLSy3kAjq31ok-AT7DHGeO0w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjq=a_GNe3ww39aVQoZme_1x6S61nsbt3-v=ciXgUqGkQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNSHaawz+7-+n6bWALB=W0dACU5Sc5TiA+Xgp0F4C6mUzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhDqNObyNV=3NLHcBOJBDQJgcG-2+1Kw_hVpJnHJZVTPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNQ_eyotvb6LvUkW3MVaPv8EVxL3bku+PTjp0d_mx+QdBA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFjHgVKHOXtWqXt005TYa+vKKKvE4=AFbrEpWmqMvkQXbQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
> rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Tell me where did I lie.
>>
>
> "The references you adduce provide no information in support of FDA's
> attack on vapes."
>
> That's the main one.  You provided follow-up cherry picking a few points,
> suggesting there was nothing else, but that statement said there was no
> supporting information, yet there was.  In addition to the many health
> problems noted, things like "The electronic cigarette cartridges that were
> labeled as containing no nicotine had low levels of nicotine present in all
> cartridges tested, except one." state that e-cigarettes tend to have false
> advertising too, which would be reason enough to go after them.
>

### How low were the nicotine levels? Enough to produce a pharmacological
response?

This does not support FDA's attack on vapes.

-------------------

>
> That said, there were inaccuracies in the follow-ups you did provide.
> (Though you were correct that the FDA memo suggests the nicotine in
> e-cigarettes comes from tobacco - but again, there was far more in the memo
> than that.)
>

### There is nothing in that memo that supports FDA's attack on vapes. Give
me a specific quote which in your opinion provides support for FDA's power
grab.
-----------------


>
> "The BMJ article summarizes the low reliability of research on vapes"
>
> The variability was in the e-cigarettes studied.  That of course causes
> variability in the studies; it doesn't say the research itself isn't
> reliable.
>

### The reliability of research on vapes, the lack of it, does not justify
FDA's attack on vapes. Wasn't this article the one you highlighted as being
most convincing?
----------------


>
> "the third one shows actually a reasonably good level of precision in
> labeling of nicotine content of vapes"
>
> Actually, the third one states, "Electronic cigarette solutions may have
> nicotine concentrations that are significantly (i.e., 30%) different than
> manufacturer claims."  So by its standards, there is not "a reasonably good
> level of precision in labeling of nicotine content".
>

### Yes, it is a reasonably good level of precision in labeling. It means
that an addict can get the dose he desires in a set number of inhalations,
+/- 25% from different manufacturers, which is reasonably good as far as
performance comparisons of various products go.

------------------

>
> "Also, you are engaging in manipulative rhetoric ("garbage-quality
> product")."
>
> That may be your opinion (even if you try to frame it as objective fact),
> but I was summarizing this from the FDA reference, backed up by the BHJ
> study: "DPA's testing also suggested that quality control processes used to
> manufacture these products are inconsistent or non-existent."  A complete
> lack of quality control is garbage quality, relative to what is normally
> expected for something meant to go in our bodies.
>

### Addicts get what they want from vapes, +/-25%. You don't get what you
want from garbage. Therefore, vapes are not garbage.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/0ab96d07/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Wed May 11 23:34:20 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 16:34:20 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFjD94e5ADUdkvC35=pu4qzvDCkfyGaDi1OA6Rcc9XpaJQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <572E9C31.30200@gmail.com>
 <CAL+RtPew5wYeL3RkpidyPtzKfoMT9E3Zj7mR5+qOvNSF4KX-rg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgQQ0M5fXcQpuxyUxkiBg3kJhNGq41MgGhK-v=oFOA2ZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNSVjxYkkyQYp-4ZxBQmtG_LV8oKgMzKrs49KxAVGTDqYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjD94e5ADUdkvC35=pu4qzvDCkfyGaDi1OA6Rcc9XpaJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNStqDZ6FSYV0DQisxvxkVTqYqNuDF+SHD+Kw0nV9QWgwg@mail.gmail.com>

On May 11, 2016 4:19 PM, "Rafal Smigrodzki" <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 11, 2016 10:53 AM, "Rafal Smigrodzki" <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
wrote:
>> > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <
gsantostasi at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Look up the research on this.
>> >>
>> > ### This is just envious leftist snark.
>>
>> No, Giovanni's got it right.  Most of the wealth concentration does not
come from value creation.
>
> ### I am not surprised to hear you say that.
>
> Hey, but maybe you can go beyond vague accusations and state rigorously
what percentage of wealth concentration comes from value destruction.

Any exact percentage depends on definitions.  Any number stated, you could
just cite different definitions to reject.

Besides, Giovanni's once again got it right.  There is much published
research on this that you can look up.  You're the one alleging this is
"just envious leftist snark"; you get to prove there is absolutely no
possible justification for the viewpoint based on all - not just a cherry
picked sample, but all - the research that is out there.

Perhaps you could start by citing research showing the exact percentage of
wealth concentration that comes from value destruction.  I'll wait by the
truck, getting the goalposts ready for high speed transport.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/6b69e057/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Wed May 11 23:37:39 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 16:37:39 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv3JSRkOCAz+au4pf7F8g=4beFdnyc+=t14GKCHUyVTmBw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CE3D4CA8-795B-428A-972B-D366FEA22020@gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3JSRkOCAz+au4pf7F8g=4beFdnyc+=t14GKCHUyVTmBw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <308CCF17-DAFD-4D2E-A8E6-C9B813A4906E@gmail.com>

On May 11, 2016, at 4:03 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 11, 2016Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
> 
>> ?>? I do not believe repudiating the US (or any other) national debt would collapse the world economy.
> 
> ?Other than World War 3 I can't imagine a greater economic catastrophe ?than ??repudiating the national debt?, but Trump? and? Cruz? believe as you do that it would be no big deal.

I didn't state it would be no big deal.

> And what absolutely terrifies me is that there is a 24.1% chance that Donald Trump will be the next president. And that's way way WAY too high!

What's scary to me is that anyone will be president.

Regards,

Dan
  Sample my Kindle books via:
http://author.to/DanUst
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/ceb9fb62/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Wed May 11 23:45:12 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 19:45:12 -0400
Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?A_Nobel_Prize_=E2=80=8Bwinner_on_Trump?=
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFh9Q4rCdD4yjACNupDRM0y-2cRg8dLBN6oVAJMTxC=wsw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv1vJNDVg4tQDz4HRAdE9ViM4HrgA2xNpXx4H4ROcOpDvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhKyD0gtC2_KZhsvOT1gGYSf+vuDQVunnH3kdtzYXetpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2T_hQnEiBVqHaL54t_ZbXt9ExXyATuHpzcMdWKrj0f0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjDcFeLsqBiTTGGfqXTxa5C_D9nQ0CnMPu=A+2pxJvJdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0_OM2FcO4WNiwV9J3se_srE6b1jvPQJHFzsLavRN4TqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjhbFv9G7v0Ms+VQtQqLu30Lo7UmPyHq9D=0vMVcao65Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2vckjPWoVBKVMzTUTnJ=0ky47P2veyV+cXkyM9dmAfhg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFiFx37As0Mz_=_9yTnE-M1ScXxe-gPqmWB1zQUL5rroLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0E1KAw22kqOb=_m7gtL-9_6HMOOdBdmyO-bDmZBojEzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFh9Q4rCdD4yjACNupDRM0y-2cRg8dLBN6oVAJMTxC=wsw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv01hdFb0z0AEXo1rszDec4dBN-yPusR_r73J+Ss1cKJOQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at  Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
wrote:

?>?
>  If an invisible friend tells Cruz to vote as he does, then I'd say we
> need more of them.
>

?An
invisible
? man in the sky told Ted Cruz there should be a law against "
*stimulating?? ?? one's genitals for non-medical purposes unrelated to
procreation*
*?*".  Do you really want more ?
invisible
? men like in the sky like that saying things like that to other
politicians?

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/2f39777f/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Wed May 11 23:47:50 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 19:47:50 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Justifiable Lies
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv1w2px=x8EKc4JxFj5hVduiUrN89kx9mYUbcO3Vkb2jMQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv2aFUoJ5fXGaY1+tL9PQ+P8pos7xuLdK_qxQwCt=pOwiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <00e001d1aba9$f23a8840$d6af98c0$@att.net>
 <CAAc1gFiruPGyqbBQpqBu4XxV16HZF_Pz4HfyiM2gprMj9t8UxA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01a101d1abb5$2c1a33c0$844e9b40$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3tEHhmnvCNeBmMurbfO+fOsk66xfpxMCLaQvbFCnV4Lw@mail.gmail.com>
 <007e01d1abc6$c19d97a0$44d8c6e0$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1w2px=x8EKc4JxFj5hVduiUrN89kx9mYUbcO3Vkb2jMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFgc57aOgF5tF+z5ZL755irLJb-tL5O-4fz0M-mWuWom+g@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 5:44 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ?Oh come on Spike, the Republicans have
> ?
> been
> ?
> predicting sky high interest rates and astronomical inflation for
> ?
> well
> ?
> over a decade, and no matter how
> ? you?
> try to spin it or how many excuses
> ?
> you make
> ?
> they were *DEAD WRONG*; exactly the opposite of what they predicted would
> happen happened. But perhaps I shouldn't judge them too harshly, as Yogi
> Berra said "Predicting is hard, especially about the future".
>

 ### Unless AI-boosted productivity growth bails us out, world's
governments will be unable to pay their debts in the next 30 - 40 years if
they continue the present trajectory. Saying that unlimited debt
accumulation is not a problem because our economies so far didn't have to
deal with its effects is like saying that having a plastic bag wrapped
around your head is safe, because you haven't passed out yet.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/25edcc43/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Wed May 11 23:56:40 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 19:56:40 -0400
Subject: [ExI]
	=?utf-8?q?Repudiating_the_national_debt/was_Re=3A_A_Nobel_P?=
	=?utf-8?q?rize_=E2=80=8Bwinner_on_Trump?=
In-Reply-To: <CE3D4CA8-795B-428A-972B-D366FEA22020@gmail.com>
References: <CE3D4CA8-795B-428A-972B-D366FEA22020@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFh32J8VAaKwfm9b84XF5tuExhB0goPEevhrea2H4M_YNw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On May 11, 2016, at 10:41 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 1:31 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> (about Ted Cruz)
>>
>> ?By trying to default on the national debt and collapse the world
>> economy. ?
>>
>>
>
> ### Another Mother Jones story?
>
>
> I'm no fan of Trump, Cruz, or any Republicans (or Democrats or Krugman for
> that matter), but I do not believe repudiating the US (or any other)
> national debt would collapse the world economy. It would definitely shake
> it up and cause a lot of pain, but I believe that would be over quickly --
> depending on what else happens. I'm not being snarky here either. If the
> basic policy were repudiate and don't try to make any further radical
> changes (in the direction of more interventions, that is), I think the pain
> and confusion would be over rather quickly -- maybe in under two years.
>
> One positive effect such repudiation would have is making lenders more
> wary of lending to nation states in the first place, especially to First
> World ones with massive mercantilist apparatuses.
>

### There is something to be said in favor of this solution. It would wipe
out a lot of savers, yes, but it's better than some alternatives. For
example, if governments managed to improve the extractive efficiency of
their tax policies, they could service debt but it would mean that private
economic activity would be essentially eliminated. That would be worse than
the disruptions caused by debt repudiation.

Economies don't really collapse for fiscal reasons. They break due to war,
civil war, physical disasters, social capital loss and destructive economic
policies (communism) but fiscal issues tend to have only a temporary effect.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/dbc6cc51/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Thu May 12 00:01:51 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 20:01:51 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <308CCF17-DAFD-4D2E-A8E6-C9B813A4906E@gmail.com>
References: <CE3D4CA8-795B-428A-972B-D366FEA22020@gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3JSRkOCAz+au4pf7F8g=4beFdnyc+=t14GKCHUyVTmBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <308CCF17-DAFD-4D2E-A8E6-C9B813A4906E@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv1E5jic-j6EatULgpQCT9PwidUm-axDLtN5GHa2ciVeiw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2016 Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:

?>> ?
>> at there is a 24.1% chance that Donald Trump will be the next president.
>> And that's way way *WAY* too high!
>
>
> ?> ?
> What's scary to me is that anyone will be president.
>

?I think it's silly to pretend they're all the same. The probability that
you'll be dead in 4 years will be greater if Donald Trump is president than
if ?Hillary Clinton

?is president, and the probability you'll be poorer will be MUCH greater.

 John K Clark ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/52b4a304/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Thu May 12 00:04:34 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 20:04:34 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNStqDZ6FSYV0DQisxvxkVTqYqNuDF+SHD+Kw0nV9QWgwg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <572E9C31.30200@gmail.com>
 <CAL+RtPew5wYeL3RkpidyPtzKfoMT9E3Zj7mR5+qOvNSF4KX-rg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgQQ0M5fXcQpuxyUxkiBg3kJhNGq41MgGhK-v=oFOA2ZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNSVjxYkkyQYp-4ZxBQmtG_LV8oKgMzKrs49KxAVGTDqYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjD94e5ADUdkvC35=pu4qzvDCkfyGaDi1OA6Rcc9XpaJQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNStqDZ6FSYV0DQisxvxkVTqYqNuDF+SHD+Kw0nV9QWgwg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFiD56fHQ7RXUmrXeDtCbVDT3e-osgMjkq2-F-QyaLnRyQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 11, 2016 4:19 PM, "Rafal Smigrodzki" <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hey, but maybe you can go beyond vague accusations and state rigorously
> what percentage of wealth concentration comes from value destruction.
>
> Any exact percentage depends on definitions.  Any number stated, you could
> just cite different definitions to reject.
>
### You think I would reject a reasonable definition of wealth
concentration?

Well, if you don't want to try a rigorous discussion, I won't bug you about
it. But then the comment about leftist snark stands.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/e0cbb906/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Thu May 12 00:05:33 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 17:05:33 -0700
Subject: [ExI] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFjHgVKHOXtWqXt005TYa+vKKKvE4=AFbrEpWmqMvkQXbQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFgJLT0KLJRF3LsE5B=bhTvsYdN0vDOt3tXStXeOHad+pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRr3YzLbWtXSXfEQWY6+d7e2jt1YbnGV1AdfKT23vxrKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjPFyUvTp5D=Pu_wg+_4nREP1LVhCd5h+Q47=kK0qbi6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNSCxXj5CWSg7pdhTFaXEgceQ-ixCbsHgEqn-NW__0hqog@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgcq0utW-YzJodV+GfWXfZ0o86g9-juq09XB_Wq5M7S-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNTkWMZqpTGBJJZ6DmuWduV4V-Y=hVGsdBu5FG_kopASZw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF5CFkhYe1nNx_uTgkRNvmjAH+z3VdJObYe+-nXACHDcupFAKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRades8Fpza1yg5yPzf57bLSy3kAjq31ok-AT7DHGeO0w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjq=a_GNe3ww39aVQoZme_1x6S61nsbt3-v=ciXgUqGkQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNSHaawz+7-+n6bWALB=W0dACU5Sc5TiA+Xgp0F4C6mUzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhDqNObyNV=3NLHcBOJBDQJgcG-2+1Kw_hVpJnHJZVTPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNQ_eyotvb6LvUkW3MVaPv8EVxL3bku+PTjp0d_mx+QdBA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjHgVKHOXtWqXt005TYa+vKKKvE4=AFbrEpWmqMvkQXbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNQfRcrb5K6KrTUv1J1pGJukuGTnq5RPfgV_fPg56shhiA@mail.gmail.com>

On May 11, 2016 4:34 PM, "Rafal Smigrodzki" <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Tell me where did I lie.
>>
>>
>> "The references you adduce provide no information in support of FDA's
attack on vapes."
>>
>> That's the main one.  You provided follow-up cherry picking a few
points, suggesting there was nothing else, but that statement said there
was no supporting information, yet there was.  In addition to the many
health problems noted, things like "The electronic cigarette cartridges
that were labeled as containing no nicotine had low levels of nicotine
present in all cartridges tested, except one." state that e-cigarettes tend
to have false advertising too, which would be reason enough to go after
them.
>
> ### How low were the nicotine levels? Enough to produce a pharmacological
response?

Again: false advertising like this by itself would be enough to support
regulatory action.

> This does not support FDA's attack on vapes.

Yes it does, despite your attempt to ignore the grounds I was talking about.

>> That said, there were inaccuracies in the follow-ups you did provide.
(Though you were correct that the FDA memo suggests the nicotine in
e-cigarettes comes from tobacco - but again, there was far more in the memo
than that.)
>
> ### There is nothing in that memo that supports FDA's attack on vapes.
Give me a specific quote which in your opinion provides support for FDA's
power grab.

I have already done so.  You pretended it was something else.

>> "The BMJ article summarizes the low reliability of research on vapes"
>>
>> The variability was in the e-cigarettes studied.  That of course causes
variability in the studies; it doesn't say the research itself isn't
reliable.
>
> ### The reliability of research on vapes, the lack of it, does not
justify FDA's attack on vapes.

The lack of reliability is not an attribute of the research itself.  Stop
blatantly lying.

> Wasn't this article the one you highlighted as being most convincing?

Irrelevant.

>> "the third one shows actually a reasonably good level of precision in
labeling of nicotine content of vapes"
>>
>> Actually, the third one states, "Electronic cigarette solutions may have
nicotine concentrations that are significantly (i.e., 30%) different than
manufacturer claims."  So by its standards, there is not "a reasonably good
level of precision in labeling of nicotine content".
>
> ### Yes, it is a reasonably good level of precision in labeling. It means
that an addict can get the dose he desires in a set number of inhalations,
+/- 25% from different manufacturers, which is reasonably good as far as
performance comparisons of various products go.

We're not talking variance between different products.  30% referred to the
difference between what a given product actually contained and what its
manufacturer claimed.  Last I checked, the standard was somewhere under
1%.  So, no, 30% is not reasonably good.

>> "Also, you are engaging in manipulative rhetoric ("garbage-quality
product")."
>>
>> That may be your opinion (even if you try to frame it as objective
fact), but I was summarizing this from the FDA reference, backed up by the
BHJ study: "DPA's testing also suggested that quality control processes
used to manufacture these products are inconsistent or non-existent."  A
complete lack of quality control is garbage quality, relative to what is
normally expected for something meant to go in our bodies.
>
> ### Addicts get what they want from vapes, +/-25%. You don't get what you
want from garbage. Therefore, vapes are not garbage.

I said "garbage quality", not just "garbage".  I referred to the degree to
which it is possible to know its composition, relative to the FDA's normal
standards for drugs.

Are you capable of reading what I am actually posting, without an internal
mental filter that tries to find some strawman that would be easier to
rebut?  Your posts suggest you are not.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/c1726e14/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Thu May 12 00:13:14 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 17:13:14 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFiD56fHQ7RXUmrXeDtCbVDT3e-osgMjkq2-F-QyaLnRyQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <572E9C31.30200@gmail.com>
 <CAL+RtPew5wYeL3RkpidyPtzKfoMT9E3Zj7mR5+qOvNSF4KX-rg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgQQ0M5fXcQpuxyUxkiBg3kJhNGq41MgGhK-v=oFOA2ZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNSVjxYkkyQYp-4ZxBQmtG_LV8oKgMzKrs49KxAVGTDqYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjD94e5ADUdkvC35=pu4qzvDCkfyGaDi1OA6Rcc9XpaJQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNStqDZ6FSYV0DQisxvxkVTqYqNuDF+SHD+Kw0nV9QWgwg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFiD56fHQ7RXUmrXeDtCbVDT3e-osgMjkq2-F-QyaLnRyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNSpQOn4z_g23Z0CH6kpvVNWwaLzzyDx6wCUXQ-9owpb-Q@mail.gmail.com>

On May 11, 2016 5:05 PM, "Rafal Smigrodzki" <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 11, 2016 4:19 PM, "Rafal Smigrodzki" <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
wrote:
>> > Hey, but maybe you can go beyond vague accusations and state
rigorously what percentage of wealth concentration comes from value
destruction.
>>
>> Any exact percentage depends on definitions.  Any number stated, you
could just cite different definitions to reject.
>
> ### You think I would reject a reasonable definition of wealth
concentration?

Perhaps you might reject one that I find reasonable, but I think value
creation/destruction is the more likely disconnect.  The point is the
distinction between wealth and value.  Wealth is much easier to measure.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/046f1851/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Thu May 12 00:19:39 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 20:19:39 -0400
Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?A_Nobel_Prize_=E2=80=8Bwinner_on_Trump?=
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv01hdFb0z0AEXo1rszDec4dBN-yPusR_r73J+Ss1cKJOQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv1vJNDVg4tQDz4HRAdE9ViM4HrgA2xNpXx4H4ROcOpDvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhKyD0gtC2_KZhsvOT1gGYSf+vuDQVunnH3kdtzYXetpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2T_hQnEiBVqHaL54t_ZbXt9ExXyATuHpzcMdWKrj0f0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjDcFeLsqBiTTGGfqXTxa5C_D9nQ0CnMPu=A+2pxJvJdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0_OM2FcO4WNiwV9J3se_srE6b1jvPQJHFzsLavRN4TqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjhbFv9G7v0Ms+VQtQqLu30Lo7UmPyHq9D=0vMVcao65Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2vckjPWoVBKVMzTUTnJ=0ky47P2veyV+cXkyM9dmAfhg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFiFx37As0Mz_=_9yTnE-M1ScXxe-gPqmWB1zQUL5rroLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0E1KAw22kqOb=_m7gtL-9_6HMOOdBdmyO-bDmZBojEzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFh9Q4rCdD4yjACNupDRM0y-2cRg8dLBN6oVAJMTxC=wsw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv01hdFb0z0AEXo1rszDec4dBN-yPusR_r73J+Ss1cKJOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFhio04mg=QT4MS3RpnvPPnSpC+m7UUB80WsXsUofahbZg@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 7:45 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at  Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> ?>?
>>  If an invisible friend tells Cruz to vote as he does, then I'd say we
>> need more of them.
>>
>
> ?An
> invisible
> ? man in the sky told Ted Cruz there should be a law against "
> *stimulating?? ?? one's genitals for non-medical purposes unrelated to
> procreation*
> *?*".  Do you really want more ?
> invisible
> ? men like in the sky like that saying things like that to other
> politicians?
>
>
### Did you read the National Review debunking of your Mother Jones story?

You should have. Cruz did not vote to ban dildos, he wrote a legal opinion
on the constitutionality of such a ban. It was his job to provide a legal
opinion, not a personal opinion. Do you think he should have refused to do
it? Like the judges who refuse to obey the US Constitution? Are you in
favor of judicial activism?

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/770ce428/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Thu May 12 00:22:56 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 20:22:56 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNSpQOn4z_g23Z0CH6kpvVNWwaLzzyDx6wCUXQ-9owpb-Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <572E9C31.30200@gmail.com>
 <CAL+RtPew5wYeL3RkpidyPtzKfoMT9E3Zj7mR5+qOvNSF4KX-rg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgQQ0M5fXcQpuxyUxkiBg3kJhNGq41MgGhK-v=oFOA2ZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNSVjxYkkyQYp-4ZxBQmtG_LV8oKgMzKrs49KxAVGTDqYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjD94e5ADUdkvC35=pu4qzvDCkfyGaDi1OA6Rcc9XpaJQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNStqDZ6FSYV0DQisxvxkVTqYqNuDF+SHD+Kw0nV9QWgwg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFiD56fHQ7RXUmrXeDtCbVDT3e-osgMjkq2-F-QyaLnRyQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNSpQOn4z_g23Z0CH6kpvVNWwaLzzyDx6wCUXQ-9owpb-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFjXNOw7sohYUm7F74da1y6HfHVwJH5NdZtLuKgnLNyprg@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:13 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 11, 2016 5:05 PM, "Rafal Smigrodzki" <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 11, 2016 4:19 PM, "Rafal Smigrodzki" <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> > Hey, but maybe you can go beyond vague accusations and state
> rigorously what percentage of wealth concentration comes from value
> destruction.
> >>
> >> Any exact percentage depends on definitions.  Any number stated, you
> could just cite different definitions to reject.
> >
> > ### You think I would reject a reasonable definition of wealth
> concentration?
>
> Perhaps you might reject one that I find reasonable, but I think value
> creation/destruction is the more likely disconnect.  The point is the
> distinction between wealth and value.  Wealth is much easier to measure.
>

### So you say we can't measure value but somehow you are sure that most
wealth does not come from creating value?

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/b1f359e3/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Thu May 12 00:28:21 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 20:28:21 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv1E5jic-j6EatULgpQCT9PwidUm-axDLtN5GHa2ciVeiw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CE3D4CA8-795B-428A-972B-D366FEA22020@gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3JSRkOCAz+au4pf7F8g=4beFdnyc+=t14GKCHUyVTmBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <308CCF17-DAFD-4D2E-A8E6-C9B813A4906E@gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv1E5jic-j6EatULgpQCT9PwidUm-axDLtN5GHa2ciVeiw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFht2fVPtWmAgu+htvWTg0E2Vq3=Y_S+gR=HFFYXN7PCTw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:01 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 11, 2016 Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ?>> ?
>>> at there is a 24.1% chance that Donald Trump will be the next president.
>>> And that's way way *WAY* too high!
>>
>>
>> ?> ?
>> What's scary to me is that anyone will be president.
>>
>
> ?I think it's silly to pretend they're all the same. The probability that
> you'll be dead in 4 years will be greater if Donald Trump is president than
> if ?Hillary Clinton
>
> ?is president, and the probability you'll be poorer will be MUCH greater.
>

### This doesn't make sense. An incompetent lying traitor is safer than a
brash, populist and reasonably successful businessman?

Hey, let's put down some numbers. How likely is a nuclear war if Trump is
president? How likely if Clinton is president?

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/d9628e70/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Thu May 12 00:29:44 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 17:29:44 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFjXNOw7sohYUm7F74da1y6HfHVwJH5NdZtLuKgnLNyprg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <572E9C31.30200@gmail.com>
 <CAL+RtPew5wYeL3RkpidyPtzKfoMT9E3Zj7mR5+qOvNSF4KX-rg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgQQ0M5fXcQpuxyUxkiBg3kJhNGq41MgGhK-v=oFOA2ZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNSVjxYkkyQYp-4ZxBQmtG_LV8oKgMzKrs49KxAVGTDqYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjD94e5ADUdkvC35=pu4qzvDCkfyGaDi1OA6Rcc9XpaJQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNStqDZ6FSYV0DQisxvxkVTqYqNuDF+SHD+Kw0nV9QWgwg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFiD56fHQ7RXUmrXeDtCbVDT3e-osgMjkq2-F-QyaLnRyQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNSpQOn4z_g23Z0CH6kpvVNWwaLzzyDx6wCUXQ-9owpb-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjXNOw7sohYUm7F74da1y6HfHVwJH5NdZtLuKgnLNyprg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNS_Q5Pen+tDC=A6SNA2qTNseC_BKA7KfUFeCeRBa3=pEA@mail.gmail.com>

On May 11, 2016 5:23 PM, "Rafal Smigrodzki" <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
wrote:
> ### So you say we can't measure value but somehow you are sure that most
wealth does not come from creating value?

Can't measure value to nearly the same accuracy and precision as wealth.
The "somehow" is as Giovanni mentioned.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/b0e585ec/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Thu May 12 00:37:56 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 20:37:56 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Justifiable Lies
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFgc57aOgF5tF+z5ZL755irLJb-tL5O-4fz0M-mWuWom+g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv2aFUoJ5fXGaY1+tL9PQ+P8pos7xuLdK_qxQwCt=pOwiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <00e001d1aba9$f23a8840$d6af98c0$@att.net>
 <CAAc1gFiruPGyqbBQpqBu4XxV16HZF_Pz4HfyiM2gprMj9t8UxA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01a101d1abb5$2c1a33c0$844e9b40$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3tEHhmnvCNeBmMurbfO+fOsk66xfpxMCLaQvbFCnV4Lw@mail.gmail.com>
 <007e01d1abc6$c19d97a0$44d8c6e0$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1w2px=x8EKc4JxFj5hVduiUrN89kx9mYUbcO3Vkb2jMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgc57aOgF5tF+z5ZL755irLJb-tL5O-4fz0M-mWuWom+g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv3TkYmDj2F-qVksxuMCVk_3VFVzt0w=m1HOOM+N9joOUg@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2016  Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:

?>?
>  ### Unless AI-boosted productivity growth bails us out, world's
> governments will be unable to pay their debts in the next 30 - 40 years if
> they continue the present trajectory.
>

?Then we're in good shape because AI will certainly boost productivity and
nothing continues on the present trajectory for 30 to 40 years.? That's why
predicting is easy but correctly predicting is hard.


> ?> ?
> Saying that unlimited debt accumulation is not a problem because our
> economies so far didn't have to deal with its effects is like saying that
> having a plastic bag wrapped around your head is safe, because you haven't
> passed out yet.
>

?Yes exactly. If there were a confirmed case of somebody keeping a plastic
bag on their head since the 1960s and was still doing fine I would have no
alternative but to conclude that physiologist don't understand how the
human body works as well as they thought they did. Doomsayers have been
saying since the 1960s that German Weimar Republic style hyperinflation was
just around the corner, but there is still not the slightest sign of it so
I have no alternative but to conclude that doomsayers don't understand how
the economy works as well as they thought they did.

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/f404de8e/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Thu May 12 00:46:52 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 20:46:52 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Donald Trump
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNS_Q5Pen+tDC=A6SNA2qTNseC_BKA7KfUFeCeRBa3=pEA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605071600260.3863@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <CAJPayv0XfOmNjOTH8uPXtYROwPmyxO00uUwZ6F93SwdM8ve=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <572E9C31.30200@gmail.com>
 <CAL+RtPew5wYeL3RkpidyPtzKfoMT9E3Zj7mR5+qOvNSF4KX-rg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgQQ0M5fXcQpuxyUxkiBg3kJhNGq41MgGhK-v=oFOA2ZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNSVjxYkkyQYp-4ZxBQmtG_LV8oKgMzKrs49KxAVGTDqYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjD94e5ADUdkvC35=pu4qzvDCkfyGaDi1OA6Rcc9XpaJQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNStqDZ6FSYV0DQisxvxkVTqYqNuDF+SHD+Kw0nV9QWgwg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFiD56fHQ7RXUmrXeDtCbVDT3e-osgMjkq2-F-QyaLnRyQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNSpQOn4z_g23Z0CH6kpvVNWwaLzzyDx6wCUXQ-9owpb-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjXNOw7sohYUm7F74da1y6HfHVwJH5NdZtLuKgnLNyprg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNS_Q5Pen+tDC=A6SNA2qTNseC_BKA7KfUFeCeRBa3=pEA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFgYGS58OQR_kuKYAP_P3RHes1Q7rp6fe=b7n3WqLHp67A@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 11, 2016 5:23 PM, "Rafal Smigrodzki" <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > ### So you say we can't measure value but somehow you are sure that most
> wealth does not come from creating value?
>
> Can't measure value to nearly the same accuracy and precision as wealth.
> The "somehow" is as Giovanni mentioned.
>
### So, no numbers but still certainty.

I am still not surprised.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/5e4f1415/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Thu May 12 00:35:26 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 17:35:26 -0700
Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?A_Nobel_Prize_=E2=80=8Bwinner_on_Trump?=
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFhio04mg=QT4MS3RpnvPPnSpC+m7UUB80WsXsUofahbZg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv1vJNDVg4tQDz4HRAdE9ViM4HrgA2xNpXx4H4ROcOpDvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhKyD0gtC2_KZhsvOT1gGYSf+vuDQVunnH3kdtzYXetpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2T_hQnEiBVqHaL54t_ZbXt9ExXyATuHpzcMdWKrj0f0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjDcFeLsqBiTTGGfqXTxa5C_D9nQ0CnMPu=A+2pxJvJdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0_OM2FcO4WNiwV9J3se_srE6b1jvPQJHFzsLavRN4TqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjhbFv9G7v0Ms+VQtQqLu30Lo7UmPyHq9D=0vMVcao65Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2vckjPWoVBKVMzTUTnJ=0ky47P2veyV+cXkyM9dmAfhg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFiFx37As0Mz_=_9yTnE-M1ScXxe-gPqmWB1zQUL5rroLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0E1KAw22kqOb=_m7gtL-9_6HMOOdBdmyO-bDmZBojEzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFh9Q4rCdD4yjACNupDRM0y-2cRg8dLBN6oVAJMTxC=wsw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv01hdFb0z0AEXo1rszDec4dBN-yPusR_r73J+Ss1cKJOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhio04mg=QT4MS3RpnvPPnSpC+m7UUB80WsXsUofahbZg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <011101d1abe6$2e7bfb40$8b73f1c0$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki



 

### Did you read the National Review debunking of your Mother Jones story?

 

>?You should have. Cruz did not vote to ban dildos, he wrote a legal opinion on the constitutionality of such a ban. It was his job to provide a legal opinion, not a personal opinion. Do you think he should have refused to do it? Like the judges who refuse to obey the US Constitution? Are you in favor of judicial activism?  Rafa?

 

 

This is a good example of why we should not elect lawyers to be Chief Executive.  We should choose from executives for that job.  We need people who have run something, successfully.  A state, a company, a flag rank military ossifer runs something (but not one which makes money so that wouldn?t be my first choice) someone who has actually had to make a payroll.  Someone who has done startups, or who took a small struggling company and made it into a big rich company, that is the pool we should be fishing in.

 

Lawyers for the legislative branch, executives for the executive branch.  Judges for the judicial.  We need to stop putting lawyers in that branch.

 

We Americans are screwing ourselves bigtime.

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/1da94215/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Thu May 12 01:00:42 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 18:00:42 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
Message-ID: <CACB7g25J8AxAxkdhsJBJnjmkjeUUxhACx1-ySUk_-pYb2VNv7A@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 5:01 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> at there is a 24.1% chance that Donald Trump will be the next
president. And that's way way WAY too high!
>>
>>
>> >
>> What's scary to me is that anyone will be president.
>
>
> I think it's silly to pretend they're all the same.

Note that I didn't write "they're [the candidates] all the same." I wrote
that it's "scary to me is that anyone will be president." Please tell me
you can see a difference.

This seems a habit of yours to rephrase what I wrote into something that's
clearly not in what I actually wrote. E.g., I wrote:

"I do not believe repudiating the US (or any other) national debt would
collapse the world economy."

To which, you responded:

"Other than World War 3 I can't imagine a greater economic catastrophe than
repudiating the national debt, but Trump and Cruz believe as you do that it
would be no big deal."

Where in the FUCK can my statement be read as me claiming it would be "no
big deal"? Please let me know how you got that.

> The probability that you'll be dead in 4 years will be greater if Donald
Trump
> is president than if Hillary Clinton is president, and the probability
you'll be
> poorer will be MUCH greater.

Please clarify those probabilities for me. How do you figure them,
especially since Clinton can be construed as wanting to ramp up conflict
with Russia -- specifically by her wanting to get more former Soviet Bloc
nations into NATO? It's not at all clear whether either, of course, will
carry through on these various campaign promises (or threats).

That said, I'm not unafraid of a Trump presidency -- perhaps unlike Rafal.
But, on the other hand, I've kind of grown weary of the election year
showdown. Please consider this, every presidential election cycle in the US
is seen as the most important choice in the entire history of the species
if no the universe. Note even your rhetoric here: if Trump gets in, there's
a bigger change I will be much poorer or dead. I'm sure I can find plenty
of just as intelligent folks who are anti-Clinton preaching the same sermon
at me. Heck, four years ago, the same was said about the choices then, and
eight years ago the same was said about the choices then. And so on. Do you
see the pattern?

I eagerly await you to misinterpret the above -- after trimming stuff out
to make it seem as if you've reasonably responded to me. :)

Regards,

Dan
  Sample my Kindle books via:
http://author.to/DanUst
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/5f8de01d/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Thu May 12 01:08:48 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 21:08:48 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFht2fVPtWmAgu+htvWTg0E2Vq3=Y_S+gR=HFFYXN7PCTw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CE3D4CA8-795B-428A-972B-D366FEA22020@gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3JSRkOCAz+au4pf7F8g=4beFdnyc+=t14GKCHUyVTmBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <308CCF17-DAFD-4D2E-A8E6-C9B813A4906E@gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv1E5jic-j6EatULgpQCT9PwidUm-axDLtN5GHa2ciVeiw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFht2fVPtWmAgu+htvWTg0E2Vq3=Y_S+gR=HFFYXN7PCTw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv0Nr9aGDYbGFhH9hF28T97dN1jq1FU+mnBwm_LGXdq4aw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2016 Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:

?>?
>  reasonably successful businessman


?A better description of Donald Trump would be ?
reasonably successful
? trust fund kid. At least he didn't blow all of daddy's money. ?

?> ?
> Hey, let's put down some numbers. How likely is a nuclear war if Trump is
> president? How likely if Clinton is president?
>

?I can't give specif numbers, but I do know that if Japan, South Korea,
Taiwan, Germany and Saudi Fucking Arabia have nuclear weapons as Donald
Trump thinks they should (and
Hillary Clinton
? thinks they should not) then the chances of nuclear war increase. Also,
we know from his angry tweets that Dumb Donald goes into tantrums late at
night,? so what happens when President Trump reaches for his Red Telephone
instead of his iPhone at 3am?

And as for defaulting on the national debt ...that too scary to even talk
about.

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/17a041fb/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Thu May 12 01:28:02 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 18:28:02 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
Message-ID: <CACB7g245xeagArLqaWGEeLCjXWm4TpM+kOeDHo7BjWCMTFgPPQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:01 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think it's silly to pretend they're all the same. The probability that
you'll be
>> dead in 4 years will be greater if Donald Trump is president than if
Hillary Clinton
>>
>> is president, and the probability you'll be poorer will be MUCH greater.
>
> ### This doesn't make sense. An incompetent lying traitor is safer than
> a brash, populist and reasonably successful businessman?
>
> Hey, let's put down some numbers. How likely is a nuclear war if Trump
> is president? How likely if Clinton is president?

Bryan Caplan, in a recent column, offered the following worry:

"My base rate for war between the United States and another major power is
about 2% per presidential term.  For Trump, I'd up the odds to 5% per
term.  Yes, I know by some measures he's less hawkish than his Republican
rivals and Hillary.  But his macho persona and casual remarks seem more
predictive than his public statements."

See http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2016/03/myth_of_the_rat_9.html

I'm not sure where he got the 2% and the 5% from. Let's say Caplan is
correct, that would increase the odds of war with a major power 2.5 times,
quite an increase.

Regards,

Dan
  Sample my Kindle books via:
http://author.to/DanUst
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/fab95c87/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Thu May 12 01:30:24 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 21:30:24 -0400
Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?A_Nobel_Prize_=E2=80=8Bwinner_on_Trump?=
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFhio04mg=QT4MS3RpnvPPnSpC+m7UUB80WsXsUofahbZg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv1vJNDVg4tQDz4HRAdE9ViM4HrgA2xNpXx4H4ROcOpDvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhKyD0gtC2_KZhsvOT1gGYSf+vuDQVunnH3kdtzYXetpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2T_hQnEiBVqHaL54t_ZbXt9ExXyATuHpzcMdWKrj0f0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjDcFeLsqBiTTGGfqXTxa5C_D9nQ0CnMPu=A+2pxJvJdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0_OM2FcO4WNiwV9J3se_srE6b1jvPQJHFzsLavRN4TqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjhbFv9G7v0Ms+VQtQqLu30Lo7UmPyHq9D=0vMVcao65Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2vckjPWoVBKVMzTUTnJ=0ky47P2veyV+cXkyM9dmAfhg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFiFx37As0Mz_=_9yTnE-M1ScXxe-gPqmWB1zQUL5rroLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0E1KAw22kqOb=_m7gtL-9_6HMOOdBdmyO-bDmZBojEzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFh9Q4rCdD4yjACNupDRM0y-2cRg8dLBN6oVAJMTxC=wsw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv01hdFb0z0AEXo1rszDec4dBN-yPusR_r73J+Ss1cKJOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhio04mg=QT4MS3RpnvPPnSpC+m7UUB80WsXsUofahbZg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv35pL4003yR7D+LD5K0KVJjfTNjDEV+UeXcKCiNT7BnXQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2016 Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:

?>?
>  Did you read the National Review debunking of your Mother Jones story?
>

?I don't read ?the National Review, Mother Jones, or UFO Quarterly.

?> ?
> It was his job to provide a legal opinion, not a personal opinion. Do you
> think he should have refused to do it?
>

*YOU'RE GODDAMN RIGHT HE SHOULD HAVE REFUSED TO DO IT!*
*?* ?
If Ted Cruz had
?one?
 ounce of libertarian sentiment or even
?one?
 ounce of brains he
?would?
 have told them to take the job
?of
Texas solicitor general
?
and
?shove it up into
?
the place
?where?
 dildos go and
?then he should have ?
?walked out the door.

 John K Clark?




>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/cd3f89a6/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Thu May 12 01:48:53 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 18:48:53 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv0Nr9aGDYbGFhH9hF28T97dN1jq1FU+mnBwm_LGXdq4aw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CE3D4CA8-795B-428A-972B-D366FEA22020@gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3JSRkOCAz+au4pf7F8g=4beFdnyc+=t14GKCHUyVTmBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <308CCF17-DAFD-4D2E-A8E6-C9B813A4906E@gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv1E5jic-j6EatULgpQCT9PwidUm-axDLtN5GHa2ciVeiw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFht2fVPtWmAgu+htvWTg0E2Vq3=Y_S+gR=HFFYXN7PCTw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0Nr9aGDYbGFhH9hF28T97dN1jq1FU+mnBwm_LGXdq4aw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACB7g25MCWDh16JpRkOUSwnarzauYxOYGxonVEarrZ=qeh_d-w@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 6:08 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
>>  reasonably successful businessman
>
> A better description of Donald Trump would be
> reasonably successful
> trust fund kid. At least he didn't blow all of daddy's money.

I don't disagree with that view of Trump. One thing one might say, though,
is that how many people given his inheritance, go on to make it that much
bigger? (That said, though, again, some of this was gotten by being able to
rely on government -- subsidizing deals via eminent domain takings and
being able to walk away from debts he racked up.)

>> Hey, let's put down some numbers. How likely is a nuclear war if Trump is
>> president? How likely if Clinton is president?
>
> I can't give specif numbers, but I do know that if Japan, South Korea,
Taiwan,
> Germany and Saudi Fucking Arabia have nuclear weapons as Donald Trump
> thinks they should

I'm not sure that follows. How many nuclear wars have happened so far? How
many near nuclear wars? One analyst said, IIRC, that India and Pakistan
having nuclear weapons has lessened the chance of a major war between them.
(And having a nuke seems to be a means of keeping from being coerced by
other powers, no?) I'm not saying I agree with Trump here, though this view
on nuclear proliferation was put forth long before he start flapping his
gums on this issue. (IIRC, Ted Galen Carpenter thought a nuclear armed
South Korea and Japan would be a better security guarantee in Northeast
Asia than having US alliances there.)

> (and Hillary Clinton thinks they should not) then the chances of nuclear
war
> increase.

A problem here, though, is Clinton stated she wanted to expand NATO to
include the Ukraine and Georgia. Wouldn't this alone increase the chances
of a confrontation with Russia? I'm not sure how to figure the odds there
or how to go from there to reckoning how much this might change the odds of
a nuclear war with Russia.

> Also, we know from his angry tweets that Dumb Donald goes into tantrums
> late at night, so what happens when President Trump reaches for his Red
> Telephone instead of his iPhone at 3am?

I think that's probably why Bryan Caplan agrees more with you here:

"My base rate for war between the United States and another major power is
about 2% per presidential term.  For Trump, I'd up the odds to 5% per term.

See http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2016/03/myth_of_the_rat_9.html

> And as for defaulting on the national debt ...that too scary to even talk
about.

Let's see. We discuss topics like hostile AI, gray goo, and other
extinction level catastrophes, but this one topic is unthinkable. This
sounds almost like those conservative types who fear Mexicans and Muslims
will overrun their small town in Idaho unless there's a border wall. :)
Instead, consider that were the debt repudiated, yes, there would be
financial shocks. There have been such before. Why would this one be so
severe compared to all others? Why couldn't it be something the world
recovered from in due time? There would be pain, especially for big
institutional lenders, especially for folks whose have a big portfolio in
federal government securities. (Those folks are, naturally, going to want
to make it seem like the worst possible scenario -- even an unthinkable
one. But this is no different than folks heavily invested in oil or airline
stocks want their favored sector to not go down in value.)

By the way, debt repudiation has happened before and not just in foreign
countries, but here in the US. See Rothbard's 01992 piece on this:

https://mises.org/library/repudiating-national-debt

Note that Rothbard mentions state -- not federal level -- debt repudiation,
but the same "sky is falling" fears happened back then. Did any of those
states cease to exist? Did their denizens all die of starvation? What
happened? They more or less recovered and their lenders grew more weary of
supporting idiotic debt financing schemes. Was this painless? No, but it
was probably far less painful than continuing to rack up the debt and eat
up more wealth in the process.

Regards,

Dan
  Sample my Kindle books via:
http://author.to/DanUst
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/77f33005/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Thu May 12 01:58:03 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 21:58:03 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CACB7g25J8AxAxkdhsJBJnjmkjeUUxhACx1-ySUk_-pYb2VNv7A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACB7g25J8AxAxkdhsJBJnjmkjeUUxhACx1-ySUk_-pYb2VNv7A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv0nUx5TQDZ0X9UJMDs74BUx1dpovOs1tzsXvod=4aEmDA@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2016  Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:

?>?
>  every presidential election cycle in the US is seen as the most important
> choice in the entire history of the species if no the universe.


We've had some
?
absolutely
? ?
terrible presidents
?
(Bush)
?
and we've had some mediocre presidents
?
(Clinton)
?
but this is the first time in my lifetime there is a 24.1% chance a madman
will be president in 8 months.

?> ?
> I eagerly await you to misinterpret the above -- after trimming stuff out
> to make it seem as if you've reasonably responded to me.
>

?Sorry if I don't comment on ever line of your post like a
? ?R
abbinical
? scholar examining the Talmud.

 John K Clark  ?

   ?






>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/b216c82e/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Thu May 12 02:14:04 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 19:14:04 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
Message-ID: <CACB7g243ic=8i0aD-LjwYvkh2K1H0dwATYnCb44=Fr8Z2AXZaA@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 6:58 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2016  Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>  every presidential election cycle in the US is seen as the most
important
>> choice in the entire history of the species if no the universe.
>
> We've had some
>
> absolutely
> terrible presidents
>
> (Bush)
>
> and we've had some mediocre presidents
>
> (Clinton)
>
> but this is the first time in my lifetime there is a 24.1% chance a
madman will
> be president in 8 months.

So panic and go hysterical. What will that achieve?

And consider this: What impact will you have on that outcome? I think it's
pretty close to nil -- even if you foam at the mouth from now until
November. My guess is this too shall pass. (I'm guessing that Trump will
lose. Who knows? I've never had good predictive success with elections --
save for broad generalizations like "the government will win" and "things
will get worse, but they won't go completely awry.")

Let me add a little more here. Why not simply advocate getting rid of the
presidency, so that, if you succeed, there won't be a madman attaining that
level of power?

>> I eagerly await you to misinterpret the above -- after trimming stuff
out to make
>> it seem as if you've reasonably responded to me.
>
> Sorry if I don't comment on ever line of your post like a
> Rabbinical scholar examining the Talmud.

The issue is not your not going over every line I've written, though my
posts are simply not that long or complex that one would need to do that.
My issue is that you reinterpret statements I make into something that is
wildly different and delete parts of what I do state. This seems to me far
more like you're not interested in a reasonable discussion, but merely in
making your interlocutors look bad or to persuade yourself that you're
right regardless of the evidence.

Regards,

Dan
  Sample my Kindle books via:
http://author.to/DanUst
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/11116f0a/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Thu May 12 02:45:35 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 22:45:35 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CACB7g25MCWDh16JpRkOUSwnarzauYxOYGxonVEarrZ=qeh_d-w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CE3D4CA8-795B-428A-972B-D366FEA22020@gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3JSRkOCAz+au4pf7F8g=4beFdnyc+=t14GKCHUyVTmBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <308CCF17-DAFD-4D2E-A8E6-C9B813A4906E@gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv1E5jic-j6EatULgpQCT9PwidUm-axDLtN5GHa2ciVeiw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFht2fVPtWmAgu+htvWTg0E2Vq3=Y_S+gR=HFFYXN7PCTw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0Nr9aGDYbGFhH9hF28T97dN1jq1FU+mnBwm_LGXdq4aw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACB7g25MCWDh16JpRkOUSwnarzauYxOYGxonVEarrZ=qeh_d-w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv14QU4JVYCwV8NjxRG1REkoMb0pGs90+CYsOSEMKP24CA@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2016 Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:


> ?> ?
> how many people given his inheritance, go on to make it that much bigger?
>

?I don't know. How many people put their inheritance in a S&P index fund??



> ?> ?
> How many nuclear wars have happened so far?
>

?One, in 1945.?



> ?> ?
> How many near nuclear wars?
>

?One, in 1962. How many presidents have been madmen in the nuclear age?
None. My answer could be different in 8 months.  ?



> ?> ?
> One analyst said, IIRC, that India and Pakistan having nuclear weapons has
> lessened the chance of a major war between them.
>

?That might be true. I think in general nuclear weapons decrease the
possibility of  major wars, but the trouble is they increase the
possibility of a global war. And a major war could kill several hundred
thousand people but a global war could kill several billion people.  ?


?> ?
> A problem here, though, is Clinton stated she wanted to expand NATO to
> include the Ukraine and Georgia. Wouldn't this alone increase the chances
> of a confrontation with Russia?
>

?I honestly don't don't know, unlike Donald's nuclear Saudi Arabia
?brainstorm this isn't obviously a bad idea, although it might be. But even
if it is a bad idea it isn't as bad as Donald's idea.
?

> And as for defaulting on the national debt ...that too scary to even talk
>> about.
>
>
> ?>?
> Let's see. We discuss topics like hostile AI, gray goo, and other
> extinction level catastrophes, but this one topic is unthinkable.
>

?The thing is in 2013?

?just rumors about defaulting on the debt crashed the stock market.
Extropians care about grey goo ?but few others do.

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/8da44702/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Thu May 12 03:04:34 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 20:04:34 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CACB7g243ic=8i0aD-LjwYvkh2K1H0dwATYnCb44=Fr8Z2AXZaA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACB7g243ic=8i0aD-LjwYvkh2K1H0dwATYnCb44=Fr8Z2AXZaA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <003201d1abfb$03c81400$0b583c00$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan



>?Why not simply advocate getting rid of the presidency, so that, if you succeed, there won't be a madman attaining that level of power?

 

Because that would require getting rid of the constitution which is a bad idea.  I good idea would be to read it, pay attention to what is says, exactly what it says, think about why it was written that way, keep the presidency but reduce the level of power to that described in that astonishing and insightful document.  Note that in a city government, the chief of police isn?t the very most powerful position.  Think of the presidency as a national-level chief of police, who commands the military, selects supreme court justices, acts as influential cheerleader and such, but still must answer to congress.  Make it so that the US will be OK with the occasional madman, criminal or Alzheimer?s patient in that office with little permanent damage.

 

We have let the presidency evolve into a much more powerful position than it was carefully designed to be by those who really understood better than we do the bad things that power does to people.  We are now paying the price for that.

 

spike

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/a0467a48/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Thu May 12 03:26:25 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 20:26:25 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
Message-ID: <CACB7g26BiSVTEHF25anUU2J8PLj7bxD5NjqNT6dLN5J5dAUxMA@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 7:45 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> >
>> how many people given his inheritance, go on to make it that much bigger?
>
>
> I don't know. How many people put their inheritance in a S&P index fund?

Please, going forth, leave in the whole chunk of text. Let me help you:

"I don't disagree with that view of Trump. One thing one might say, though,
is that how many people given his inheritance, go on to make it that much
bigger? (That said, though, again, some of this was gotten by being able to
rely on government -- subsidizing deals via eminent domain takings and
being able to walk away from debts he racked up.)"

>> How many nuclear wars have happened so far?
>
> One, in 1945.

Okay, if you're going to count the two uses in 01945, then were those
conditions unusual or typical? How many nuclear powers were there in 01945?
One, right? So, given your beliefs, would expect some kind of increase in a
nuclear war given that more nuclear powers were added since 01945? For
instance, by 01949, there were two nuclear powers. Might that have
increased the probability? By how much? By the end of the 1960s, there were
four or maybe five nuclear powers. How many nuclear wars were there in that
period?

>> How many near nuclear wars?
>
> One, in 1962. How many presidents have been madmen in the nuclear age?
> None. My answer could be different in 8 months.

While I wouldn't want to risk it, my guess is other folks in the chain of
command would likely not follow orders. However, let's set that aside.
Let's say you're right: Trump in office would increase the odds of a
nuclear war. By how much? Maybe Caplan is right about the overall 2.5 times
risk. Let's say 2.5 times whatever the base rate would be or, better, than
Clinton or Sanders. (My guess is Sanders would be less bellicose than
either Trump or Clinton.) Now, what can you do about this? Panic? Build a
bomb shelter? My guess is very little aside from get worked up.

>> One analyst said, IIRC, that India and Pakistan having nuclear weapons
has
>> lessened the chance of a major war between them.
>
> That might be true. I think in general nuclear weapons decrease the
possibility
> of  major wars, but the trouble is they increase the possibility of a
global war.
> And a major war could kill several hundred thousand people but a global
war
> could kill several billion people.

I take it you mean global nuclear war -- and not merely a global war. I can
easily imagine a global conventional war where none of the nuclear powers
opt to use their nuclear arsenal. (Think about the last world war where it
seems none of the major powers, thankfully, used all their chemical and
biological weapons.)

>> A problem here, though, is Clinton stated she wanted to expand NATO to
>> include the Ukraine and Georgia. Wouldn't this alone increase the chances
>> of a confrontation with Russia?
>
> I honestly don't don't know, unlike Donald's nuclear Saudi Arabia
brainstorm
> this isn't obviously a bad idea, although it might be. But even if it is
a bad
> idea it isn't as bad as Donald's idea.

I grant the Trump's idea is far-fetched, though, again let me assist your
creative trimming, but quoting myself:

"(And having a nuke seems to be a means of keeping from being coerced by
other powers, no?) I'm not saying I agree with Trump here, though this view
on nuclear proliferation was put forth long before he start flapping his
gums on this issue. (IIRC, Ted Galen Carpenter thought a nuclear armed
South Korea and Japan would be a better security guarantee in Northeast
Asia than having US alliances there.)"

Again, regarding expanding NATO, don't you think that it's obviously bad to
increase the likelihood of war with Russia, especially over Georgia and
Ukraine? How is this less sane than, say, the 01914 Russian guarantee for
Serbia after the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand?

>>>> And as for defaulting on the national debt ...that too scary to even
talk about.
>>
>> Let's see. We discuss topics like hostile AI, gray goo, and other
extinction
>> level catastrophes, but this one topic is unthinkable.
>
> The thing is in 2013
> just rumors about defaulting on the debt crashed the stock market.
Extropians
> care about grey goo but few others do.

So your argument is folks will get panic and that's it? Well, to be sure,
folks do panic, though perhaps the way to prevent a panic is to have a
reasonable discussion of the idea and lay out all the likely outcomes. That
would have the effect of cooling some down, no? Talking reasonably about
the possibly would also help some people to strategize better around it.
For instance, those with lots of government debt in their portfolio might
consider lightening that load. (Okay, you might say that'll set off a
panic. Maybe, though such panics tend to peter out -- just as the market
didn't stay down since 02013.)

And let me help again with the stuff you trimmed:

"Let's see. We discuss topics like hostile AI, gray goo, and other
extinction level catastrophes, but this one topic is unthinkable. This
sounds almost like those conservative types who fear Mexicans and Muslims
will overrun their small town in Idaho unless there's a border wall. :)
Instead, consider that were the debt repudiated, yes, there would be
financial shocks. There have been such before. Why would this one be so
severe compared to all others? Why couldn't it be something the world
recovered from in due time? There would be pain, especially for big
institutional lenders, especially for folks whose have a big portfolio in
federal government securities. (Those folks are, naturally, going to want
to make it seem like the worst possible scenario -- even an unthinkable
one. But this is no different than folks heavily invested in oil or airline
stocks want their favored sector to not go down in value.)

"By the way, debt repudiation has happened before and not just in foreign
countries, but here in the US. See Rothbard's 01992 piece on this:

https://mises.org/library/repudiating-national-debt

"Note that Rothbard mentions state -- not federal level -- debt
repudiation, but the same "sky is falling" fears happened back then. Did
any of those states cease to exist? Did their denizens all die of
starvation? What happened? They more or less recovered and their lenders
grew more weary of supporting idiotic debt financing schemes. Was this
painless? No, but it was probably far less painful than continuing to rack
up the debt and eat up more wealth in the process."

I don't think you responded to any of that because it undercuts your case
here. Sure, it might not be lethal to your view, though that public debt
repudiations have happened before and human civilization didn't collapse
seems to show debt repudiation might not be the worst thing ever -- save
for nuclear war. Again, AND I HAVE TO REPEAT THIS given your penchant for
misinterpreting my words: I'm not saying debt repudiation would be painless
or have no problems. But I would liken it to stopping eating junk food cold
turkey after decades of living on the stuff: it'll be painful, but not
fatal. That said, even were Trump to win -- and my guess is he won't -- my
guess is he won't actually go forth with it.

For me, the sad thing is debt repudiation now is linked with Trump. I'd
rather it have come from Sanders' mouth than Trump's.

Regards,

Dan
  Sample my Kindle books via:
http://author.to/DanUst
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/b5274ddd/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Thu May 12 03:41:42 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 20:41:42 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
Message-ID: <CACB7g26p0w-qZABLrWz1eT2R71-CFr9+N2yHnzmvjdwDkf8wtA@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:04 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On
Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan
> >?Why not simply advocate getting rid of the presidency, so
>> that, if you succeed, there won't be a madman attaining that
>> level of power?
>
> Because that would require getting rid of the constitution which
> is a bad idea.

Why? Others have made a strong case against the Constitution, even since
before it was in power. One of the latest strong critics is Sheldon
Richman. I haven't yet read his new book, _America's Counter-Revolution:
The Constitution Revisited_, but from various discussions with him, he
makes a strong case against it, especially against fawning over that
document.

> I good idea would be to read it, pay attention to what is says,
> exactly what it says, think about why it was written that way,
> keep the presidency but reduce the level of power to that
> described in that astonishing and insightful document.

The document written in legalize didn't stop the increase of presidential
power from 01789 onward. A more reasonable view would be to consider why:
the Constitution was written to limit the power of the national government,
but to consolidate its power.

> Note that in a city government, the chief of police isn?t the
> very most powerful position.  Think of the presidency as a
> national-level chief of police, who commands the military,
> selects supreme court justices, acts as influential cheerleader
> and such, but still must answer to congress.  Make it so that
> the US will be OK with the occasional madman, criminal or
> Alzheimer?s patient in that office with little permanent damage.

The happy fantasy here is that separation of powers actually checks the
separated powers, but history shows such powers working together. The flaw
is this was modeled on the view of a federation where there are real
checking interests and something like the differences in interests between
Commons and Lords in Britain. Nothing like that existed in America, so
there was no real check on overall federal power, which grew and grew and
grew. And the presidency grew in power since Washington. The amazing thing
is probably that it didn't grow faster, though that has probably more to do
with quirks of history and American culture rather than the Constitution.

> We have let the presidency evolve into a much more powerful
> position than it was carefully designed to be by those who
> really understood better than we do the bad things that power
> does to people.  We are now paying the price for that.

I disagree. The folks who wrote the Constitution for the most part wanted a
stronger centralized state with a powerful leader. There were arguments
even about having a king or president for life. I believe some of the
backing down here wasn't because they so much understood human nature as
the anti-Federalists would have more effectively blocked ratification. The
compromises here were more tactical than from any sort of libertarian or
anti-statist sentiment. They got one. The anti-Federalists during that time
were correct and were critical -- basically mentioning much of what might
be considered the modern critique of the Constitution and of the
Federalists.

Regards,

Dan
  Sample my Kindle books via:
http://author.to/DanUst
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/250a655c/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Thu May 12 04:16:58 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 21:16:58 -0700
Subject: [ExI] my unified theory etc
References: <CAPiwVB5LZ5MNaQAgfq32kWXqXaRrnQqnxW4Hcs8VpOnYmMSudg@mail.gmail.com> 
Message-ID: <001901d1ac05$20be6e60$623b4b20$@att.net>

 

 

 

>... any scheme we could come up with still requires the kinds of password
discipline that we now think Mrs. Clinton flatly refused to perform (details
not available on request (the way they do passwords make that process a
paaaaainnnn in the aaassssss (but it also explains why Mrs. Clinton never
activated her .gov account (and another insight your question gave me: Mrs.
Clinton didn't have a secure account, never had one, so she was not reminded
every day, every single time she accessed a message that she could end up
roommates with Mr. Sterling if she mishandled the info on that server (but
her staff did (which brings up a whole sticky mess of questions in itself
(such as the obvious: how did that material get across the gap?))))))))
spike

 

 

OK so, upon further pondering, I have some ideas that should have occurred
to me a long time ago, and some new weirdness, in light of today's
developments, CoS Mills walking out of an FBI questioning session.

 

The secure server user interface isn't merely user-unfriendly, it is
downright user hostile, for a good reason.  They make the user repeatedly
self-identify and present passwords, acknowledge that mishandling of the
information thereon is a felony and all that.  You can use your imagination
and scarcely get there, but they built it that way so no one could
accidentally get in trouble, and if someone got in trouble, they couldn't
claim it was an accident.

 

So now I am imagining Mrs. Clinton who was never a computer user, taking
this course on how to access this user-hostile secure server, and imagining
her just saying no, she would not do this (and perhaps that she cannot do it
(a story I would believe.))  There are no end-runs available; she requested
it, the State Department told her no, they could not do it.

 

So... she arranged end-runs on her own, such as the private server.  This
resulted in a really weird situation: a SecState who had no legal channel
for electronic communications.  

 

Now the weirdness: the secure servers have all these repeated
acknowledgements that mishandling is a felony, etc, but since she never
activated the account, she never checked off those boxes.  Soooo... we could
have a situation where the FBI finds that Mrs. Clinton herself never did
acknowledge that bit about mishandling information, so no charges available
on that.  Then she could hold a dubious but vaguely feasible legalese
argument that she did not recognize the information as classified, since her
aids had not marked it as such.  If that happens, we could see Jake
Sullivan, Huma Abedin, Jennifer Palmieri, Jim Margolis, Nick Merrill, Marlon
Marshall and Cheryl Mills go to prison, while Mrs. Clinton goes free to be
elected.  Then as soon as she is legally enabled, she pardons them out of
prison.  

 

She would be in for some difficulty in defending herself against the charge
that she ordered others to commit a felony, but she is already there anyway
and might beat that charge.  We already know that happened, and no charges
have even been filed.  Apparently that has become legal now.  So, no
recommendation by the FBI to indict Clinton, her entire staff goes to
prison, I lose ten bucks to John Clark, she wins the election, fishes them
out of the tank.

 

Then she realizes she can now order senators murdered, and pardon whoever
did it, then declare the deceased enemies of the state.  Then the surviving
senators can be told they can run along home now, their services are no
longer needed.

 

Where is the flaw in this reasoning please?

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/26f350eb/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Thu May 12 06:05:00 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 08:05:00 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Security clearances
In-Reply-To: <011501d1aafd$6bb755c0$43260140$@att.net>
References: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv28qXEe=VAPzEbibT6CqbqxDFO68h-T-vew=40Y3eMSWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <003f01d1a989$4b50df60$e1f29e20$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1Bj20bTje_2k7nEUKbN4HLAL5nyvzCWaWbXdfqCWobmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00db01d1a997$b6ee9560$24cbc020$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0V5_YG1AxPO6uUjPLWyi96T+zgfkQhYjpDPZ8p=9tnyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <014e01d1aa1a$a8f42820$fadc7860$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNSc-URH+oe4=ML7qZLF8+d-Dd7DmS2iyiW_H4syf2Sb5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <011501d1aafd$6bb755c0$43260140$@att.net>
Message-ID: <57341D0C.4000001@aleph.se>

Since I will be working on information hazards this summer, I am curious 
about the world of security clearances. How do they *actually* work?

Practically, it seems to be a combination of (1) getting people to 
acknowledge that they will deal with Important Stuff and are responsible 
(a psychological effect), (2) creating a cultural environment where 
information flow is shaped (a social effect), (3) creating penalties for 
doing things wrong (an incentive effect). I assume there is also an 
assumed (4): that cleared people are less likely to leak or mishandle 
information (a selection effect). Does anybody know if there have been 
any proper studies of how well 1-4 actually work?

Bringing this into the transhuman world, we may consider what happens if 
we get really good at these things.

On 2016-05-10 22:49, spike wrote:
>
> Ja. When the security people hear a credible rumor, they can call the 
> clearance holder in for an interview, without even telling why.  If 
> the holder refuses, clearance is suspended.  If the holder accepts and 
> confesses everything, then the holder is in trouble for not coming 
> forth earlier before he was caught, but might hold on to the clearance 
> if the investigation decides national security was not compromised.  
> If they find the holder intentionally tried to cover his tracks, or if 
> the other participant wasn?t cleared at the same level, or they want 
> to make an example of the guy, or if the ranking official is in a bad 
> mood that day, or any number of other factors, the holder gets his 
> clearance suspended or revoked.
>
> Any big aerospace company is populated with straight-arrow law-abiding 
> types, which is how they qualified for those clearances to start 
> with.  If any high-up leader has a clearance suspended, word quickly 
> gets around why it happened, and that guy can no longer effectively 
> lead that crowd: they have no respect for him.  This is what happened 
> to the LM second in command a few years ago.
>
> Funny aside: a long time ago, I was in a proposal group where we were 
> trying to find civilian uses for a whole bunch of surplus military 
> stuff we could buy for about a nickel on the dollar, stuff that was 
> idled by a treaty that took effect right at the tail end of Bush41?s 
> term.  It included rocket motors, guidance systems, not the nukes of 
> course but all kinds of cool rocket stuff, originally designed to 
> carry nukes but now all of it surplus and ready to haul rich people to 
> space, that kinda thing.
>
> In that building where we were generating proposals, we had a 
> soundproof meeting room.  It was seldom used for anything: it was a 
> pain in the ass to even get there, since it was a structure within a 
> structure, kinda like a massive refrigerator inside a building, and 
> you had to code in, etc, so they could archive who went in and when.  
> We decided to find out if it really was sound proof.  We had exactly 
> one woman in that group, mid thirties, fun sense of humor type. We 
> said ?Hey Lurleen, go in there and close up, then scream like you are 
> being murdered or something.?
>
> Leave it to her to respond, ?Or something, OK.?
>
> {8^D
>
> Took us several minutes to stop laughing.  Then, she went in there, 
> closed up, screamed.  We couldn?t hear it.  The structure worked as 
> advertised.
>
> We didn?t need Lurleen to point out to us what that facility enabled.  
> I don?t know if anyone ever used it for that purpose, but I wouldn?t 
> be a bit surprised.  If they did that and self-reported, the security 
> people probably wouldn?t tell the company (I wouldn?t think (they 
> would have nothing to gain by telling.))
>
> In any case, the security people make it clear during initial training 
> and all subsequent periodic updates: they get it that people are not 
> saints.  They understand.  They are not your priest.  But they do need 
> to know what you did, so they can watch out for negative 
> consequences.  If you cross them, they can hurt you.  If you lie to 
> them, this is a bad thing.
>
> spike
>
>

-- 
Anders Sandberg
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Oxford University

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160512/4d4333f0/attachment.html>

From giulio at gmail.com  Thu May 12 06:20:46 2016
From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 08:20:46 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Security clearances
In-Reply-To: <57341D0C.4000001@aleph.se>
References: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv28qXEe=VAPzEbibT6CqbqxDFO68h-T-vew=40Y3eMSWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <003f01d1a989$4b50df60$e1f29e20$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1Bj20bTje_2k7nEUKbN4HLAL5nyvzCWaWbXdfqCWobmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00db01d1a997$b6ee9560$24cbc020$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0V5_YG1AxPO6uUjPLWyi96T+zgfkQhYjpDPZ8p=9tnyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <014e01d1aa1a$a8f42820$fadc7860$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNSc-URH+oe4=ML7qZLF8+d-Dd7DmS2iyiW_H4syf2Sb5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <011501d1aafd$6bb755c0$43260140$@att.net>
 <57341D0C.4000001@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAKTCJyfxbNJ1KgQJSoSoOaY8Y6uoSs7Vr9PfpEmAXxO8=QYyuA@mail.gmail.com>

I used to have a high level security clearance in a previous life
chapter. The authorities are supposed to do a very thorough background
check before giving you a security clearance (point 4) and exclude,
for example, people that are vulnerable to blackmail or just likely to
drink too much and talk. Of course, at times background checks are not
as thorough as expected. All your points apply, especially 2.

G.

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:
> Since I will be working on information hazards this summer, I am curious
> about the world of security clearances. How do they *actually* work?
>
> Practically, it seems to be a combination of (1) getting people to
> acknowledge that they will deal with Important Stuff and are responsible (a
> psychological effect), (2) creating a cultural environment where information
> flow is shaped (a social effect), (3) creating penalties for doing things
> wrong (an incentive effect). I assume there is also an assumed (4): that
> cleared people are less likely to leak or mishandle information (a selection
> effect). Does anybody know if there have been any proper studies of how well
> 1-4 actually work?
>
> Bringing this into the transhuman world, we may consider what happens if we
> get really good at these things.
>
> On 2016-05-10 22:49, spike wrote:
>
>  Ja.  When the security people hear a credible rumor, they can call the
> clearance holder in for an interview, without even telling why.  If the
> holder refuses, clearance is suspended.  If the holder accepts and confesses
> everything, then the holder is in trouble for not coming forth earlier
> before he was caught, but might hold on to the clearance if the
> investigation decides national security was not compromised.  If they find
> the holder intentionally tried to cover his tracks, or if the other
> participant wasn?t cleared at the same level, or they want to make an
> example of the guy, or if the ranking official is in a bad mood that day, or
> any number of other factors, the holder gets his clearance suspended or
> revoked.
>
> Any big aerospace company is populated with straight-arrow law-abiding
> types, which is how they qualified for those clearances to start with.  If
> any high-up leader has a clearance suspended, word quickly gets around why
> it happened, and that guy can no longer effectively lead that crowd: they
> have no respect for him.  This is what happened to the LM second in command
> a few years ago.
>
> Funny aside: a long time ago, I was in a proposal group where we were trying
> to find civilian uses for a whole bunch of surplus military stuff we could
> buy for about a nickel on the dollar, stuff that was idled by a treaty that
> took effect right at the tail end of Bush41?s term.  It included rocket
> motors, guidance systems, not the nukes of course but all kinds of cool
> rocket stuff, originally designed to carry nukes but now all of it surplus
> and ready to haul rich people to space, that kinda thing.
>
> In that building where we were generating proposals, we had a soundproof
> meeting room.  It was seldom used for anything: it was a pain in the ass to
> even get there, since it was a structure within a structure, kinda like a
> massive refrigerator inside a building, and you had to code in, etc, so they
> could archive who went in and when.  We decided to find out if it really was
> sound proof.  We had exactly one woman in that group, mid thirties, fun
> sense of humor type.  We said ?Hey Lurleen, go in there and close up, then
> scream like you are being murdered or something.?
>
> Leave it to her to respond, ?Or something, OK.?
>
> {8^D
>
> Took us several minutes to stop laughing.  Then, she went in there, closed
> up, screamed.  We couldn?t hear it.  The structure worked as advertised.
>
> We didn?t need Lurleen to point out to us what that facility enabled.  I
> don?t know if anyone ever used it for that purpose, but I wouldn?t be a bit
> surprised.  If they did that and self-reported, the security people probably
> wouldn?t tell the company (I wouldn?t think (they would have nothing to gain
> by telling.))
>
> In any case, the security people make it clear during initial training and
> all subsequent periodic updates: they get it that people are not saints.
> They understand.  They are not your priest.  But they do need to know what
> you did, so they can watch out for negative consequences.  If you cross
> them, they can hurt you.  If you lie to them, this is a bad thing.
>
> spike
>
>
>
> --
> Anders Sandberg
> Future of Humanity Institute
> Oxford Martin School
> Oxford University
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>



From spike66 at att.net  Thu May 12 06:20:13 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 23:20:13 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Security clearances
In-Reply-To: <57341D0C.4000001@aleph.se>
References: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv28qXEe=VAPzEbibT6CqbqxDFO68h-T-vew=40Y3eMSWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <003f01d1a989$4b50df60$e1f29e20$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1Bj20bTje_2k7nEUKbN4HLAL5nyvzCWaWbXdfqCWobmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00db01d1a997$b6ee9560$24cbc020$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0V5_YG1AxPO6uUjPLWyi96T+zgfkQhYjpDPZ8p=9tnyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <014e01d1aa1a$a8f42820$fadc7860$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNSc-URH+oe4=ML7qZLF8+d-Dd7DmS2iyiW_H4syf2Sb5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <011501d1aafd$6bb755c0$43260140$@att.net> <57341D0C.4000001@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <000b01d1ac16$586706e0$093514a0$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf
Of Anders Sandberg
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 11:05 PM
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Subject: [ExI] Security clearances

 

Since I will be working on information hazards this summer, I am curious
about the world of security clearances. How do they *actually* work?

Practically, it seems to be a combination of (1) getting people to
acknowledge that they will deal with Important Stuff and are responsible (a
psychological effect), (2) creating a cultural environment where information
flow is shaped (a social effect), (3) creating penalties for doing things
wrong (an incentive effect). I assume there is also an assumed (4): that
cleared people are less likely to leak or mishandle information (a selection
effect). Does anybody know if there have been any proper studies of how well
1-4 actually work?  Anders

 

 

 

Anders, your question has me thinking deeply about so many aspects.  Do let
me offer this commentary in regard to the current critical situation:

 

Item 1 does not apply to Mrs. Clinton.  She never used the secure server, so
she wouldn't have ever acknowledged dealing with Important Stuff.

 

Item 3 does not apply to Mrs. Clinton if she hadn't acknowledged legal
liability and carefully refused to do so.  Then perhaps she is betting that
if everything goes really wrong, the holder of the deck of
get-out-of-jail-free cards would offer one, perhaps in exchange for one in
return when she is holding that deck.

 

Item 4 does not apply in this case.  Those responsible for issuing
clearances have no control or say in the matter, in a very few instances:
they must clear a president (and we have had three in a row who were not
clearable by the traditional criteria.)  They must clear a VP.  A Secretary
of State, now that's an oddball case.  The people do not elect those.  But
still they must be cleared if they are to do their jobs.  Nearly everything
they touch in the line of duty is born classified.  What happens if a
Secretary of State is doing something that would cause anyone else to lose
their tickets?  We don't know.  We shall see.

 

Item 2.  Hmmm, create a cultural environment where staff members, to whom
all three of the above definitely do apply, will retrieve information and
send it down to an unsecure server illegally.

 

This question just gets deeper and deeper.

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160511/8189253c/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Thu May 12 10:51:04 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 06:51:04 -0400
Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?A_Nobel_Prize_=E2=80=8Bwinner_on_Trump?=
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv35pL4003yR7D+LD5K0KVJjfTNjDEV+UeXcKCiNT7BnXQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv1vJNDVg4tQDz4HRAdE9ViM4HrgA2xNpXx4H4ROcOpDvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhKyD0gtC2_KZhsvOT1gGYSf+vuDQVunnH3kdtzYXetpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2T_hQnEiBVqHaL54t_ZbXt9ExXyATuHpzcMdWKrj0f0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjDcFeLsqBiTTGGfqXTxa5C_D9nQ0CnMPu=A+2pxJvJdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0_OM2FcO4WNiwV9J3se_srE6b1jvPQJHFzsLavRN4TqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjhbFv9G7v0Ms+VQtQqLu30Lo7UmPyHq9D=0vMVcao65Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2vckjPWoVBKVMzTUTnJ=0ky47P2veyV+cXkyM9dmAfhg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFiFx37As0Mz_=_9yTnE-M1ScXxe-gPqmWB1zQUL5rroLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0E1KAw22kqOb=_m7gtL-9_6HMOOdBdmyO-bDmZBojEzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFh9Q4rCdD4yjACNupDRM0y-2cRg8dLBN6oVAJMTxC=wsw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv01hdFb0z0AEXo1rszDec4dBN-yPusR_r73J+Ss1cKJOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhio04mg=QT4MS3RpnvPPnSpC+m7UUB80WsXsUofahbZg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv35pL4003yR7D+LD5K0KVJjfTNjDEV+UeXcKCiNT7BnXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFhGHMMnHQRC-n6GVKtj4W9w-wXGZ8AxOF_0TNF47gWOGw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:30 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> *YOU'RE GODDAMN RIGHT HE SHOULD HAVE REFUSED TO DO IT!*
> *?* ?
> If Ted Cruz had
> ?one?
>  ounce of libertarian sentiment or even
> ?one?
>  ounce of brains he
> ?would?
>  have told them to take the job
> ?of
> Texas solicitor general
> ?
> and
> ?shove it up into
> ?
> the place
> ?where?
>  dildos go and
> ?then he should have ?
> ?walked out the door.
>

### Well, this is why you never had a chance to run for POTUS, while Cruz
did and lost only because of Trump. A pity, he would have made a great
president and could have undone much of the damage that Obama inflicted on
our country.

BTW, these huge bold capital letters hurt my eyes.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160512/dc90649c/attachment.html>

From brent.allsop at canonizer.com  Thu May 12 12:10:15 2016
From: brent.allsop at canonizer.com (Brent Allsop)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 06:10:15 -0600
Subject: [ExI] fun outsider's view on ai
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv007QmfXv2VKa6QudRi18exz75ZmKZdGnaAYf04fpe3WA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <002b01d1aa01$4a1def20$de59cd60$@att.net>
 <CAH=2ypV2nOGCmR9fFH47EnkNx3zdds2e9gg7NGcd=eN-4CtKXw@mail.gmail.com>
 <424026dc-e502-4d5a-1392-400e087dcfaa@canonizer.com>
 <CAJPayv007QmfXv2VKa6QudRi18exz75ZmKZdGnaAYf04fpe3WA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e393fbe1-61db-ecee-ff18-c3dc6a472133@canonizer.com>


Hi John,

I can agree with everything you are saying, even when you say "we do 
know that a program with a million lines of code can manufacture the 
qualia 'red'".  I must admit that this is a very testable scientific 
theory that could be proven correct by demonstration.  I just happen to 
currently favor the theory that it is something much simpler, like a 
particular neuro transmitter that is responsible for an elemental qualia 
like red.  But let's go with your theory in this conversation.


OK, so something less than a million lines of code can "manufacture" the 
elemental qualia red.  I assume you will agree that a different set of 
code can "manufacture" the qualia green, and that eventually we will be 
able to know, recognize, and detect each of these and their differences 
in each of our minds.  Then we will be able to see each of these in our 
brains, and be able to tell things like if my code "manufacturing" red 
is more like your code "manufacturing" green.  In other words we will be 
able to "eff the ineffable" and know how our minds differ, 
qualitatively, or not - at least to some degree.


It is still a fact that both the words "red" and "green" do not have 
either of these "manufactured" qualities, but only are representing 
such.  So the question is, which do you interpret them as, my 
manufactured red or your manufactured red (possibly my green)?  The 
point being, that without knowing how to properly interpret them, they 
are just that: qualia absent representations that must be properly 
interpreted.  Similarly, a million lines of code can surely represent 
either my red or your red, if you interpret them in the right (or wrong) 
way.


I can agree with you that simulating neurons and dendrites is "exactly 
the [most important] point".  But you are still being blind to the 
difference between an abstract representation that represents what is 
"manufactured" and the real quality being "manufactured".  And that is 
at least a little important, too.


Brent Allsop




OK, let's go with the assumption that everything you say is correct.


On 5/10/2016 4:09 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, May 9, 2016 , Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at canonizer.com 
> <mailto:brent.allsop at canonizer.com>>wrote:
>
>     ?> ?
>     simulated neurons and dendrite synapses are surely possible, but
>     not the point.
>
>
> ?I think that's exactly the point.?
>
>     ?> ?
>     Sure a word like "red" can represent, and thereby simulate a
>     redness quality, but it clearly does not have the quality it can
>     represent.
>
>
> ?We don't yet know what all the steps in the recipe to produce the 
> subjective sensation of red are but we know the maximum size of the 
> entire cookbook. ?The human genome is about 750 million bytes but has 
> massive redundancy, run it through a loss-less compression program 
> like ZIP and it's down to 50 million bytes. About half the genome 
> deals with the brain so that's 25 million bytes or about a million 
> lines of code. So although we don't know exactly what it is yet we do 
> know that a program with a million lines of code can manufacture the 
> qualia "red".
>
> By comparison MAC OS X has 85 million lines of code.
>
>  John K Clark
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160512/0099c3b4/attachment.html>

From johntc at gmail.com  Thu May 12 08:23:57 2016
From: johntc at gmail.com (John Tracy Cunningham)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 12:23:57 +0400
Subject: [ExI] Security clearances
In-Reply-To: <57341D0C.4000001@aleph.se>
References: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv28qXEe=VAPzEbibT6CqbqxDFO68h-T-vew=40Y3eMSWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <003f01d1a989$4b50df60$e1f29e20$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1Bj20bTje_2k7nEUKbN4HLAL5nyvzCWaWbXdfqCWobmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00db01d1a997$b6ee9560$24cbc020$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0V5_YG1AxPO6uUjPLWyi96T+zgfkQhYjpDPZ8p=9tnyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <014e01d1aa1a$a8f42820$fadc7860$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNSc-URH+oe4=ML7qZLF8+d-Dd7DmS2iyiW_H4syf2Sb5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <011501d1aafd$6bb755c0$43260140$@att.net> <57341D0C.4000001@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAAYfg-hDMr0WHbYR4Z0J=hfCeFmbYS6HAgWa0Z=y6EhSjoeVkg@mail.gmail.com>

Anders

I was a commissioned officer in the United States Air Force, later a
defense contractor, and spent about 35 years with security clearances.  I
offer the following as background information, from a US perspective.

The first question is, is there information (or objects) that need to be
protected from disclosure to potential enemies, because of the damage that
an enemy might be able to do in peace or war?  For example, I worked for
years on the plans that NATO would have used had the Warsaw Pact ever come
across the inter-German border.  There were many aspects of these plans
that were classified, as people thought that the Pact knowing would be bad
for NATO.

There are Security Classification Guides that describe what is or is not to
be classified, and at what level - Confidential, Secret, Top Secret.
 (There is also For Official Use Only, which means don't release to the
public, but don't protect in other ways.)  There is also Sensitive
Compartmented Information for the stuff that needs the strongest
protection; one doesn't even know that a compartment exists until one is
invited into it.

There is a list of generally high-ranking people who can classify something
from scratch; this is Original Classification Authority.  All else is
derivative classification.

Once classified information exists, the question becomes, who can see it?
There will be people who need to see it to make plans, perform day-to-day
operations, or execute military operations; to do their jobs.  They have
Need To Know.  A person so identified is background checked via a Single
Scope Background Investigation.  The investigators gather information from
many sources.  The investigatee identifies three or five long-time friends,
and the investigators talk to them.  The investigators then ask them for
contacts, and they talk to them too.  Eventually they make a recommendation
to the person who can grant clearances.

The investigatee receives security training and signs nondisclosure
agreements, perhaps the Espionage Act, receives the clearances, and goes to
work.  There is regular recurring training and constant reminders in the
form of newsletters, posters, etc.  There are procedures for storing and
mailing information; with the advent of IT, everything has become more
complicated.  All of this is prescribed by law and supplemented with
various regulations.

Ultimately, we trust people to classify information properly; to
investigate properly; to grant clearances properly; to use and protect
information properly.  People being people, turns out not everyone is
always careful, and some people break the rules intentionally.  We punish
them if we can.  There is a problem with courts; often the Government is
asked to confirm that the information disclosed was genuine, and they don't
want to confirm that in public.

A couple of observations on recent cases:

Edward Snowden went through all of this and intentionally broke the rules
in a major way.  While many may approve, he broke the law.  If the US ever
gets hold of him, he will go to jail forever.

Hillary Clinton was a Senator and Secretary of State.  Many Senators have
clearances, and the Secretary certainly does.  (Although sometimes the
holders of classified info don't trust certain elected/appointed officials,
and don't send stuff to them.)  She put classified information on
unclassified computers, or caused that to be done.  That is illegal.  Were
she not Hillary Clinton, she would have been punished when the breach was
discovered.  Were the laws equally applied, as they're supposed to be, she
would be punished.

This is an extremely large area, and I've only touched on basics.  Would be
glad to go into more detail.

Regards

John
Dubai

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> Since I will be working on information hazards this summer, I am curious
> about the world of security clearances. How do they *actually* work?
>
> Practically, it seems to be a combination of (1) getting people to
> acknowledge that they will deal with Important Stuff and are responsible (a
> psychological effect), (2) creating a cultural environment where
> information flow is shaped (a social effect), (3) creating penalties for
> doing things wrong (an incentive effect). I assume there is also an assumed
> (4): that cleared people are less likely to leak or mishandle information
> (a selection effect). Does anybody know if there have been any proper
> studies of how well 1-4 actually work?
>
> Bringing this into the transhuman world, we may consider what happens if
> we get really good at these things.
>
> On 2016-05-10 22:49, spike wrote:
>
>  Ja.  When the security people hear a credible rumor, they can call the
> clearance holder in for an interview, without even telling why.  If the
> holder refuses, clearance is suspended.  If the holder accepts and
> confesses everything, then the holder is in trouble for not coming forth
> earlier before he was caught, but might hold on to the clearance if the
> investigation decides national security was not compromised.  If they find
> the holder intentionally tried to cover his tracks, or if the other
> participant wasn?t cleared at the same level, or they want to make an
> example of the guy, or if the ranking official is in a bad mood that day,
> or any number of other factors, the holder gets his clearance suspended or
> revoked.
>
> Any big aerospace company is populated with straight-arrow law-abiding
> types, which is how they qualified for those clearances to start with.  If
> any high-up leader has a clearance suspended, word quickly gets around why
> it happened, and that guy can no longer effectively lead that crowd: they
> have no respect for him.  This is what happened to the LM second in command
> a few years ago.
>
> Funny aside: a long time ago, I was in a proposal group where we were
> trying to find civilian uses for a whole bunch of surplus military stuff we
> could buy for about a nickel on the dollar, stuff that was idled by a
> treaty that took effect right at the tail end of Bush41?s term.  It
> included rocket motors, guidance systems, not the nukes of course but all
> kinds of cool rocket stuff, originally designed to carry nukes but now all
> of it surplus and ready to haul rich people to space, that kinda thing.
>
> In that building where we were generating proposals, we had a soundproof
> meeting room.  It was seldom used for anything: it was a pain in the ass to
> even get there, since it was a structure within a structure, kinda like a
> massive refrigerator inside a building, and you had to code in, etc, so
> they could archive who went in and when.  We decided to find out if it
> really was sound proof.  We had exactly one woman in that group, mid
> thirties, fun sense of humor type.  We said ?Hey Lurleen, go in there and
> close up, then scream like you are being murdered or something.?
>
> Leave it to her to respond, ?Or something, OK.?
>
> {8^D
>
> Took us several minutes to stop laughing.  Then, she went in there, closed
> up, screamed.  We couldn?t hear it.  The structure worked as advertised.
>
> We didn?t need Lurleen to point out to us what that facility enabled.  I
> don?t know if anyone ever used it for that purpose, but I wouldn?t be a bit
> surprised.  If they did that and self-reported, the security people
> probably wouldn?t tell the company (I wouldn?t think (they would have
> nothing to gain by telling.))
>
> In any case, the security people make it clear during initial training and
> all subsequent periodic updates: they get it that people are not saints.
> They understand.  They are not your priest.  But they do need to know what
> you did, so they can watch out for negative consequences.  If you cross
> them, they can hurt you.  If you lie to them, this is a bad thing.
>
> spike
>
>
> --
> Anders Sandberg
> Future of Humanity Institute
> Oxford Martin School
> Oxford University
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160512/44768d66/attachment.html>

From johntc at gmail.com  Thu May 12 08:37:25 2016
From: johntc at gmail.com (John Tracy Cunningham)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 12:37:25 +0400
Subject: [ExI] Security clearances
In-Reply-To: <CAAYfg-hDMr0WHbYR4Z0J=hfCeFmbYS6HAgWa0Z=y6EhSjoeVkg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv28qXEe=VAPzEbibT6CqbqxDFO68h-T-vew=40Y3eMSWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <003f01d1a989$4b50df60$e1f29e20$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1Bj20bTje_2k7nEUKbN4HLAL5nyvzCWaWbXdfqCWobmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00db01d1a997$b6ee9560$24cbc020$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0V5_YG1AxPO6uUjPLWyi96T+zgfkQhYjpDPZ8p=9tnyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <014e01d1aa1a$a8f42820$fadc7860$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNSc-URH+oe4=ML7qZLF8+d-Dd7DmS2iyiW_H4syf2Sb5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <011501d1aafd$6bb755c0$43260140$@att.net> <57341D0C.4000001@aleph.se>
 <CAAYfg-hDMr0WHbYR4Z0J=hfCeFmbYS6HAgWa0Z=y6EhSjoeVkg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAYfg-jojCMxz7ULzSMyWbv09r0JOB4gPOYOUn1w7ZqxbtvrgQ@mail.gmail.com>

Couple of books:

Stansfield Turner was Director of the CIA.  Burn Before Reading:
Presidents, CIA Directors, and Secret Intelligence
<https://www.amazon.com/Burn-Before-Reading-Presidents-Intelligence-ebook/dp/B000FCKIFK>
.

Christopher Andrew, historian.  For the President's Eyes Only: Secret
Intelligence and the American Presidency from Washington to Bush
<http://www.amazon.com/Presidents-Eyes-Only-Intelligence-Presidency/dp/0060921781>
.

Given the nature of the system, studies on it are often classified
themselves.  I know someone and will ask.

Regards

John

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:23 PM, John Tracy Cunningham <johntc at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Anders
>
> I was a commissioned officer in the United States Air Force, later a
> defense contractor, and spent about 35 years with security clearances.  I
> offer the following as background information, from a US perspective.
>
> The first question is, is there information (or objects) that need to be
> protected from disclosure to potential enemies, because of the damage that
> an enemy might be able to do in peace or war?  For example, I worked for
> years on the plans that NATO would have used had the Warsaw Pact ever come
> across the inter-German border.  There were many aspects of these plans
> that were classified, as people thought that the Pact knowing would be bad
> for NATO.
>
> There are Security Classification Guides that describe what is or is not
> to be classified, and at what level - Confidential, Secret, Top Secret.
>  (There is also For Official Use Only, which means don't release to the
> public, but don't protect in other ways.)  There is also Sensitive
> Compartmented Information for the stuff that needs the strongest
> protection; one doesn't even know that a compartment exists until one is
> invited into it.
>
> There is a list of generally high-ranking people who can classify
> something from scratch; this is Original Classification Authority.  All
> else is derivative classification.
>
> Once classified information exists, the question becomes, who can see it?
> There will be people who need to see it to make plans, perform day-to-day
> operations, or execute military operations; to do their jobs.  They have
> Need To Know.  A person so identified is background checked via a Single
> Scope Background Investigation.  The investigators gather information from
> many sources.  The investigatee identifies three or five long-time friends,
> and the investigators talk to them.  The investigators then ask them for
> contacts, and they talk to them too.  Eventually they make a recommendation
> to the person who can grant clearances.
>
> The investigatee receives security training and signs nondisclosure
> agreements, perhaps the Espionage Act, receives the clearances, and goes to
> work.  There is regular recurring training and constant reminders in the
> form of newsletters, posters, etc.  There are procedures for storing and
> mailing information; with the advent of IT, everything has become more
> complicated.  All of this is prescribed by law and supplemented with
> various regulations.
>
> Ultimately, we trust people to classify information properly; to
> investigate properly; to grant clearances properly; to use and protect
> information properly.  People being people, turns out not everyone is
> always careful, and some people break the rules intentionally.  We punish
> them if we can.  There is a problem with courts; often the Government is
> asked to confirm that the information disclosed was genuine, and they don't
> want to confirm that in public.
>
> A couple of observations on recent cases:
>
> Edward Snowden went through all of this and intentionally broke the rules
> in a major way.  While many may approve, he broke the law.  If the US ever
> gets hold of him, he will go to jail forever.
>
> Hillary Clinton was a Senator and Secretary of State.  Many Senators have
> clearances, and the Secretary certainly does.  (Although sometimes the
> holders of classified info don't trust certain elected/appointed officials,
> and don't send stuff to them.)  She put classified information on
> unclassified computers, or caused that to be done.  That is illegal.  Were
> she not Hillary Clinton, she would have been punished when the breach was
> discovered.  Were the laws equally applied, as they're supposed to be, she
> would be punished.
>
> This is an extremely large area, and I've only touched on basics.  Would
> be glad to go into more detail.
>
> Regards
>
> John
> Dubai
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:
>
>> Since I will be working on information hazards this summer, I am curious
>> about the world of security clearances. How do they *actually* work?
>>
>> Practically, it seems to be a combination of (1) getting people to
>> acknowledge that they will deal with Important Stuff and are responsible (a
>> psychological effect), (2) creating a cultural environment where
>> information flow is shaped (a social effect), (3) creating penalties for
>> doing things wrong (an incentive effect). I assume there is also an assumed
>> (4): that cleared people are less likely to leak or mishandle information
>> (a selection effect). Does anybody know if there have been any proper
>> studies of how well 1-4 actually work?
>>
>> Bringing this into the transhuman world, we may consider what happens if
>> we get really good at these things.
>>
>> On 2016-05-10 22:49, spike wrote:
>>
>>  Ja.  When the security people hear a credible rumor, they can call the
>> clearance holder in for an interview, without even telling why.  If the
>> holder refuses, clearance is suspended.  If the holder accepts and
>> confesses everything, then the holder is in trouble for not coming forth
>> earlier before he was caught, but might hold on to the clearance if the
>> investigation decides national security was not compromised.  If they find
>> the holder intentionally tried to cover his tracks, or if the other
>> participant wasn?t cleared at the same level, or they want to make an
>> example of the guy, or if the ranking official is in a bad mood that day,
>> or any number of other factors, the holder gets his clearance suspended or
>> revoked.
>>
>> Any big aerospace company is populated with straight-arrow law-abiding
>> types, which is how they qualified for those clearances to start with.  If
>> any high-up leader has a clearance suspended, word quickly gets around why
>> it happened, and that guy can no longer effectively lead that crowd: they
>> have no respect for him.  This is what happened to the LM second in command
>> a few years ago.
>>
>> Funny aside: a long time ago, I was in a proposal group where we were
>> trying to find civilian uses for a whole bunch of surplus military stuff we
>> could buy for about a nickel on the dollar, stuff that was idled by a
>> treaty that took effect right at the tail end of Bush41?s term.  It
>> included rocket motors, guidance systems, not the nukes of course but all
>> kinds of cool rocket stuff, originally designed to carry nukes but now all
>> of it surplus and ready to haul rich people to space, that kinda thing.
>>
>> In that building where we were generating proposals, we had a soundproof
>> meeting room.  It was seldom used for anything: it was a pain in the ass to
>> even get there, since it was a structure within a structure, kinda like a
>> massive refrigerator inside a building, and you had to code in, etc, so
>> they could archive who went in and when.  We decided to find out if it
>> really was sound proof.  We had exactly one woman in that group, mid
>> thirties, fun sense of humor type.  We said ?Hey Lurleen, go in there and
>> close up, then scream like you are being murdered or something.?
>>
>> Leave it to her to respond, ?Or something, OK.?
>>
>> {8^D
>>
>> Took us several minutes to stop laughing.  Then, she went in there,
>> closed up, screamed.  We couldn?t hear it.  The structure worked as
>> advertised.
>>
>> We didn?t need Lurleen to point out to us what that facility enabled.  I
>> don?t know if anyone ever used it for that purpose, but I wouldn?t be a bit
>> surprised.  If they did that and self-reported, the security people
>> probably wouldn?t tell the company (I wouldn?t think (they would have
>> nothing to gain by telling.))
>>
>> In any case, the security people make it clear during initial training
>> and all subsequent periodic updates: they get it that people are not
>> saints.  They understand.  They are not your priest.  But they do need to
>> know what you did, so they can watch out for negative consequences.  If you
>> cross them, they can hurt you.  If you lie to them, this is a bad thing.
>>
>> spike
>>
>>
>> --
>> Anders Sandberg
>> Future of Humanity Institute
>> Oxford Martin School
>> Oxford University
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160512/89ce9484/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Thu May 12 15:43:34 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 08:43:34 -0700
Subject: [ExI] my unified theory etc
In-Reply-To: <001901d1ac05$20be6e60$623b4b20$@att.net>
References: <CAPiwVB5LZ5MNaQAgfq32kWXqXaRrnQqnxW4Hcs8VpOnYmMSudg@mail.gmail.com>
 <001901d1ac05$20be6e60$623b4b20$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNROAqV_z-2ABUJVauC3E3VTbcFftgmXb=40YMOXFZ7F-g@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:16 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> Then she realizes she can now order senators murdered, and pardon whoever
> did it, then declare the deceased enemies of the state.  Then the surviving
> senators can be told they can run along home now, their services are no
> longer needed.
>
>
>
> Where is the flaw in this reasoning please?
>

That last bit.  Sure she could (assuming she gets elected), and in fact
every prior US President has had that ability.  Maybe there is no precedent
for that much desire born out of that much hostility in the 20th or 21st
centuries, but if you read back to 19th century there have been close cases.

What ultimately stops that is fear of we the people.

If she were to do that, her rule would not be seen as legitimate.  She
would have people - including much of the military - in open revolt.  She
almost certainly would not get to serve out her term; whether she would
survive her term is another story.   And whatever her technical expertise
or lack thereof, she is a veteran enough stateswoman that she knows this
would happen.

(One of the fears about Trump is that he might not know this, and thus
might try that if he gets mad enough at being told "no", with the
predictable result.  He would more likely first try to have them jailed on
blatantly false charges, which would have a similar but lesser effect.  A
smarter way to do this would be to simply greatly expand corruption
investigations - how much of Congress do you think isn't in violation of
the laws already on the books - and focus them on the opposition, but
neither candidate seems clever enough to do this.  Sanders might be that
clever but does not seem that vindictive.)

Similar circumstances are why the US military does not (publicly, in any
way that could be traced to us) just assassinate foreign leaders we
dislike, unless we consider ourselves to be in open armed hostilities with
them anyway.  (Thus: bin Laden was targeted, but Jong-un is safe for now
since, while he may say he's at war with us, we disagree.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160512/5ebe1560/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Thu May 12 15:54:40 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 08:54:40 -0700
Subject: [ExI] my unified theory etc
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNROAqV_z-2ABUJVauC3E3VTbcFftgmXb=40YMOXFZ7F-g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB5LZ5MNaQAgfq32kWXqXaRrnQqnxW4Hcs8VpOnYmMSudg@mail.gmail.com>
 <001901d1ac05$20be6e60$623b4b20$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNROAqV_z-2ABUJVauC3E3VTbcFftgmXb=40YMOXFZ7F-g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <001801d1ac66$98f304c0$cad90e40$@att.net>

 

 

>?] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes
Subject: Re: [ExI] my unified theory etc

 

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:16 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net> > wrote:

>>?Then she realizes she can now order senators murdered, and pardon whoever did it, then declare the deceased enemies of the state.  Then the surviving senators can be told they can run along home now, their services are no longer needed?Where is the flaw in this reasoning please?

 

>?That last bit.  Sure she could (assuming she gets elected), and in fact every prior US President has had that ability.  Maybe there is no precedent for that much desire born out of that much hostility in the 20th or 21st centuries, but if you read back to 19th century there have been close cases?What ultimately stops that is fear of we the people.

 

 

Hmmmm.

 

Well now, consider the book Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky.  Good chance both of the nominees from the major parties studied that book carefully.  One of the candidates has made no secret of being more than just an Alinsky follower.  We have never heard her disavow anything he wrote.  So it would be advisable for those who follow these kinds of things to read Alinsky?s RfR.  I have, or at least the Cliff?s Notes version of it.

 

One thing that really now rings true from that work is the concept that if a politician loses, that politician?s honesty, integrity, honor, all the rest of it doesn?t matter, isn?t worth a bucket of spit, etc.  He?s out of power, he is completely irrelevant, absolutely regardless.  That outlook has consequences, such as: to win ugly is to win just the same.  It is better to win clean, but either is infinitely better than to lose.

 

Now we get to Survivor, an early reality TV stunt.  But I want to put that in a separate post.

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160512/ea70258c/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Thu May 12 16:12:43 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 09:12:43 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Security clearances
In-Reply-To: <000b01d1ac16$586706e0$093514a0$@att.net>
References: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv28qXEe=VAPzEbibT6CqbqxDFO68h-T-vew=40Y3eMSWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <003f01d1a989$4b50df60$e1f29e20$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1Bj20bTje_2k7nEUKbN4HLAL5nyvzCWaWbXdfqCWobmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00db01d1a997$b6ee9560$24cbc020$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0V5_YG1AxPO6uUjPLWyi96T+zgfkQhYjpDPZ8p=9tnyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <014e01d1aa1a$a8f42820$fadc7860$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNSc-URH+oe4=ML7qZLF8+d-Dd7DmS2iyiW_H4syf2Sb5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <011501d1aafd$6bb755c0$43260140$@att.net>
 <57341D0C.4000001@aleph.se>
 <000b01d1ac16$586706e0$093514a0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNQtTGyPidw2hdkaOfc4Hr4J4fyfDBkz04_gBcduhYgW7A@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:20 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> they must clear a president (and we have had three in a row who were not
> clearable by the traditional criteria.)
>

Out of curiosity, which 3 do you mean?  I can see a case against Bush Jr.,
but Obama, William Clinton, and Bush Sr. do not have obvious problems.
(Unless you mean Clinton was blackmailable, but that was discovered only
after he was cleared.  But even granting that, who's the third?  I can see
some people arguing that Obama should not have been cleared due to being
black, or being a Democrat with all that entails, but surely you have some
more legitimate criteria in mind I'm not thinking of.  Obama hiring Hillary
Clinton does not reflect on his own clearance.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160512/01a9af80/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Thu May 12 16:23:26 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 09:23:26 -0700
Subject: [ExI] my unified theory etc
In-Reply-To: <001801d1ac66$98f304c0$cad90e40$@att.net>
References: <CAPiwVB5LZ5MNaQAgfq32kWXqXaRrnQqnxW4Hcs8VpOnYmMSudg@mail.gmail.com>
 <001901d1ac05$20be6e60$623b4b20$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNROAqV_z-2ABUJVauC3E3VTbcFftgmXb=40YMOXFZ7F-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <001801d1ac66$98f304c0$cad90e40$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNTbV+wAJ0WaaS0M8MFfD4E1u7ZHAewqm=65_DHz3Q7f=A@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 8:54 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> One thing that really now rings true from that work is the concept that if
> a politician loses, that politician?s honesty, integrity, honor, all the
> rest of it doesn?t matter, isn?t worth a bucket of spit, etc.  He?s out of
> power, he is completely irrelevant, absolutely regardless.  That outlook
> has consequences, such as: to win ugly is to win just the same.  It is
> better to win clean, but either is infinitely better than to lose.
>

Except...there are future races.  This is not Hillary Clinton's first shot
at the White House.  (Some) voters remember past tactics and past behaviors.

There is also the prospect of working with the winner.  There have been
presidential nominations where a party's second place winner got the VP
nomination for coming in second...but this required that the winner could
stomach running alongside that person.  One could easily envision Clinton
getting the Democratic nomination and asking Sanders to be her running
mate, so that if they get into office he can pursue the programs his
followers wanted.  OTOH, it seems basically impossible that Cruz would
accept were Trump to offer this.

In short, it's a Prisoner's Dilemma fallacy: believing that the current
round is all there will ever be, and that there won't be future match-ups
with the other parties, when there won't actually be measures taken (such
as executing the losers) to ensure there won't be.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160512/eab103a5/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Thu May 12 16:40:19 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 09:40:19 -0700
Subject: [ExI] survivor
Message-ID: <005901d1ac6c$f92daa60$eb88ff20$@att.net>

 

 

It was a kind of funny thought experiment: what if. we turned a beauty
pageant around.  Currently, in the final round, they announce the most
beautiful woman in the universe (?) then expect 49 bitterly disappointed
losers to smile and congratulate the winner while pretending to not be
bitterly disappointed (sheesh (how in the hell could we consider that
entertainment?))  

 

But that whole beauty contest concept was getting stale (and already was
back when it was county-fair level low-brow even by those standards?)  So
what if we turn that around.  What if we get it down to 50 finalists, fifty
beautiful, talented young ladies, the winners from each sub-competition in
the same silly madness, but. instead of doing a bunch of competitions and
crowning a winner, we have a process where we give them all crowns to start
with, then repeatedly and publicly choose and de-coronate a loser, one at
time, shaming the hell out of them and the state from which they came.
Wouldn't that be shocking and funny?  Sorta?  Get the ladies up on the
stage, announcer:  The least beautiful of all these contestants is. Miss
Nebraska!  Hand over the crown and get your not-as-beautiful ass off our
stage!  

 

Then she is shamed, Nebraska is shamed, the other contestants can put on a
phony sympathy act while inside each breathes a sigh of relief that she was
not the one that round, much like the way it is in any downsizing company
experiencing serial layoffs.

 

That concept might sell!  But. hmmm. choosing young ladies one at a time to
be identified as last place cellar dwellers, the least beautiful of a group
of beautiful women. that is a bit touchy really, problematic even for the
low standards of commercial TV.  But there were variations on a theme: a
quiz show called The Weakest Link, where a group of contestants played the
usual trivia games, but the last place contestant would be eliminated and
shamed by a mean dominatrix on the way out, with funny mean put-downs, such
as "Horkheimer Grunk, your ignorance knows no bounds.  You are. the WEAKEST
LINK!" and Grunk is finished, off the show, no consolation prize, and oh ho
ho, isn't that funny?  Donald Trump set up his variation on that theme
called The Apprentice, where he serially identified and shamed his least
successful trainee, dismissing each with a lusty: "YOU'RE FIRED!"  

 

So. variation on a theme: get a group of people isolated on an island, let
them do competitions and things, then let them vote people off the island
one at a time.  The survivors get to vote their own competitors off the
island, and in some cases those who were voted off get to vote in subsequent
rounds, opening up the dimension of revenge, writing a cool chapter in game
theory.  They did it.  The show was called "Survivor."  The last survivor
wins a million bucks.

 

More on that later, but. we learned so many fascinating concepts from
Survivor, that first season when not everyone really understood game theory.
They started out with a couple dozen, but eventually the guy who won that
popularity contest was the one guy with the fewest actual survival skills,
the fewest socially redeeming qualities, the one least likely to succeed,
the one who was unanimously agreed by the participants, before, during and
after the show, to be the uncontested least popular participant.  The term
"unanimous" in this case really does mean that the least popular guy
cheerfully agreed with the others that he was the least popular guy.

 

I didn't see many episodes, for those were very busy years for me, around
2000.  But we had Robin Hanson's play money Ideas Futures going then, and
that show got a lot of betting and a lot of commentary in Ideas Futures.  A
Reddit group formed (or its equivalent as I recall) to discuss the oddball
paradoxes that arise from this kind of competition.  In the end, the least
capable of actual survival and the very least popular guy walked away with
the million bucks.

 

Afterwards he explained what he did and why.  He did in fact make himself
unpopular intentionally, he did throw some strategic competitions
intentionally, made himself appear more in competent than he really was, as
part of an overall game strategy.  The usual example was he walked around
the island nude.  Some might have been cool with that, but in his case, he
was white as the Pillsbury dough boy, and as flabby.  He had nothing anyone
would want to see, any gender, any orientation.  Then he was intentionally
offensive in some cases when the nudity thing didn't work, arrogant,
deceptive, dismissive, etc.  

 

In interviews afterwards, he explained that he was a Saul Alinsky follower,
had studied the book carefully, understood game theory better than anyone on
that island (turns out that was perfectly true.)  When he explained the
rationale behind what he did, with the mean weird act turned off, the whole
thing made perfect sense (the rationale of the winner is always like that
(Saul Alinsky would agree wholeheartedly (if you win, then even if your
reasoning is flawed, it becomes sound by definition after the fact (that's
magic of winning (the same logic behind the old familiar saying the winners
write the history books (and propagate their DNA (both the genetic and
memetic varieties.))))))))

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160512/82fb4664/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Thu May 12 17:11:05 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 10:11:05 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Security clearances
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNQtTGyPidw2hdkaOfc4Hr4J4fyfDBkz04_gBcduhYgW7A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv28qXEe=VAPzEbibT6CqbqxDFO68h-T-vew=40Y3eMSWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <003f01d1a989$4b50df60$e1f29e20$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1Bj20bTje_2k7nEUKbN4HLAL5nyvzCWaWbXdfqCWobmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00db01d1a997$b6ee9560$24cbc020$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0V5_YG1AxPO6uUjPLWyi96T+zgfkQhYjpDPZ8p=9tnyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <014e01d1aa1a$a8f42820$fadc7860$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNSc-URH+oe4=ML7qZLF8+d-Dd7DmS2iyiW_H4syf2Sb5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <011501d1aafd$6bb755c0$43260140$@att.net> <57341D0C.4000001@aleph.se>
 <000b01d1ac16$586706e0$093514a0$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNQtTGyPidw2hdkaOfc4Hr4J4fyfDBkz04_gBcduhYgW7A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <008901d1ac71$45054430$cf0fcc90$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 9:13 AM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] Security clearances

 

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:20 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net> > wrote:

they must clear a president (and we have had three in a row who were not clearable by the traditional criteria.)

 

Out of curiosity, which 3 do you mean?  I can see a case against Bush Jr., but Obama, William Clinton, and Bush Sr. do not have obvious problems.  (Unless you mean Clinton was blackmailable, but that was discovered only after he was cleared.  But even granting that, who's the third?  I can see some people arguing that Obama should not have been cleared due to being black, or being a Democrat with all that entails, but surely you have some more legitimate criteria in mind I'm not thinking of.  Obama hiring Hillary Clinton does not reflect on his own clearance.)

 

 

Bill said he smoked weed a couple of times, didn?t inhale.  Even then, people could be cleared after having done illegal drugs, but their story had to match the story of others who were there.  His did not.  Security people ask around, find out who you hung with, when, what dope was being done, ask them what happened.  The others didn?t bother to try that silly didn?t inhale business: they detailed dozens of times when they (including Bill) damn sure did smoke weed and damn sure did in inhale.  We knew of it at the time; you would have a hard time finding anyone today who believes Bill only tried weed once or twice and didn?t inhale.  But hey, lying about smoking weed is a special subset case of lying.  And anyway, he wasn?t under oath when he said it.  It was just a speech.  So? fair game.

 

OK so there is a discrepancy between his story and the witnesses.  No clearance for you!  However? a president is a special case.  So they had to clear him anyway.  Then there was a bunch of questions being asked that I got to see firsthand right when that was going on in 1992.  The security people changed the rules and started asking about drug use other than grass.  No kidding.  Grass didn?t count anymore as drug abuse (but alcohol abuse still did.)  The security people effectively legalized grass in order to keep the more important criterion of complete openness and honesty with the security people.  I agree with what was done.  

 

We had to ask: if the president could get a clearance after telling such an absurdity, are there any others who can do likewise?  Can we?  Answer: no.  Well, yes but not you.  The VP can do this too.  But if we catch you in a discrepancy, your clearance is a fading memory by the time the guards get you out the door and throw your paltry personal effects at you on the way out.  We acknowledged that the president (and the VP) really were security clearance special cases.

 

Eight years went by.  Bush Junior had sucked up cocaine.  That one was different, for even in the 70s, when grass was sorta legal (as it is now in some states) cocaine definitely was not, never was.  Having it, using it, selling it, buying it, that stuff was a crime.  Bush43 admitted using it, was upfront and honest about it, told where and when, they found the witnesses, the stories agreed, Bush43 made it on one criteria but not the other: he did tell the truth, but cocaine was an actual crime.  They made an exception and cleared him.

 

Eight more years, Barack admitted in his own book that he sucked up cocaine, even while he had no visible means of paying for it, but that case was more problematic than his predecessors, for they couldn?t find the witnesses.  We still do not know who were Barack?s childhood friends.  The security people ask about those, and try to find them if they can.  In his case, they couldn?t.  We still know very little about Barack?s formative years.  So? they made an exception for the president, as they did in the cases of his two predecessors.

 

By the traditional criteria by which security clearances and investigations are carried out for others, none of the last three presidents would have been clearable: Bill for lying, Bush43 for cocaine and Barack for secrecy about his past.

 

So what do we do about the Secretary of State?  That isn?t an elected position.  So the security people are not obligated to grant that position a clearance, for if the SecState loses her clearance, she is fired and a new one appointed, just as a CEO of a multi-billion-dollar defense company can lose his tickets for lying to security, and if so, he is replaced.  We have a shining example of exactly that.

 

So do we make a special case for Secretary of State, so long as she will be the next president?  If so, how can we know for sure she will be the next president?  And if the security people know of clearance-destroying activities but failed to act, are they now legally liable?  Why not?  They participated in a cover-up, ja? 

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160512/8b4f3390/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Thu May 12 17:28:47 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 12:28:47 -0500
Subject: [ExI] my unified theory etc
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNTbV+wAJ0WaaS0M8MFfD4E1u7ZHAewqm=65_DHz3Q7f=A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB5LZ5MNaQAgfq32kWXqXaRrnQqnxW4Hcs8VpOnYmMSudg@mail.gmail.com>
 <001901d1ac05$20be6e60$623b4b20$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNROAqV_z-2ABUJVauC3E3VTbcFftgmXb=40YMOXFZ7F-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <001801d1ac66$98f304c0$cad90e40$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNTbV+wAJ0WaaS0M8MFfD4E1u7ZHAewqm=65_DHz3Q7f=A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEaEH6cM6cGibgmM_CUuoC7AWyXk+1w80Z9X3M_Y0j5Wyw@mail.gmail.com>

 She would have people - including much of the military - in open revolt.

This to me is why any ideas, such as by the NRA, about gun confiscation,
are not valid.  Even more far-fetched is the idea that any Congress would
pass such laws.  Our whole political and social climate would have to be
very different, and if those ever became law you'd see Texas start the
secession ball rolling.

bill w

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 8:54 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
>> One thing that really now rings true from that work is the concept that
>> if a politician loses, that politician?s honesty, integrity, honor, all the
>> rest of it doesn?t matter, isn?t worth a bucket of spit, etc.  He?s out of
>> power, he is completely irrelevant, absolutely regardless.  That outlook
>> has consequences, such as: to win ugly is to win just the same.  It is
>> better to win clean, but either is infinitely better than to lose.
>>
>
> Except...there are future races.  This is not Hillary Clinton's first shot
> at the White House.  (Some) voters remember past tactics and past behaviors.
>
> There is also the prospect of working with the winner.  There have been
> presidential nominations where a party's second place winner got the VP
> nomination for coming in second...but this required that the winner could
> stomach running alongside that person.  One could easily envision Clinton
> getting the Democratic nomination and asking Sanders to be her running
> mate, so that if they get into office he can pursue the programs his
> followers wanted.  OTOH, it seems basically impossible that Cruz would
> accept were Trump to offer this.
>
> In short, it's a Prisoner's Dilemma fallacy: believing that the current
> round is all there will ever be, and that there won't be future match-ups
> with the other parties, when there won't actually be measures taken (such
> as executing the losers) to ensure there won't be.
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160512/cc90dd65/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Thu May 12 17:23:07 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 10:23:07 -0700
Subject: [ExI] my unified theory etc
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNTbV+wAJ0WaaS0M8MFfD4E1u7ZHAewqm=65_DHz3Q7f=A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB5LZ5MNaQAgfq32kWXqXaRrnQqnxW4Hcs8VpOnYmMSudg@mail.gmail.com>
 <001901d1ac05$20be6e60$623b4b20$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNROAqV_z-2ABUJVauC3E3VTbcFftgmXb=40YMOXFZ7F-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <001801d1ac66$98f304c0$cad90e40$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNTbV+wAJ0WaaS0M8MFfD4E1u7ZHAewqm=65_DHz3Q7f=A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00a801d1ac72$f41919f0$dc4b4dd0$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 9:23 AM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] my unified theory etc

 

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 8:54 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net> > wrote:

>>?{By Alinsky?s theory}  It is better to win clean, but either is infinitely better than to lose.

>?There is also the prospect of working with the winner.  There have been presidential nominations where a party's second place winner got the VP nomination for coming in second...

Ja, but all three remaining candidates are too old to be interested in a VP position.  If elected, Clinton, Trump and Sanders, at the end of two normal presidential terms of a predecessor, would be age 76, 77 and 83 respectively, all probably too old to run for president.  Most of us remember how our grandparents looked and how they thought when they were that age.  

All three of these are now-or-nevers, and all three are students of Saul Alinsky.

spike 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160512/8ce64352/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Thu May 12 17:42:12 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 12:42:12 -0500
Subject: [ExI] survivor
In-Reply-To: <005901d1ac6c$f92daa60$eb88ff20$@att.net>
References: <005901d1ac6c$f92daa60$eb88ff20$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEY2DxzGEQfBG3gzpeYxL3Mv4UAk0fij368pxmVmrAUBkw@mail.gmail.com>

 (if you win, then even if your reasoning is flawed, it becomes sound by
definition after the fact (that?s magic of winning (the same logic behind
the old familiar saying the winners write the history books (and propagate
their DNA (both the genetic and memetic varieties.)))))))

spike

The flaw in this logic is clear:  circumstances may be different next time
and the strategy that worked last time may fail.  And maybe your strategy
was the best of a poor lot and had not faced stiff competition.  That's to
start with.

I am not familiar with Alinsky and have just bought his book.  Thanks for
the tip, Spike

bill w

bill w

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:40 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> It was a kind of funny thought experiment: what if? we turned a beauty
> pageant around.  Currently, in the final round, they announce the most
> beautiful woman in the universe (?) then expect 49 bitterly disappointed
> losers to smile and congratulate the winner while pretending to not be
> bitterly disappointed (sheesh (how in the hell could we consider that
> entertainment?))
>
>
>
> But that whole beauty contest concept was getting stale (and already was
> back when it was county-fair level low-brow even by those standards?)  So
> what if we turn that around.  What if we get it down to 50 finalists, fifty
> beautiful, talented young ladies, the winners from each sub-competition in
> the same silly madness, but? instead of doing a bunch of competitions and
> crowning a winner, we have a process where we give them all crowns to start
> with, then repeatedly and publicly choose and de-coronate a loser, one at
> time, shaming the hell out of them and the state from which they came.
> Wouldn?t that be shocking and funny?  Sorta?  Get the ladies up on the
> stage, announcer:  The least beautiful of all these contestants is? Miss
> Nebraska!  Hand over the crown and get your not-as-beautiful ass off our
> stage!
>
>
>
> Then she is shamed, Nebraska is shamed, the other contestants can put on a
> phony sympathy act while inside each breathes a sigh of relief that she was
> not the one that round, much like the way it is in any downsizing company
> experiencing serial layoffs.
>
>
>
> That concept might sell!  But? hmmm? choosing young ladies one at a time
> to be identified as last place cellar dwellers, the least beautiful of a
> group of beautiful women? that is a bit touchy really, problematic even for
> the low standards of commercial TV.  But there were variations on a theme:
> a quiz show called The Weakest Link, where a group of contestants played
> the usual trivia games, but the last place contestant would be eliminated
> and shamed by a mean dominatrix on the way out, with funny mean put-downs,
> such as ?Horkheimer Grunk, your ignorance knows no bounds.  You are? the
> WEAKEST LINK!? and Grunk is finished, off the show, no consolation prize,
> and oh ho ho, isn?t that funny?  Donald Trump set up his variation on that
> theme called The Apprentice, where he serially identified and shamed his
> least successful trainee, dismissing each with a lusty: ?YOU?RE FIRED!?
>
>
>
> So? variation on a theme: get a group of people isolated on an island, let
> them do competitions and things, then let them vote people off the island
> one at a time.  The survivors get to vote their own competitors off the
> island, and in some cases those who were voted off get to vote in
> subsequent rounds, opening up the dimension of revenge, writing a cool
> chapter in game theory.  They did it.  The show was called ?Survivor.?  The
> last survivor wins a million bucks.
>
>
>
> More on that later, but? we learned so many fascinating concepts from
> Survivor, that first season when not everyone really understood game
> theory.  They started out with a couple dozen, but eventually the guy who
> won that popularity contest was the one guy with the fewest actual survival
> skills, the fewest socially redeeming qualities, the one least likely to
> succeed, the one who was unanimously agreed by the participants, before,
> during and after the show, to be the uncontested least popular
> participant.  The term ?unanimous? in this case really does mean that the
> least popular guy cheerfully agreed with the others that he was the least
> popular guy.
>
>
>
> I didn?t see many episodes, for those were very busy years for me, around
> 2000.  But we had Robin Hanson?s play money Ideas Futures going then, and
> that show got a lot of betting and a lot of commentary in Ideas Futures.  A
> Reddit group formed (or its equivalent as I recall) to discuss the oddball
> paradoxes that arise from this kind of competition.  In the end, the least
> capable of actual survival and the very least popular guy walked away with
> the million bucks.
>
>
>
> Afterwards he explained what he did and why.  He did in fact make himself
> unpopular intentionally, he did throw some strategic competitions
> intentionally, made himself appear more in competent than he really was, as
> part of an overall game strategy.  The usual example was he walked around
> the island nude.  Some might have been cool with that, but in his case, he
> was white as the Pillsbury dough boy, and as flabby.  He had nothing anyone
> would want to see, any gender, any orientation.  Then he was intentionally
> offensive in some cases when the nudity thing didn?t work, arrogant,
> deceptive, dismissive, etc.
>
>
>
> In interviews afterwards, he explained that he was a Saul Alinsky
> follower, had studied the book carefully, understood game theory better
> than anyone on that island (turns out that was perfectly true.)  When he
> explained the rationale behind what he did, with the mean weird act turned
> off, the whole thing made perfect sense (the rationale of the winner is
> always like that (Saul Alinsky would agree wholeheartedly (if you win, then
> even if your reasoning is flawed, it becomes sound by definition after the
> fact (that?s magic of winning (the same logic behind the old familiar
> saying the winners write the history books (and propagate their DNA (both
> the genetic and memetic varieties.))))))))
>
>
>
> spike
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160512/650b8c79/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Thu May 12 18:00:10 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 14:00:10 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CACB7g26p0w-qZABLrWz1eT2R71-CFr9+N2yHnzmvjdwDkf8wtA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACB7g26p0w-qZABLrWz1eT2R71-CFr9+N2yHnzmvjdwDkf8wtA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv0R3e+xgP4dJnDwcoV014TLFu9bgwv+fmYjqq71XF7dDQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:41 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com>
wrote:

?> ?
> While I wouldn't want to risk it, my guess is other folks in the chain of
> command would likely not follow orders


?
That's
??
not the way things work. The only way to communicate with Trident Nuclear
Submarines when they're submerged (and they're always submerged except when
in port) is by Extremely Low Frequency radio waves, it's very
?very ?
slow, only about 2 words a minute. And it only works one way, submerged
submarines don't communicate with their land based bosses at all. There is
simply no way for the submarine
? ?
commander to have a debate about the geopolitical situation with
headquarters
.?

?When the Captain
 receives launch codes he's trained
?to open his sealed orders and verify that the launch code is correct, he
then asks his second in command to double check him to make sure the code
is correct. If they both agree that their submarine has received a valid
launch code then they are trained to
immediately launch
?their?
 24 ICBMs with their 192 H-bombs
?.?

?And
 that is exactly what
?they?
 will do. And there is a 25.2%
?chance ?
Donald Trump will have those launch codes in 8 months.

>?Why not simply advocate getting rid of the presidency,
>

spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:


> >
>> ?>?
>> Because that would require getting rid of the constitution which
>> ? ?
>> is a bad idea.
>
>
> ?> ?
> Why?
> ?
>

?
Because once a standard has been set changing it is
? a ?
awesome
? ?
responsibility and is not worth doing unless you're sure the new standard
will be ASTRONOMICALLY better, and even then the transition period is going
to be extremely unpleasant and chaotic. Yes a libertarian paradise with
Privately Produced Law and Private
?
Protection
? Agencies would be better than the nationalistic system we have now, but
the current standard is so well established that safely changing it now to
something radically different would be virtually impossible. ?



> ?> ?
> Think of the presidency as a
> ? ?
> national-level chief of police, who commands the military,
> ? ?
> selects supreme court justices, acts as influential cheerleader
> ? ?
> and such, but still must answer to congress.
>

?In today's modern fast changing world some important decisions must be
made in just hours or even minutes and there is no time to consult with
congress. And it's not like congress has demonstrated great wisdom lately.?


> ?> ?
> Make it so that
> ? ?
> he US will be OK with the occasional madman, criminal or
> ? ?
> Alzheimer?s patient in that office with little permanent damage.
>

?That won't work because the president is Commander In Chief (somebody has
to be) and Nuclear Weapons can't be un-invented. So if the Commander In
Chief is a madman, criminal or
? ?
Alzheimer?s patient we're all dead. And there is a 25.2% chance Donald
Trump will be the Commander In Chief in just 8 months.

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160512/6a00a1b9/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Thu May 12 18:34:47 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 13:34:47 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Security clearances
In-Reply-To: <008901d1ac71$45054430$cf0fcc90$@att.net>
References: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv28qXEe=VAPzEbibT6CqbqxDFO68h-T-vew=40Y3eMSWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <003f01d1a989$4b50df60$e1f29e20$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1Bj20bTje_2k7nEUKbN4HLAL5nyvzCWaWbXdfqCWobmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00db01d1a997$b6ee9560$24cbc020$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0V5_YG1AxPO6uUjPLWyi96T+zgfkQhYjpDPZ8p=9tnyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <014e01d1aa1a$a8f42820$fadc7860$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNSc-URH+oe4=ML7qZLF8+d-Dd7DmS2iyiW_H4syf2Sb5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <011501d1aafd$6bb755c0$43260140$@att.net> <57341D0C.4000001@aleph.se>
 <000b01d1ac16$586706e0$093514a0$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNQtTGyPidw2hdkaOfc4Hr4J4fyfDBkz04_gBcduhYgW7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <008901d1ac71$45054430$cf0fcc90$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZyoTmpjxnoe8VsBFGZutzSM2TYwWhTLkq8xzRFnT6qng@mail.gmail.com>

Bill said he smoked weed a couple of times, didn?t inhale.   spike

I have been a Baptist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian and Methodist, and can
attest that they are all alike in this respect;  they pick and choose which
parts of the Bible to believe and follow.  We all know this, right?

Now apply this reasoning to laws.  A friend of mine got a traffic ticket
for going one mph through a stop sign in the middle of nowhere -  zero
traffic.  (I was in the same place 10 minutes earlier, put my car in 1st
gear, went through the sign about the same speed, and got a warning because
I talked very nice to the black trooper and did not say, as my friend did,
that this was totally ridiculous).

  Is anyone going to support this level of pickiness and technicality for
this law?  I would hope not.  In fact, we followed the spirit of the law:
 we endangered no one including ourselves and no property.

So, especially as libertarians, we pick and choose laws we'd break if
nothing dire would happen or maybe that we would not get caught.  The
country is moving towards legalizing pot (while it is increasing the
penalties for opioids).  It is legal in Colorado and I hope the domino
effect holds for these laws which have cost billions to enforce to little
avail except to put minor offenders in jail for lengthy terms.

I see nothing wrong with excusing youthful drug use, even for a President -
ditto traffic tickets, maybe even shoplifting.  Youthful brains are not
mature brains.  Who could we elect if we chose to exclude everyone who ever
broke any law at all, even in ignorance?

So there are laws and there are laws we care less about enforcing to the
maximum.  Only a complete authoritarian would find this wrong.

bill w



On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:11 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Adrian Tymes
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 12, 2016 9:13 AM
> *To:* ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Security clearances
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:20 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
> they must clear a president (and we have had three in a row who were not
> clearable by the traditional criteria.)
>
>
>
> Out of curiosity, which 3 do you mean?  I can see a case against Bush Jr.,
> but Obama, William Clinton, and Bush Sr. do not have obvious problems.
> (Unless you mean Clinton was blackmailable, but that was discovered only
> after he was cleared.  But even granting that, who's the third?  I can see
> some people arguing that Obama should not have been cleared due to being
> black, or being a Democrat with all that entails, but surely you have some
> more legitimate criteria in mind I'm not thinking of.  Obama hiring Hillary
> Clinton does not reflect on his own clearance.)
>
>
>
>
>
> Bill said he smoked weed a couple of times, didn?t inhale.  Even then,
> people could be cleared after having done illegal drugs, but their story
> had to match the story of others who were there.  His did not.  Security
> people ask around, find out who you hung with, when, what dope was being
> done, ask them what happened.  The others didn?t bother to try that silly
> didn?t inhale business: they detailed dozens of times when they (including
> Bill) damn sure did smoke weed and damn sure did in inhale.  We knew of it
> at the time; you would have a hard time finding anyone today who believes
> Bill only tried weed once or twice and didn?t inhale.  But hey, lying about
> smoking weed is a special subset case of lying.  And anyway, he wasn?t
> under oath when he said it.  It was just a speech.  So? fair game.
>
>
>
> OK so there is a discrepancy between his story and the witnesses.  No
> clearance for you!  However? a president is a special case.  So they had to
> clear him anyway.  Then there was a bunch of questions being asked that I
> got to see firsthand right when that was going on in 1992.  The security
> people changed the rules and started asking about drug use other than
> grass.  No kidding.  Grass didn?t count anymore as drug abuse (but alcohol
> abuse still did.)  The security people effectively legalized grass in order
> to keep the more important criterion of complete openness and honesty with
> the security people.  I agree with what was done.
>
>
>
> We had to ask: if the president could get a clearance after telling such
> an absurdity, are there any others who can do likewise?  Can we?  Answer:
> no.  Well, yes but not you.  The VP can do this too.  But if we catch you
> in a discrepancy, your clearance is a fading memory by the time the guards
> get you out the door and throw your paltry personal effects at you on the
> way out.  We acknowledged that the president (and the VP) really were
> security clearance special cases.
>
>
>
> Eight years went by.  Bush Junior had sucked up cocaine.  That one was
> different, for even in the 70s, when grass was sorta legal (as it is now in
> some states) cocaine definitely was not, never was.  Having it, using it,
> selling it, buying it, that stuff was a crime.  Bush43 admitted using it,
> was upfront and honest about it, told where and when, they found the
> witnesses, the stories agreed, Bush43 made it on one criteria but not the
> other: he did tell the truth, but cocaine was an actual crime.  They made
> an exception and cleared him.
>
>
>
> Eight more years, Barack admitted in his own book that he sucked up
> cocaine, even while he had no visible means of paying for it, but that case
> was more problematic than his predecessors, for they couldn?t find the
> witnesses.  We still do not know who were Barack?s childhood friends.  The
> security people ask about those, and try to find them if they can.  In his
> case, they couldn?t.  We still know very little about Barack?s formative
> years.  So? they made an exception for the president, as they did in the
> cases of his two predecessors.
>
>
>
> By the traditional criteria by which security clearances and
> investigations are carried out for others, none of the last three
> presidents would have been clearable: Bill for lying, Bush43 for cocaine
> and Barack for secrecy about his past.
>
>
>
> So what do we do about the Secretary of State?  That isn?t an elected
> position.  So the security people are not obligated to grant that position
> a clearance, for if the SecState loses her clearance, she is fired and a
> new one appointed, just as a CEO of a multi-billion-dollar defense company
> can lose his tickets for lying to security, and if so, he is replaced.  We
> have a shining example of exactly that.
>
>
>
> So do we make a special case for Secretary of State, so long as she will
> be the next president?  If so, how can we know for sure she will be the
> next president?  And if the security people know of clearance-destroying
> activities but failed to act, are they now legally liable?  Why not?  They
> participated in a cover-up, ja?
>
>
>
> spike
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160512/b9f6b0d3/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Thu May 12 18:36:19 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 11:36:19 -0700
Subject: [ExI] my unified theory etc
In-Reply-To: <00a801d1ac72$f41919f0$dc4b4dd0$@att.net>
References: <CAPiwVB5LZ5MNaQAgfq32kWXqXaRrnQqnxW4Hcs8VpOnYmMSudg@mail.gmail.com>
 <001901d1ac05$20be6e60$623b4b20$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNROAqV_z-2ABUJVauC3E3VTbcFftgmXb=40YMOXFZ7F-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <001801d1ac66$98f304c0$cad90e40$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNTbV+wAJ0WaaS0M8MFfD4E1u7ZHAewqm=65_DHz3Q7f=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <00a801d1ac72$f41919f0$dc4b4dd0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNTRP5-0m=LSebcKEhs34oujQez9V4oOGcyOF2qu49wwow@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:23 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Adrian Tymes
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 12, 2016 9:23 AM
> *To:* ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] my unified theory etc
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 8:54 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
> >>?{By Alinsky?s theory}  It is better to win clean, but either is
> infinitely better than to lose.
>
> >?There is also the prospect of working with the winner.  There have been
> presidential nominations where a party's second place winner got the VP
> nomination for coming in second...
>
> Ja, but all three remaining candidates are too old to be interested in a
> VP position.  If elected, Clinton, Trump and Sanders, at the end of two
> normal presidential terms of a predecessor, would be age 76, 77 and 83
> respectively, all probably too old to run for president.
>

Old age isn't what t used to be.  Sanders could possibly run, and win, at
83.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160512/cb89a930/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Thu May 12 19:08:18 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 15:08:18 -0400
Subject: [ExI] fun outsider's view on ai
In-Reply-To: <e393fbe1-61db-ecee-ff18-c3dc6a472133@canonizer.com>
References: <002b01d1aa01$4a1def20$de59cd60$@att.net>
 <CAH=2ypV2nOGCmR9fFH47EnkNx3zdds2e9gg7NGcd=eN-4CtKXw@mail.gmail.com>
 <424026dc-e502-4d5a-1392-400e087dcfaa@canonizer.com>
 <CAJPayv007QmfXv2VKa6QudRi18exz75ZmKZdGnaAYf04fpe3WA@mail.gmail.com>
 <e393fbe1-61db-ecee-ff18-c3dc6a472133@canonizer.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv2GSM5WO9TtsJXz-6+PvJOAuk0iBYV0gNvRJpBMJ0Akgw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 8:10 AM, Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at canonizer.com>
wrote:

> ?> ?
> I can agree with everything you are saying, even when you say "we do know
> that a program with a million lines of code can manufacture the qualia
> 'red'".  I must admit that this is a very testable scientific theory that
> could be proven correct by demonstration.
>
> ?It's already been tested and proved to be correct.?

? I know for a fact that my brain can manufacture the red qualia and I know
for a fact that a program with a  ?
million lines of code
?(and probably less) assembled my brain from generic atoms.?

> ?> ?
> OK, so something less than a million lines of code can "manufacture" the
> elemental qualia red.
>
> ?That and interactions with the environment.

> ?> ?
> I assume you will agree that a different set of code can "manufacture" the
> qualia green, and that eventually we will be able to know, recognize, and
> detect each of these and their differences in each of our minds.
>
> ?Maybe but not necessarily, ?Godelian limits on self knowledge might come
into play.

> ?> ?
> Then we will be able to see each of these in our brains, and be able to
> tell things like if my code "manufacturing" red is more like your code
> "manufacturing" green.
>
> ?I might know that a? certain pattern of neuron firings in my brain
produces the red qualia in me, but you're brain is organized differently
than mine otherwise you would be me, so what sort of qualia your brain is
producing I have no way of knowing, I don't even know for certain that your
brain is producing any qualia at all. I might be the only conscious being
in the universe, I doubt it but I can't prove it's not true nor will I ever
be able to. That's why all this talk about qualia is a dead end, if you
want to make progress investigate intelligent behavior.

> ?> ?
> you are still being blind to the difference between an abstract
> representation that represents what is "manufactured" and the real quality
> being "manufactured".
>
> ?I know for a fact that I am not blind and I know for a fact that I can
experience the ?
red qualia and I know for a fact that the assembly instructions for John
Clark are less than a million lines long and I know for a fact there are
only 25 different types of parts.  ?We don't know for a fact that the
qualia you call "red" is the same as the qualia I call "red" nor will we
ever know that for a fact; so let's move on and study stuff we can know,
like intelligent behavior.

John K Clark




>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160512/2837673a/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Thu May 12 19:24:37 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 12:24:37 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Security clearances
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEZyoTmpjxnoe8VsBFGZutzSM2TYwWhTLkq8xzRFnT6qng@mail.gmail.com>
References: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv28qXEe=VAPzEbibT6CqbqxDFO68h-T-vew=40Y3eMSWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <003f01d1a989$4b50df60$e1f29e20$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1Bj20bTje_2k7nEUKbN4HLAL5nyvzCWaWbXdfqCWobmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00db01d1a997$b6ee9560$24cbc020$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0V5_YG1AxPO6uUjPLWyi96T+zgfkQhYjpDPZ8p=9tnyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <014e01d1aa1a$a8f42820$fadc7860$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNSc-URH+oe4=ML7qZLF8+d-Dd7DmS2iyiW_H4syf2Sb5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <011501d1aafd$6bb755c0$43260140$@att.net> <57341D0C.4000001@aleph.se>
 <000b01d1ac16$586706e0$093514a0$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNQtTGyPidw2hdkaOfc4Hr4J4fyfDBkz04_gBcduhYgW7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <008901d1ac71$45054430$cf0fcc90$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEZyoTmpjxnoe8VsBFGZutzSM2TYwWhTLkq8xzRFnT6qng@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <009901d1ac83$eca75ea0$c5f61be0$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 11:35 AM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] Security clearances

 

 

Bill said he smoked weed a couple of times, didn?t inhale.   spike

 

>?  The country is moving towards legalizing pot (while it is increasing the penalties for opioids).  It is legal in Colorado and I hope the domino effect holds for these laws which have cost billions to enforce to little avail except to put minor offenders in jail for lengthy terms?bill w

 

 

BillW, this is another case of the incident itself is irrelevant, but lying about it is critical.  In a security clearance investigation, they come out and tell you they won?t disqualify you for having an affair, for smoking weed, for minor stuff, but they need to know what they need to know about it in order to do their jobs, because their asses are on the line too.  They make clear: if you did something, tell it.  Who was with you?  When did you do it?  Where did you do it?  How many times did you do it?  etc.  

 

Then what happens is the security people take your list, go try to find those people.  They ask them what happened.  If the stories match, they don?t disqualify the candidate.

 

Case in point: we had guy in the icebox, which is where you work before a clearance investigation is complete.  Those usually take about a year, less if you have had a really squeaky clean life, lived in one place the whole time and they can find everybody on your list, and everybody?s story matches.  Longer if they find discrepancies.  We had this guy in the icebox for less than a year but almost; so he had already made a career sacrifice to even be there, and we had been paying him mostly on overhead this whole time and trying to keep him busy on stuff that we knew didn?t matter.

 

On his application was the question: have you ever been arrested.  Now that is an easy one.  It doesn?t include being pulled over for speeding, it means have you had directed at you the words ??right to remain silent?? and he wrote no.  The investigators learned of a fight that had occurred after a football game at San Jose State and the campus cops arrested these two, but being an internal affair hadn?t given them Miranda rights (these kinds of incidents are settled by student council usually.)  The two brawlers hadn?t done any serious damage to each other, no broken noses, no blood on the ground, just your usual shit that happens kind of incident, so?  They took them over to the guard station, both guys were sorry it happened, won?t happen again, and please please don?t let this go on our academic record etc.  The campus chief decided it was a no-harm no-foul, the two were about the same size, so it wasn?t one guy bullying the other, and our guy was second in his class, so? they let them go an hour later, but gave him a written reprimand.

 

The security officers talked to people, learned of the incident, found the letter in his file, decided this constituted an arrest, and technically it was (because they had both guys in those plastic zip-tie cuffs) even though they kept it as an on-campus matter with no local constables involved.  The investigators looked at the way the arrest question was posed and that ?no? answer.  After he sat in the icebox for almost a year, they said no tickets for you.  He left the company a week later.

 

This whole thing takes on a new meaning in our times.  We know the security clearance investigations must make special accommodations for at least two elected positions, president and VP.  But the Secretary of State is an appointed position (as is the CEO of a defense company is appointed by the board of directors.)  The security team does not answer to the company, to the directors, to the outgoing CEO, to anyone other than their boss in Washington, so they do what they do, regardless of rank.

 

What we are seeing now is a Secretary of State claiming or trying to claim a right that the position does not have.  She wants to tell the government what information she will give them and what she will not.  I dropped my jaw when she said of a private server under subpoena that it would stay private.  This astonishment was compounded when we learned that she was erasing evidence on that server.  Secretaries of State, current or former, do not have the authority to tell the FBI what evidence they may have.  If you or I am under subpoena, we are not allowed to tell the FBI this potential evidence is private property or that their investigation is improper or that the whole thing is a conspiracy.  Mrs. Clinton and I do not have the legal authority to do that.  Yet she did it, and didn?t get frog-marched to San Quentin in chains.  You or I would.

 

Clearly there is a double standard.  

 

OK then, I propose we admit it and define it, just as we do in law.  Let us continue to claim that all animals on the farm are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.  Let us define which laws the more-equal animals no longer need to follow, but that the Jeffery Sterlings of the world still do.  Who are these more-equal people?  Does it include just those three, president, VP and SecState?  What about the SecState?s staff?  Which ones are immune from law?  Which laws?  All of them?  Or just those which shouldn?t have been asked?  Those having to do with lifestyle?  Such as? hmmm? sex, drugs and say? murder?  And while we are asking, what precisely is the limit to the notion of a presidential pardon?  Where does the constitution say a sitting president may not self-pardon?  If we admit that this is theoretically possible and that Nixon could have just pardoned himself and held his office, I see no limitations on grabbing arbitrary power and self-pardoning all the way up.

 

I can?t trust either major party nominee to not see this logical fallacy in the whole notion of executive pardon.  I don?t trust either of them to not abuse it.  We have one of those candidates who is already almost doing that, and she isn?t even entitled to legal immunity.  Yet.  

 

Without strict definition, the presidential pardon is a ticket to totalitarianism far worse than Germany?s bitter experience.

 

spike

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160512/f41da74d/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Thu May 12 19:41:24 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 12:41:24 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv0R3e+xgP4dJnDwcoV014TLFu9bgwv+fmYjqq71XF7dDQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACB7g26p0w-qZABLrWz1eT2R71-CFr9+N2yHnzmvjdwDkf8wtA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0R3e+xgP4dJnDwcoV014TLFu9bgwv+fmYjqq71XF7dDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACB7g241rh=hSBRCfhqgQogmcRKevMC3QS7sNh4g9ABp=4xCKQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:00 AM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:41 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com>
wrote:
>> While I wouldn't want to risk it, my guess is other folks in the chain
of command would likely not follow orders
>
>
> That's
> not the way things work. The only way to communicate with Trident Nuclear
Submarines when they're submerged (and they're always submerged except when
in port) is by Extremely Low Frequency radio waves, it's very
> very
> slow, only about 2 words a minute. And it only works one way, submerged
submarines don't communicate with their land based bosses at all. There is
simply no way for the submarine
> commander to have a debate about the geopolitical situation with
headquarters
> .
>
> When the Captain
>  receives launch codes he's trained
> to open his sealed orders and verify that the launch code is correct, he
then asks
> his second in command to double check him to make sure the code is
correct. If
> they both agree that their submarine has received a valid launch code
then they
> are trained to immediately launch their  24 ICBMs with their 192 H-bombs.
>
> And that is exactly what they
>  will do. And there is a 25.2%
> chance
> Donald Trump will have those launch codes in 8 months.

Let me help you yet again, given that you ignored what I stated after the
part you trimmed:

"While I wouldn't want to risk it, my guess is other folks in the chain of
command would likely not follow orders. However, let's set that aside.
Let's say you're right: Trump in office would increase the odds of a
nuclear war. By how much? Maybe Caplan is right about the overall 2.5 times
risk. Let's say 2.5 times whatever the base rate would be or, better, than
Clinton or Sanders. (My guess is Sanders would be less bellicose than
either Trump or Clinton.) Now, what can you do about this? Panic? Build a
bomb shelter? My guess is very little aside from get worked up."

>> >?Why not simply advocate getting rid of the presidency,
>
>
> spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> Because that would require getting rid of the constitution which
>>> is a bad idea.
>>>
>> Why?
>
> Because once a standard has been set changing it is
> a
> awesome
> responsibility and is not worth doing unless you're sure the new standard
will be ASTRONOMICALLY better, and even then the transition period is going
to be extremely unpleasant and chaotic. Yes a libertarian paradise with
Privately Produced Law and Private
> Protection
> Agencies would be better than the nationalistic system we have now, but
the current standard is so well established that safely changing it now to
something radically different would be virtually impossible.

Then be prepared to have madmen get into office. Or not even madmen, just
folks who will make colossally bad decisions simply because of concentrated
power.

Also, my question was: "Why not simply advocate getting rid of the
presidency, so that, if you succeed, there won't be a madman attaining that
level of power?"

I was presuming there that you would have about as much success at this as
in getting X or non-X elected president this year. It would be a much
longer term project: talking to people, persuading them that this should be
done, and even going over what the replacement should be. (Please note: the
replacement possibilities aren't either an extremely unlikely "libertarian
paradise" or some highly likely (according to you and Spike, I take it)
really bad society that either follows the "Mad Max" or "1984" model. There
are plenty of other possibilities, including one where there simply is no
ruler with such power, but the overall government of the US is much the
same -- as much as it can be the same without an imperial executive like we
have now.)

>> Think of the presidency as a
>> national-level chief of police, who commands the military,
>> selects supreme court justices, acts as influential cheerleader
>> and such, but still must answer to congress.
>
> In today's modern fast changing world some important decisions must
> be made in just hours or even minutes and there is no time to consult
> with congress. And it's not like congress has demonstrated great wisdom
lately.

I actually think that's part of the problem. In any age, problems can be
viewed as needing quick and decisive action. That was an original
justification for having a president and also not have some collegial
executive body. (The Romans, for instance, often had dual office holders.
the Federalists argued strongly against that sort of thing.) That too
easily morphs, as anti-Federalists pointed out in the 01780s, into
executive decisions being made always without approval or consent.

Let me stress again: in any age. The excuse that 02016 demands this more
than fifty or a hundred years ago is bullshit.

>> Make it so that
>> he US will be OK with the occasional madman, criminal or
>> Alzheimer?s patient in that office with little permanent damage.
>
>
> That won't work because the president is Commander In Chief
> (somebody has to be) and Nuclear Weapons can't be un-invented.
> So if the Commander In Chief is a madman, criminal or
> Alzheimer?s patient we're all dead. And there is a 25.2% chance
> Donald Trump will be the Commander In Chief in just 8 months.

Again, let's say the Trump issue passes, why keep a system like this in
place where another mad person might seek and attain the office? It's
almost like you live in a building with a basement full of oily rags that
has no secure door and instead of either moving out or cleaning up that
room, you just want to make sure one particular guy who likes to start
fires stays away from the basement. Either getting rid of the rags or
having the door firmly locked, it seems, are too radical. It's an insane,
utopian idea. But keeping things as they are, well? That's the height of
practical sanity.

I'd like to reiterate, again, for Constitutionalists: What's happened since
ratification either is because of or in spite of the Constitution, so why
put much stock in that piece of legalese that obviously even helped create
the government Americans live under or did nothing to stop it from being
created?

Regards,

Dan
  Sample my Kindle books via:
http://author.to/DanUst
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160512/6a0f554c/attachment.html>

From brent.allsop at canonizer.com  Sat May 14 11:50:25 2016
From: brent.allsop at canonizer.com (Brent Allsop)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 05:50:25 -0600
Subject: [ExI] fun outsider's view on ai
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv2GSM5WO9TtsJXz-6+PvJOAuk0iBYV0gNvRJpBMJ0Akgw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <002b01d1aa01$4a1def20$de59cd60$@att.net>
 <CAH=2ypV2nOGCmR9fFH47EnkNx3zdds2e9gg7NGcd=eN-4CtKXw@mail.gmail.com>
 <424026dc-e502-4d5a-1392-400e087dcfaa@canonizer.com>
 <CAJPayv007QmfXv2VKa6QudRi18exz75ZmKZdGnaAYf04fpe3WA@mail.gmail.com>
 <e393fbe1-61db-ecee-ff18-c3dc6a472133@canonizer.com>
 <CAJPayv2GSM5WO9TtsJXz-6+PvJOAuk0iBYV0gNvRJpBMJ0Akgw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <318ed875-967d-f374-c014-970e6be31b78@canonizer.com>


Hi John,


Thanks for expending the effort on this, I really want to try to better 
understand this line of thinking so I can better communicate.


On 5/12/2016 1:08 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 8:10 AM, Brent Allsop 
> <brent.allsop at canonizer.com <mailto:brent.allsop at canonizer.com>>wrote:
>
>     ?> ?
>     I can agree with everything you are saying, even when you say "we
>     do know that a program with a million lines of code can
>     manufacture the qualia 'red'".  I must admit that this is a very
>     testable scientific theory that could be proven correct by
>     demonstration.
>
> ?It's already been tested and proved to be correct.?
> ? I know for a fact that my brain can manufacture the red qualia and I 
> know for a fact that a program with a  ?
> million lines of code
> ?(and probably less) assembled my brain from generic atoms.?

We are talking about two different thing here.  There is the 
manufacturing process, and then there is what is manufactured.  DNA 
instructs something to be build that is responsible for or has an 
elemental redness quality.  You are talking about the DNA manufacturing 
process, and I am talking about what is built from that.  Would you 
agree that there are likely other ways of building what is responsible 
for an elemental redness and greenness qualities besides DNA manufacturing?

>     ?> ?
>     OK, so something less than a million lines of code can
>     "manufacture" the elemental qualia red.
>
> ?That and interactions with the environment.
>
>     ?> ?
>     I assume you will agree that a different set of code can
>     "manufacture" the qualia green, and that eventually we will be
>     able to know, recognize, and detect each of these and their
>     differences in each of our minds.
>
> ?Maybe but not necessarily, ?Godelian limits on self knowledge might 
> come into play.

So you are saying that qualia will eternally be ineffable or not 
understandable / mapable / observable, even for simple qualia like 
elemental redness an greenness?

>     ?> ?
>     Then we will be able to see each of these in our brains, and be
>     able to tell things like if my code "manufacturing" red is more
>     like your code "manufacturing" green.
>
> ?I might know that a? certain pattern of neuron firings in my brain 
> produces the red qualia in me, but you're brain is organized 
> differently than mine otherwise you would be me, so what sort of 
> qualia your brain is producing I have no way of knowing, I don't even 
> know for certain that your brain is producing any qualia at all. I 
> might be the only conscious being in the universe, I doubt it but I 
> can't prove it's not true nor will I ever be able to. That's why all 
> this talk about qualia is a dead end, if you want to make progress 
> investigate intelligent behavior.

Again, you are conflating two things together and thinking of them as if 
they were the same.  You are talking about composite qualia and I am 
talking about elemental qualia.  I am predicting that there is an 
elemental, fully understandable / mapable qualia level, especially for 
qualia like redness and greenness.  And that we can detect, understand, 
a communicate the quality (detect if we have roughly inverted qualia or 
not) to each other at this level.

>     ?> ?
>     you are still being blind to the difference between an abstract
>     representation that represents what is "manufactured" and the real
>     quality being "manufactured".
>
> ?I know for a fact that I am not blind and I know for a fact that I 
> can experience the ?
> red qualia

Obviously, but you are still completely missing what I am trying to 
say.  Let me see if this helps.  Would you agree that an abstract symbol 
like the word "red" does not have a redness quality?  And the only way 
to know what the word "red" means, when you say it, is to know how to 
properly interpret, qualitatively, what you mean for it to represent?

Brent Allsop





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160514/53c73234/attachment.html>

From msd001 at gmail.com  Fri May 13 12:31:03 2016
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 08:31:03 -0400
Subject: [ExI] survivor
In-Reply-To: <005901d1ac6c$f92daa60$eb88ff20$@att.net>
References: <005901d1ac6c$f92daa60$eb88ff20$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAOJFdbLGs9ZbGSyRkfnm=54zPL_XvOC5VdnotgmPE19vxU=+SQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:40 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> In interviews afterwards, he explained that he was a Saul Alinsky follower,
> had studied the book carefully, understood game theory better than anyone on
> that island (turns out that was perfectly true.)  When he explained the
> rationale behind what he did, with the mean weird act turned off, the whole
> thing made perfect sense (the rationale of the winner is always like that
> (Saul Alinsky would agree wholeheartedly (if you win, then even if your
> reasoning is flawed, it becomes sound by definition after the fact (that?s
> magic of winning (the same logic behind the old familiar saying the winners
> write the history books (and propagate their DNA (both the genetic and
> memetic varieties.))))))))


fwiw, I love the way you use parenthesis so unapologetically.  I
assume this is how a math nerd applies the rules of PEMDAS to English.

ex: that quoted paragraph has 8 adjacent end-parens.  Your asides have
asides to an exponential level.  :)



From foozler83 at gmail.com  Sat May 14 17:19:27 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 12:19:27 -0500
Subject: [ExI] fun outsider's view on ai
In-Reply-To: <318ed875-967d-f374-c014-970e6be31b78@canonizer.com>
References: <002b01d1aa01$4a1def20$de59cd60$@att.net>
 <CAH=2ypV2nOGCmR9fFH47EnkNx3zdds2e9gg7NGcd=eN-4CtKXw@mail.gmail.com>
 <424026dc-e502-4d5a-1392-400e087dcfaa@canonizer.com>
 <CAJPayv007QmfXv2VKa6QudRi18exz75ZmKZdGnaAYf04fpe3WA@mail.gmail.com>
 <e393fbe1-61db-ecee-ff18-c3dc6a472133@canonizer.com>
 <CAJPayv2GSM5WO9TtsJXz-6+PvJOAuk0iBYV0gNvRJpBMJ0Akgw@mail.gmail.com>
 <318ed875-967d-f374-c014-970e6be31b78@canonizer.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZ-XwYeORyZQ_Urd8CBsw8y4OT6Zdv75TP7SLcCAnoFDQ@mail.gmail.com>

And the only way to know what the word "red" means, when you say it, is to
know how to properly interpret, qualitatively, what you mean for it to
represent?

Brent Allsop

Just how would we know, in the beginning of our learning of language, what
anything means without reference to what other people tell us it means?  A
consensus.  What people take as the meaning of a word IS the meaning of it,
even as it may change over the years.  As a psychologist, I say that if you
look at the word 'red' and experience a visual object that is red, then
yes, the word, in that instance, does have a red quality.  If it conjures
up communism, then no.  (of course we are in philosophy where anyone can be
right, or wrong, or neither).

bill w

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 6:50 AM, Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at canonizer.com>
wrote:

>
> Hi John,
>
>
> Thanks for expending the effort on this, I really want to try to better
> understand this line of thinking so I can better communicate.
>
>
> On 5/12/2016 1:08 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 8:10 AM, Brent Allsop <
> <brent.allsop at canonizer.com>brent.allsop at canonizer.com> wrote:
>
>> ?> ?
>> I can agree with everything you are saying, even when you say "we do know
>> that a program with a million lines of code can manufacture the qualia
>> 'red'".  I must admit that this is a very testable scientific theory that
>> could be proven correct by demonstration.
>>
> ?It's already been tested and proved to be correct.?
>
> ? I know for a fact that my brain can manufacture the red qualia and I
> know for a fact that a program with a  ?
> million lines of code
> ?(and probably less) assembled my brain from generic atoms.?
>
>
> We are talking about two different thing here.  There is the manufacturing
> process, and then there is what is manufactured.  DNA instructs something
> to be build that is responsible for or has an elemental redness quality.
> You are talking about the DNA manufacturing process, and I am talking about
> what is built from that.  Would you agree that there are likely other ways
> of building what is responsible for an elemental redness and greenness
> qualities besides DNA manufacturing?
>
> ?> ?
>> OK, so something less than a million lines of code can "manufacture" the
>> elemental qualia red.
>>
> ?That and interactions with the environment.
>
>> ?> ?
>> I assume you will agree that a different set of code can "manufacture"
>> the qualia green, and that eventually we will be able to know, recognize,
>> and detect each of these and their differences in each of our minds.
>>
> ?Maybe but not necessarily, ?Godelian limits on self knowledge might come
> into play.
>
>
> So you are saying that qualia will eternally be ineffable or not
> understandable / mapable / observable, even for simple qualia like
> elemental redness an greenness?
>
> ?> ?
>> Then we will be able to see each of these in our brains, and be able to
>> tell things like if my code "manufacturing" red is more like your code
>> "manufacturing" green.
>>
> ?I might know that a? certain pattern of neuron firings in my brain
> produces the red qualia in me, but you're brain is organized differently
> than mine otherwise you would be me, so what sort of qualia your brain is
> producing I have no way of knowing, I don't even know for certain that your
> brain is producing any qualia at all. I might be the only conscious being
> in the universe, I doubt it but I can't prove it's not true nor will I ever
> be able to. That's why all this talk about qualia is a dead end, if you
> want to make progress investigate intelligent behavior.
>
>
> Again, you are conflating two things together and thinking of them as if
> they were the same.  You are talking about composite qualia and I am
> talking about elemental qualia.  I am predicting that there is an
> elemental, fully understandable / mapable qualia level, especially for
> qualia like redness and greenness.  And that we can detect, understand, a
> communicate the quality (detect if we have roughly inverted qualia or not)
> to each other at this level.
>
>
>
>> ?> ?
>> you are still being blind to the difference between an abstract
>> representation that represents what is "manufactured" and the real quality
>> being "manufactured".
>>
> ?I know for a fact that I am not blind and I know for a fact that I can
> experience the ?
> red qualia
>
>
> Obviously, but you are still completely missing what I am trying to say.
> Let me see if this helps.  Would you agree that an abstract symbol like the
> word "red" does not have a redness quality?  And the only way to know what
> the word "red" means, when you say it, is to know how to properly
> interpret, qualitatively, what you mean for it to represent?
>
> Brent Allsop
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160514/abcccf9c/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Thu May 12 20:24:51 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 16:24:51 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CACB7g241rh=hSBRCfhqgQogmcRKevMC3QS7sNh4g9ABp=4xCKQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACB7g26p0w-qZABLrWz1eT2R71-CFr9+N2yHnzmvjdwDkf8wtA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0R3e+xgP4dJnDwcoV014TLFu9bgwv+fmYjqq71XF7dDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACB7g241rh=hSBRCfhqgQogmcRKevMC3QS7sNh4g9ABp=4xCKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv33F7zSeNf0SYUx653K_wo6nAN=oJrO9Vaj0Afr7LmJBw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com>
wrote:

?>> ?
>> the current standard is so well established that safely changing it now
>> to something radically different would be virtually impossible.
>
>
> ?> ?
> Then be prepared to have madmen get into office.
>

?I think madman would be a better word than madmen. In the nuclear age it
is unlikely that more than one madman will ever be president of the USA.?


>
>> ?>?
>> In today's modern fast changing world some important decisions must be
>> made in just hours or even minutes and there is no time to consult with
>> congress.
>
>
> ?> ?
> I actually think that's part of the problem.
> ? ?
> In any age, problems can be viewed as needing quick and decisive action.
>

?Yes, and especially in this age.  If the president is woken at 3am and
informed that ICBMs have been detected over Greenland moving Southwest in a
ballistic arc at 12,000 miles an hour he's going to have 15 minutes?

?to decide what to do about it. ?If the president hasn't made a decision
after 15 minutes then he can relax because he never needs to make another
decision for the rest of his life.


> ?> ?
> The excuse that 02016 demands this more than fifty or a hundred years ago
> is bullshit.
>

?A hundred years ago few weapons moved at 12,000 miles an hour.?

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160512/331258c1/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sat May 14 02:04:33 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 22:04:33 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Will ems have two genders?
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFgD3Q3MzkK=4wbuMFvQdX2K=9LN=T8qbLWNoQXVbCdPfA@mail.gmail.com>

I haven't read Robin's book so I may be asking a question that was already
dealt with but let me ask anyway:

Is there a reason to expect that ems would have a male and a female gender?
We have to remember that ems are not biological, and gender may have a
purely biological origin. A final answer as to why gender exists is
elusive. Interestingly, gender is primarily a feature of multicellular
organisms. Unicellular species are usually isogamous, even the large ones.
Among multicellular organisms there is often a disconnect between the
gender as defined by gamete size and the specialized forms of reproductive
behavior we associate with gender (gender roles). Thus there are species of
fish where males exclusively take care of offspring, leaving females to
flit around in search of dutiful mates. There are species of anglerfish
where the female is big and strong while the male is tiny. There many
multicellular hermaphrodites. There are multiple mating types among
ascomycetes. And then there are the bdelloid rotifers that lack only gender
but even sex.

Thus it would appear that while sex is almost universal in the tree of life
(bdelloids are really weird), there is considerable variability in the
number and roles of genders.

So why would ems retain gender? Would they even retain sex? Sure, they are
derived from sexed and gendered humans but as the existence of furries
indicates, it doesn't take much to disrupt gender identification. I am
assuming that ems would have extensive self-modification and
offspring-design capabilities, and they would be in a highly selective
competitive environment with non-human entities, so if there are
fitness-enhancing modifications that remove or multiply gender, they would
happen promptly.

I would think there would be strong selection in favor of being able to
incorporate mind features from other entities (i.e. an analogue of sex) but
why wouldn't this happen by a simpler, non-gendered mechanism, e.g. a
guided analogue of bacterial conjugation?

What if production of offspring was contract-based, performed by specialist
ems using data from parent ems, paid for by whatever entities might have an
interest in propagating the parent ems? It would be similar to surrogate
motherhood but presumably commercialized and corporatized (American Mother
Corporation, Ltd). Would it help to combine data from multiple types of
ems, in effect having multiple genders that differ in social roles and thus
are able to give the offspring the best, specialized aspects of who they
are?

I would guess that the presence and roles of sexes and genders in the ems
world will be contingent on local features and thus hard to predict.

A Kindle version of the book would be nice, too.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160513/1d371cba/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Sat May 14 18:11:49 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 13:11:49 -0500
Subject: [ExI] new re computer security
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZ3JBCifyY+KnvJhM+UxMCc=M00SydhHxdPj718tu+fMg@mail.gmail.com>

This book reads like a thriller - well, mostly.  I think he kept it down
somewhat so he would not be accused of such.

"Dark Territory" by Fred Kaplan, Ph. D. from MIT, Pulitzer prize winner,
etc.

Traces the history of computer security, mainly through the feds.  I am
only about 40% of the way through it and simply cannot imagine anyone on
this list not interested in it.  I want to get back to Nexus, by Naam but
just can't put it down.

Amazing how cyberwarfare helped determine the Serbian War.  And a lot
more.  The USA was doing cyber attacks and information seeking hacks that
only a very few in the gov knew about.  Our own hackers played a huge role
in speeding up security.

It also shows just how dumb the military is, how insular. (Anyone
surprised?)   Private industry comes off as far worse.  I'll quit.  Read
the book!

Adrian said that I was wrong when I quoted something from the book.  And he
hasn't read it.  Make up your own mind.

 About Bill I must say that he was let off because practically without
exception, every one lies about sex.  If he had lied about anything else I
would have supported an impeachment trial and a guilty verdict.  At least
he did not give in to the blackmail.

Last president to leave a surplus.  Absolute master politician, super
memory, knew how to work a room better than anyone.  In other words, a
great salesman.  Without the sex taint many would consider him the best
president in a long time.

(Oddly, that reminds me of Peter Jennings, who went to Iraq and met Hussein
and vowed not to smile.  When he came back Hussein had sent him a picture
of the two and Jennings was smiling.  )

It also reminds me of my meeting George Bush the Elder.  He came to my
little university and all faculty were supposed to go meet him.  He was
running for the presidency against Reagan.

I walked up to the president's mansion and walked in the door.  No one was
outside the door.  He was about five feet away with his back to me,
acknowledging applause by a semicircle of people who saw me.  Of course I
had to ham it up and so I raised my hands to acknowledge the applause and
people starting laughing while applauding.  He turned around and said "If I
had come in like that I would have ducked right out the door."  He took it
well, introduce me to Mama Bush, and I slipped out the back

NO SECURITY!!!

bill w
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160514/f50a02e7/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Sat May 14 08:44:30 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 10:44:30 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Security clearances
In-Reply-To: <009901d1ac83$eca75ea0$c5f61be0$@att.net>
References: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv28qXEe=VAPzEbibT6CqbqxDFO68h-T-vew=40Y3eMSWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <003f01d1a989$4b50df60$e1f29e20$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1Bj20bTje_2k7nEUKbN4HLAL5nyvzCWaWbXdfqCWobmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00db01d1a997$b6ee9560$24cbc020$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0V5_YG1AxPO6uUjPLWyi96T+zgfkQhYjpDPZ8p=9tnyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <014e01d1aa1a$a8f42820$fadc7860$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNSc-URH+oe4=ML7qZLF8+d-Dd7DmS2iyiW_H4syf2Sb5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <011501d1aafd$6bb755c0$43260140$@att.net> <57341D0C.4000001@aleph.se>
 <000b01d1ac16$586706e0$093514a0$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNQtTGyPidw2hdkaOfc4Hr4J4fyfDBkz04_gBcduhYgW7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <008901d1ac71$45054430$cf0fcc90$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEZyoTmpjxnoe8VsBFGZutzSM2TYwWhTLkq8xzRFnT6qng@mail.gmail.com>
 <009901d1ac83$eca75ea0$c5f61be0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <5736E56E.7010303@aleph.se>

I think this touches on something interesting. Initially I was dismayed 
to get Clinton into this thread, since I was thinking of it as a place 
to discuss security epistemology, but these posts have actually shown 
something nontrivial. Let me see if I got this right:

Security clearances are important to people in many careers: not just 
for getting a good job, but in terms of self-identification and  
culture. They have to be regarded as important to work well, and 
cognitive dissonance (if it was tough to get, it must be a good thing) 
and cultural practices boosts the feeling of importance.

[ Note that so far I have not seen any evidence that they actually work 
well! It might be hard to test, but my suspicion is that they are a 
rather soft protection and a lot of practices actually are 
signalling/security theatre rather than actual security. I even 
meta-suspect that the few studies that have been done on the topic are 
classified, shunned and ignored because they likely undermine the 
narrative that clearances are important. A bit like how the federal 
government defends the polygraph narrative tooth and nails, despite 
overwhelming evidence that it is broken. Note that I am not saying we 
could do without clearances either: that soft protection can be pretty 
powerful if it is security-in-depth. ]

The Clinton email scandal is minor if you are outside the world of 
clearances: a politician was sloppy with important stuff again. But from 
the inside perspective this is a horrific break of trust: (1) she was 
ignoring the important rules, (2) she is getting away with it. From the 
inside perspective (1) is glaring since clearances are important, should 
be viewed as important, and the breach was not anything minor like 
bubblegum in the secure room. (2) is even more glaring, since it exposes 
not just an injustice (lesser people, who you would identify with, would 
be fired or prosecuted), but that the whole narrative may be broken: if 
you think clearance practices actually work well, then letting 
unsuitable people through on the high level undermines security anyway, 
and if you start to doubt the actual efficacy and narrative of the 
system, then you get a kick to your sense of identity and culture.

Note that this is all psychology and sociology rather than any real 
security or legal assessment. But it is worth recognizing that 4.2 
million people hold security clearances in the US.
https://news.clearancejobs.com/2011/09/26/how-many-people-have-security-clearances/
That is a lot of people to deeply annoy. There is also an intriguing 
sociological question what effects there is on a society when 1.3% are 
incorporating a culture of secrecy - I wouldn't be surprised if there 
was fascinating selection effects, overrepresentation of people with 
high conscientiousness scores, etc.



On 2016-05-12 21:24, spike wrote:
>
> *From:*extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] 
> *On Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 12, 2016 11:35 AM
> *To:* ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Security clearances
>
> Bill said he smoked weed a couple of times, didn?t inhale. spike
>
> >?  The country is moving towards legalizing pot (while it is increasing 
> the penalties for opioids).  It is legal in Colorado and I hope the 
> domino effect holds for these laws which have cost billions to enforce 
> to little avail except to put minor offenders in jail for lengthy 
> terms?bill w
>
> BillW, this is another case of the incident itself is irrelevant, but 
> lying about it is critical.  In a security clearance investigation, 
> they come out and tell you they won?t disqualify you for having an 
> affair, for smoking weed, for minor stuff, but they need to know what 
> they need to know about it in order to do their jobs, because their 
> asses are on the line too.  They make clear: if you did something, 
> tell it.  Who was with you?  When did you do it?  Where did you do 
> it?  How many times did you do it?  etc.
>
> Then what happens is the security people take your list, go try to 
> find those people.  They ask them what happened. If the stories match, 
> they don?t disqualify the candidate.
>
> Case in point: we had guy in the icebox, which is where you work 
> before a clearance investigation is complete. Those usually take about 
> a year, less if you have had a really squeaky clean life, lived in one 
> place the whole time and they can find everybody on your list, and 
> everybody?s story matches.  Longer if they find discrepancies.  We had 
> this guy in the icebox for less than a year but almost; so he had 
> already made a career sacrifice to even be there, and we had been 
> paying him mostly on overhead this whole time and trying to keep him 
> busy on stuff that we knew didn?t matter.
>
> On his application was the question: have you ever been arrested.  Now 
> that is an easy one.  It doesn?t include being pulled over for 
> speeding, it means have you had directed at you the words ??right to 
> remain silent?? and he wrote no.  The investigators learned of a fight 
> that had occurred after a football game at San Jose State and the 
> campus cops arrested these two, but being an internal affair hadn?t 
> given them Miranda rights (these kinds of incidents are settled by 
> student council usually.)  The two brawlers hadn?t done any serious 
> damage to each other, no broken noses, no blood on the ground, just 
> your usual shit that happens kind of incident, so?  They took them 
> over to the guard station, both guys were sorry it happened, won?t 
> happen again, and please please don?t let this go on our academic 
> record etc.  The campus chief decided it was a no-harm no-foul, the 
> two were about the same size, so it wasn?t one guy bullying the other, 
> and our guy was second in his class, so? they let them go an hour 
> later, but gave him a written reprimand.
>
> The security officers talked to people, learned of the incident, found 
> the letter in his file, decided this constituted an arrest, and 
> technically it was (because they had both guys in those plastic 
> zip-tie cuffs) even though they kept it as an on-campus matter with no 
> local constables involved.  The investigators looked at the way the 
> arrest question was posed and that ?no? answer. After he sat in the 
> icebox for almost a year, they said no tickets for you.  He left the 
> company a week later.
>
> This whole thing takes on a new meaning in our times.  We know the 
> security clearance investigations must make special accommodations for 
> at least two elected positions, president and VP.  But the Secretary 
> of State is an appointed position (as is the CEO of a defense company 
> is appointed by the board of directors.)  The security team does not 
> answer to the company, to the directors, to the outgoing CEO, to 
> anyone other than their boss in Washington, so they do what they do, 
> regardless of rank.
>
> What we are seeing now is a Secretary of State claiming or trying to 
> claim a right that the position does not have.  She wants to tell the 
> government what information she will give them and what she will not.  
> I dropped my jaw when she said of a private server under subpoena that 
> it would stay private.  This astonishment was compounded when we 
> learned that she was erasing evidence on that server.  Secretaries of 
> State, current or former, do not have the authority to tell the FBI 
> what evidence they may have.  If you or I am under subpoena, we are 
> not allowed to tell the FBI this potential evidence is private 
> property or that their investigation is improper or that the whole 
> thing is a conspiracy. Mrs. Clinton and I do not have the legal 
> authority to do that.  Yet she did it, and didn?t get frog-marched to 
> San Quentin in chains.  You or I would.
>
> Clearly there is a double standard.
>
> OK then, I propose we admit it and define it, just as we do in law.  
> Let us continue to claim that all animals on the farm are equal, but 
> some animals are more equal than others.  Let us define which laws the 
> more-equal animals no longer need to follow, but that the Jeffery 
> Sterlings of the world still do.  Who are these more-equal people?  
> Does it include just those three, president, VP and SecState?  What 
> about the SecState?s staff?  Which ones are immune from law?  Which 
> laws?  All of them?  Or just those which shouldn?t have been asked?  
> Those having to do with lifestyle?  Such as? hmmm? sex, drugs and say? 
> murder?  And while we are asking, what precisely is the limit to the 
> notion of a presidential pardon?  Where does the constitution say a 
> sitting president may not self-pardon?  If we admit that this is 
> theoretically possible and that Nixon could have just pardoned himself 
> and held his office, I see no limitations on grabbing arbitrary power 
> and self-pardoning all the way up.
>
> I can?t trust either major party nominee to not see this logical 
> fallacy in the whole notion of executive pardon.  I don?t trust either 
> of them to not abuse it. We have one of those candidates who is 
> already almost doing that, and she isn?t even entitled to legal 
> immunity.  Yet.
>
> Without strict definition, the presidential pardon is a ticket to 
> totalitarianism far worse than Germany?s bitter experience.
>
> spike
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

-- 
Anders Sandberg
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Oxford University

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160514/f566b660/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Thu May 12 21:29:15 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 16:29:15 -0500
Subject: [ExI] my unified theory etc
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNTRP5-0m=LSebcKEhs34oujQez9V4oOGcyOF2qu49wwow@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB5LZ5MNaQAgfq32kWXqXaRrnQqnxW4Hcs8VpOnYmMSudg@mail.gmail.com>
 <001901d1ac05$20be6e60$623b4b20$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNROAqV_z-2ABUJVauC3E3VTbcFftgmXb=40YMOXFZ7F-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <001801d1ac66$98f304c0$cad90e40$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNTbV+wAJ0WaaS0M8MFfD4E1u7ZHAewqm=65_DHz3Q7f=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <00a801d1ac72$f41919f0$dc4b4dd0$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNTRP5-0m=LSebcKEhs34oujQez9V4oOGcyOF2qu49wwow@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZ9ggkEs9kch8GyWwm6sKp6-KyEj-Dq+Mr-e43mpaN1mQ@mail.gmail.com>

adrian - Old age isn't what t used to be.  Sanders could possibly run, and
win, at 83.

?Alzheimer's started affecting Reagan before his presidency ended.  Those
close to him knew it.  Does anyone remember that causing trouble in the
White House, or that he made decisions that were quietly junked?  I wasn't
much into politics in those days.

I am 74 and I don't think anyone my age or older could say that their mind
was completely unaffected?.
?My memory has deteriorated slightly, and when doing crosswords I find that
I can get too rigid in my interpretations of the clues.  In other words,
nothing dire, or even serious, but still, we need younger brains up there.
 (I'd put an age limit on the members of the Supreme Court if I could.)

bill w?

?bill w?

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:23 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
>> *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On
>> Behalf Of *Adrian Tymes
>> *Sent:* Thursday, May 12, 2016 9:23 AM
>> *To:* ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] my unified theory etc
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 8:54 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>?{By Alinsky?s theory}  It is better to win clean, but either is
>> infinitely better than to lose.
>>
>> >?There is also the prospect of working with the winner.  There have been
>> presidential nominations where a party's second place winner got the VP
>> nomination for coming in second...
>>
>> Ja, but all three remaining candidates are too old to be interested in a
>> VP position.  If elected, Clinton, Trump and Sanders, at the end of two
>> normal presidential terms of a predecessor, would be age 76, 77 and 83
>> respectively, all probably too old to run for president.
>>
>
> Old age isn't what t used to be.  Sanders could possibly run, and win, at
> 83.
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160512/70dd8a83/attachment.html>

From hibbert at mydruthers.com  Sat May 14 18:21:16 2016
From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 11:21:16 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Prometheus and LFS
Message-ID: <57376C9C.2060904@mydruthers.com>

I was just catching up on all the extropy this week, and noticed this 
exchange between William and Dan:

> From: Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] prometheus magazine
>
> On May 10, 2016, at 3:17 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Maybe some of you libertarians take this magazine. $30 for  membership ain't
>>  cheap, so I am angling for some feedback about the worth of the articles.
>
> Do you mean this:
>
> http://lfs.org/newsletter/index.shtml
>
> If so, looks like their content is online for free.
>
> Regards,
> Dan

I've been involved with the LFS for a couple of decades (past President 
and member of the award finalist committees, currently Treasurer, and on 
the Board). Many of you also know Fred Moulton who has been very 
involved over the years.

I would say that the reason to join isn't primarily for the newsletter 
(Hardly a magazine; it's 8 pages, and is waay behind schedule at this 
point), but for the chance to influence and support this reasonably 
prestigious award. (Winning novels often tout the award on the cover in 
subsequent editions.) And as Dan said, the newsletter content is online 
anyway.

The LFS is a fairly small organization (~50 voting members) and a 
committee of about 10 selects the slate of finalists each year. I think 
of it as a way to encourage and promote good libertarian and 
anti-authoritarian views in a popular segment of literature that is 
already well disposed to anti-authoritarian viewpoints.

If you are a libertarian (or other kind of anti-authoritarian), and 
enjoy science fiction and fantasy, you can learn about our tastes and 
get a list of fun reads from http://lfs.org/awards.shtml. If you like 
what you see, visit http://lfs.org/join.shtml and join to support our work.

Or you can use your favorite website monitor to find out when I post 
press releases (another hat I wear) about the latest winners or nominees 
at http://lfs.org/releases.shtml.

Chris
  --
Rationality is about drawing correct inferences from limited,
      confusing, contradictory, or maliciously doctored facts.
   -- Scott Alexander

Chris Hibbert
hibbert at mydruthers.com
http://mydruthers.com


From atymes at gmail.com  Thu May 12 21:15:42 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 14:15:42 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Security clearances
In-Reply-To: <009901d1ac83$eca75ea0$c5f61be0$@att.net>
References: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv28qXEe=VAPzEbibT6CqbqxDFO68h-T-vew=40Y3eMSWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <003f01d1a989$4b50df60$e1f29e20$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1Bj20bTje_2k7nEUKbN4HLAL5nyvzCWaWbXdfqCWobmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00db01d1a997$b6ee9560$24cbc020$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0V5_YG1AxPO6uUjPLWyi96T+zgfkQhYjpDPZ8p=9tnyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <014e01d1aa1a$a8f42820$fadc7860$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNSc-URH+oe4=ML7qZLF8+d-Dd7DmS2iyiW_H4syf2Sb5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <011501d1aafd$6bb755c0$43260140$@att.net>
 <57341D0C.4000001@aleph.se>
 <000b01d1ac16$586706e0$093514a0$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNQtTGyPidw2hdkaOfc4Hr4J4fyfDBkz04_gBcduhYgW7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <008901d1ac71$45054430$cf0fcc90$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEZyoTmpjxnoe8VsBFGZutzSM2TYwWhTLkq8xzRFnT6qng@mail.gmail.com>
 <009901d1ac83$eca75ea0$c5f61be0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNQqcZtiunGvx4y7qRFQss+U_A_8f=PckqN620qtfHuXhw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:24 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> I can?t trust either major party nominee to not see this logical fallacy
> in the whole notion of executive pardon.  I don?t trust either of them to
> not abuse it.
>

You have to have a concept of mercy before you can twist it.  For all his
faults, I don't see Trump as psychologically capable of this particular
abuse.


> Without strict definition, the presidential pardon is a ticket to
> totalitarianism far worse than Germany?s bitter experience.
>

You might want to dial that back, unless you are seriously suggesting that
presidential pardons would enable the creation and operation of sustained
ethnic cleansing on the scale of Auschwitz.  Law or no law, I don't see
such a facility staying in operation within the US for long.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160512/686f0943/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Thu May 12 21:39:34 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 16:39:34 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Security clearances
In-Reply-To: <009901d1ac83$eca75ea0$c5f61be0$@att.net>
References: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv28qXEe=VAPzEbibT6CqbqxDFO68h-T-vew=40Y3eMSWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <003f01d1a989$4b50df60$e1f29e20$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1Bj20bTje_2k7nEUKbN4HLAL5nyvzCWaWbXdfqCWobmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00db01d1a997$b6ee9560$24cbc020$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0V5_YG1AxPO6uUjPLWyi96T+zgfkQhYjpDPZ8p=9tnyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <014e01d1aa1a$a8f42820$fadc7860$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNSc-URH+oe4=ML7qZLF8+d-Dd7DmS2iyiW_H4syf2Sb5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <011501d1aafd$6bb755c0$43260140$@att.net> <57341D0C.4000001@aleph.se>
 <000b01d1ac16$586706e0$093514a0$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNQtTGyPidw2hdkaOfc4Hr4J4fyfDBkz04_gBcduhYgW7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <008901d1ac71$45054430$cf0fcc90$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEZyoTmpjxnoe8VsBFGZutzSM2TYwWhTLkq8xzRFnT6qng@mail.gmail.com>
 <009901d1ac83$eca75ea0$c5f61be0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZC_46=yMj0e--9659d4yfdxty56m+3XZoDu8xXJMkuLw@mail.gmail.com>

BillW, this is another case of the incident itself is irrelevant, but lying
about it is critical.  In a security clearance investigation, they come out
and tell you they won?t disqualify you for having an affair, for smoking
weed, for minor stuff, but they need to know what they need to know about
it in order to do their jobs, because their asses are on the line too.
They make clear: if you did something, tell it.  Who was with you?  When
did you do it?  Where did you do it?  How many times did you do it?  etc.
Spike


I am really not arguing with you about Clinton.  We will never know just
what she did or did not do and should vote for her anyway because of the
alternative.  Our republic has endured much worse than she.  For those of
use who are strongly concerned, just vote Republican for senators and
congressmen so that they can block her from any truly bad things.  I
usually like gridlock in DC (though it has gone way too far lately).


As for Bill, I think he tried to split hairs and claim that he defined (to
himself)  sex as intercourse, and so by that definition he did not have
sex.  OK, so that's really lame, but I am glad he stayed in office.  I
remember the French thinking we were just crazy to consider kicking such a
good man out of office for any of what he did.


bill w


On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 2:24 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On
> Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 12, 2016 11:35 AM
> *To:* ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Security clearances
>
>
>
>
>
> Bill said he smoked weed a couple of times, didn?t inhale.   spike
>
>
>
> >?  The country is moving towards legalizing pot (while it is increasing
> the penalties for opioids).  It is legal in Colorado and I hope the domino
> effect holds for these laws which have cost billions to enforce to little
> avail except to put minor offenders in jail for lengthy terms?bill w
>
>
>
>
>
> BillW, this is another case of the incident itself is irrelevant, but
> lying about it is critical.  In a security clearance investigation, they
> come out and tell you they won?t disqualify you for having an affair, for
> smoking weed, for minor stuff, but they need to know what they need to know
> about it in order to do their jobs, because their asses are on the line
> too.  They make clear: if you did something, tell it.  Who was with you?
> When did you do it?  Where did you do it?  How many times did you do it?
> etc.
>
>
>
> Then what happens is the security people take your list, go try to find
> those people.  They ask them what happened.  If the stories match, they
> don?t disqualify the candidate.
>
>
>
> Case in point: we had guy in the icebox, which is where you work before a
> clearance investigation is complete.  Those usually take about a year, less
> if you have had a really squeaky clean life, lived in one place the whole
> time and they can find everybody on your list, and everybody?s story
> matches.  Longer if they find discrepancies.  We had this guy in the icebox
> for less than a year but almost; so he had already made a career sacrifice
> to even be there, and we had been paying him mostly on overhead this whole
> time and trying to keep him busy on stuff that we knew didn?t matter.
>
>
>
> On his application was the question: have you ever been arrested.  Now
> that is an easy one.  It doesn?t include being pulled over for speeding, it
> means have you had directed at you the words ??right to remain silent?? and
> he wrote no.  The investigators learned of a fight that had occurred after
> a football game at San Jose State and the campus cops arrested these two,
> but being an internal affair hadn?t given them Miranda rights (these kinds
> of incidents are settled by student council usually.)  The two brawlers
> hadn?t done any serious damage to each other, no broken noses, no blood on
> the ground, just your usual shit that happens kind of incident, so?  They
> took them over to the guard station, both guys were sorry it happened,
> won?t happen again, and please please don?t let this go on our academic
> record etc.  The campus chief decided it was a no-harm no-foul, the two
> were about the same size, so it wasn?t one guy bullying the other, and our
> guy was second in his class, so? they let them go an hour later, but gave
> him a written reprimand.
>
>
>
> The security officers talked to people, learned of the incident, found the
> letter in his file, decided this constituted an arrest, and technically it
> was (because they had both guys in those plastic zip-tie cuffs) even though
> they kept it as an on-campus matter with no local constables involved.  The
> investigators looked at the way the arrest question was posed and that ?no?
> answer.  After he sat in the icebox for almost a year, they said no tickets
> for you.  He left the company a week later.
>
>
>
> This whole thing takes on a new meaning in our times.  We know the
> security clearance investigations must make special accommodations for at
> least two elected positions, president and VP.  But the Secretary of State
> is an appointed position (as is the CEO of a defense company is appointed
> by the board of directors.)  The security team does not answer to the
> company, to the directors, to the outgoing CEO, to anyone other than their
> boss in Washington, so they do what they do, regardless of rank.
>
>
>
> What we are seeing now is a Secretary of State claiming or trying to claim
> a right that the position does not have.  She wants to tell the government
> what information she will give them and what she will not.  I dropped my
> jaw when she said of a private server under subpoena that it would stay
> private.  This astonishment was compounded when we learned that she was
> erasing evidence on that server.  Secretaries of State, current or former,
> do not have the authority to tell the FBI what evidence they may have.  If
> you or I am under subpoena, we are not allowed to tell the FBI this
> potential evidence is private property or that their investigation is
> improper or that the whole thing is a conspiracy.  Mrs. Clinton and I do
> not have the legal authority to do that.  Yet she did it, and didn?t get
> frog-marched to San Quentin in chains.  You or I would.
>
>
>
> Clearly there is a double standard.
>
>
>
> OK then, I propose we admit it and define it, just as we do in law.  Let
> us continue to claim that all animals on the farm are equal, but some
> animals are more equal than others.  Let us define which laws the
> more-equal animals no longer need to follow, but that the Jeffery Sterlings
> of the world still do.  Who are these more-equal people?  Does it include
> just those three, president, VP and SecState?  What about the SecState?s
> staff?  Which ones are immune from law?  Which laws?  All of them?  Or just
> those which shouldn?t have been asked?  Those having to do with lifestyle?
> Such as? hmmm? sex, drugs and say? murder?  And while we are asking, what
> precisely is the limit to the notion of a presidential pardon?  Where does
> the constitution say a sitting president may not self-pardon?  If we admit
> that this is theoretically possible and that Nixon could have just pardoned
> himself and held his office, I see no limitations on grabbing arbitrary
> power and self-pardoning all the way up.
>
>
>
> I can?t trust either major party nominee to not see this logical fallacy
> in the whole notion of executive pardon.  I don?t trust either of them to
> not abuse it.  We have one of those candidates who is already almost doing
> that, and she isn?t even entitled to legal immunity.  Yet.
>
>
>
> Without strict definition, the presidential pardon is a ticket to
> totalitarianism far worse than Germany?s bitter experience.
>
>
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160512/e24fd644/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Thu May 12 21:28:57 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 17:28:57 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
Message-ID: <CAJPayv33O7CJi=zbjUCp2U8H00zpeu+GuvhPDT3xLmh1FjZ0NA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Dan TheBookMan

?>> ?
>> the current standard is so well established that safely changing it now
>> to something radically different would be virtually impossible.
>
>
> ?> ?
> Then be prepared to have madmen get into office.
>

?I think madman would be a better word than madmen. In the nuclear age it
is unlikely that more than one madman will ever be president of the USA.?


>
>> ?>?
>>  In today's modern fast changing world some important decisions must be
>> made in just hours or even minutes and there is no time to consult with
>> congress.
>
>
> ?> ?
> I actually think that's part of the problem.
> ? ?
> In any age, problems can be viewed as needing quick and decisive action.
>

?Yes, and especially in this age.  If the president is woken at 3am and
informed that ICBMs have been detected over Greenland moving Southwest in a
ballistic arc at 12,000 miles an hour he's going to have 15 minutes?

?to decide what to do about it. ?If the president hasn't made a decision
after 15 minutes then he can relax because he never needs to make another
decision for the rest of his life.


> ?> ?
> The excuse that 02016 demands this more than fifty or a hundred years ago
> is bullshit.
>

?A hundred years ago few weapons moved at 12,000 miles an hour.?

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160512/b9ffc62b/attachment.html>

From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Sat May 14 19:01:04 2016
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 12:01:04 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Madmen was Repudiating the national debt
Message-ID: <CAPiwVB6ZcWz4yn9SXOxpL98ADixhqDSgK_tvUdSrnUdD_E6uUw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 9:57 AM,  Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Then be prepared to have madmen get into office.

It's worse than that.  Under some circumstances it's almost inevitable
that madmen will become leaders.

That's because in some circumstances we have evolved psychological
traits to follow madmen.  Why?  Because in evolutionary relevant time
such a course was better for genes than the alternatives.  Thus this
trait was selected over millions of years, it's wired into your genes.
If it's not obvious, I can repost the analysis.

Do these circumstances now apply to a substantial part of the USA
voting population?  Did they apply in the 1920s to the rise if Hitler?
 Yes and yes.  (Sorry about Godwins law).

Is there anything we can do about it?  Yes, it requires improving the
future outlook for the world (and US) populations.  A secure and low
cost renewable energy source is one thing which would help a lot.  Can
we do it soon enough to affect the upcoming election?  Sigh, almost
certainly not.

Keith

PS.  Regardless of how it turns out, we are going to live in
"interesting times."

PPS.  Pasted from the power satellite economic group

This blog, Our  Finite World is run by Gail Tverberg.  She gave a most
interesting talk at the power satellite workshop in Orlando last year.
It's  not much focused on solutions, unless you count hiding with a
case of beans and a case of ammo.

ratmeat says:
May 11, 2016 at 3:23 pm

450 about 2050?

Reply
hkeithhenson says:
May 11, 2016 at 7:44 pm

?450 about 2050??

It?s possible to stop the rise of CO2 short of 450 ppm.

If you go here

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5iotdmmTJQsek9TNHhkeUI4UDlRQlNyVUNMclhJYkpxa3Jz/view?usp=sharing

Slide 6 ?Projected CO2 ppm aggressive expansion?

Shows the output of a model where the the rise in CO2 stops well short
of 450 ppm.

BTW, the Reaction Engines engineers got back to me with a proposal to
double the number of flights for a Skylon from with a mid life refurb,
replacing the engines and the heat shielding at 500 flights. This cuts
the peak Skylon production rate from 140 a month to 70 a month. It?s
possible they might last even longer.

Focusing on CO2 rather than energy doesn?t decrease the importance of
holding the cost down; Gail has convinced me of that. If you want
India to quit burning coal, it?s going to be a lot easier if
replacement energy cost less.

Reply
ratmeat says:
May 11, 2016 at 9:41 pm

Whats the total amount of CO dumped into the atmosphere to produce the
materials and the launchs to create your obsession?

Reply
hkeithhenson says:
May 11, 2016 at 11:18 pm

?Whats the total amount of CO dumped into the atmosphere to produce
the materials and the launches to create?

That?s a good question. I have not previously worked out that
particular number. I have worked out how long it takes for a power
satellite to repay the energy that goes into making the parts and
transporting them to GEO. Turns out to be 2-3 months.

During the peak ten years of buildup to displacing fossil fuels, the
cargo into space is around 15 million tons per year. That?s 1 million
flights per year. Aluminum is the most energy hungry material at about
15 kWh/kg, 15 tons would be around 215 MWh. But that?s relatively
small compared to the liquid hydrogen which is close to 70 kWh/kg, or
70 MWh/ton. A single launch takes about 70 tons (4900 MWh) of hydrogen
including the hydrogen used as reaction mass for the LEO to GEO leg.

It?s close enough to figure twice as much mass of natural gas as
hydrogen, so the per launch use is about 140 tons of NG. The carbon
fraction of NG is 12/16, so the carbon per launch would be about 105
tons. To get to carbon dioxide, multiply by 44/12 or 385 tons per
launch. Million launches, 385 million tons of CO2 per year for ten
years or .385 billion tons per year. (It would be easy to capture, but
here we assume it will just be released.) In the context of upwards of
37 billion tons per year,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions,
it?s a bit over 1%.

To answer your question, over ten years around 3.85 B tons of CO2 or
about ten percent of the current yearly output.

Of course, the proposal is to displace fossil fuels. That?s the point
made in the animation. At the end of the first year of producing power
satellits at over 300 a year, the carbon entering the atmosphere would
be down by ten percent, and in ten years, it would be reduced to zero.

Always glad to answer objections, especially where the answers are numbers.

Keith

PS I have been assuming that the hydrogen would be made from LNG
shipped to the launch point and used to make hydrogen locally. Would
140 million tons of LNG per year cause problems with the LNG supply?
It might. Current LNG capacity is around 300 million tons, but LNG is
a small fraction of total NG and there are plans for as much as 600
million tons per year making use of low cost US gas.
http://www.igu.org/sites/default/files/node-page-field_file/IGU-World%20LNG%20Report-2015%20Edition.pdf



From pharos at gmail.com  Sat May 14 19:01:05 2016
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 20:01:05 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Security clearances
In-Reply-To: <5736E56E.7010303@aleph.se>
References: <01f101d1a97b$617d2cc0$24778640$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv28qXEe=VAPzEbibT6CqbqxDFO68h-T-vew=40Y3eMSWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <003f01d1a989$4b50df60$e1f29e20$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1Bj20bTje_2k7nEUKbN4HLAL5nyvzCWaWbXdfqCWobmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00db01d1a997$b6ee9560$24cbc020$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv0V5_YG1AxPO6uUjPLWyi96T+zgfkQhYjpDPZ8p=9tnyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <014e01d1aa1a$a8f42820$fadc7860$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNSc-URH+oe4=ML7qZLF8+d-Dd7DmS2iyiW_H4syf2Sb5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <011501d1aafd$6bb755c0$43260140$@att.net> <57341D0C.4000001@aleph.se>
 <000b01d1ac16$586706e0$093514a0$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNQtTGyPidw2hdkaOfc4Hr4J4fyfDBkz04_gBcduhYgW7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <008901d1ac71$45054430$cf0fcc90$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEZyoTmpjxnoe8VsBFGZutzSM2TYwWhTLkq8xzRFnT6qng@mail.gmail.com>
 <009901d1ac83$eca75ea0$c5f61be0$@att.net> <5736E56E.7010303@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAL_armi+ugfDggOsTrwHWZL+i_jEVks1F98Z3LqVOFEG5mqKSw@mail.gmail.com>

On 14 May 2016 at 09:44, Anders Sandberg  wrote:
<snip>
> Note that this is all psychology and sociology rather than any real security
> or legal assessment. But it is worth recognizing that 4.2 million people
> hold security clearances in the US.
> https://news.clearancejobs.com/2011/09/26/how-many-people-have-security-clearances/
> That is a lot of people to deeply annoy. There is also an intriguing
> sociological question what effects there is on a society when 1.3% are
> incorporating a culture of secrecy - I wouldn't be surprised if there was
> fascinating selection effects, over-representation of people with high
> conscientiousness scores, etc.
>


US security is changing their checking methods.

<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/05/13/want-a-security-clearance-feds-will-now-check-your-facebook-and-twitter-first/>

Quote:
The government will start scanning Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and
other social media accounts of thousands of federal employees and
contractors applying and re-applying for security clearances in a
first-ever policy released Friday.
------------

This policy is still being developed. They say they will only look at
publicly posted information. (Can you hear the NSA laughing
uncontrollably?).  At present they won't ask for passwords or login to
private accounts.  (Hee, hee, hee....).
Applicants won't be asked to disclose Facebook friends or disclose all
their Twitter handles or any other aliases they use. (More hee, hee,
hee, - I can't stand much more of this).

This may mean that the younger generation will find it extremely
difficult to get security clearance granted by the strait-laced older
generation of officials.


BillK


From spike66 at att.net  Sat May 14 19:48:19 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 12:48:19 -0700
Subject: [ExI] survivor
In-Reply-To: <CAOJFdbLGs9ZbGSyRkfnm=54zPL_XvOC5VdnotgmPE19vxU=+SQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <005901d1ac6c$f92daa60$eb88ff20$@att.net>
 <CAOJFdbLGs9ZbGSyRkfnm=54zPL_XvOC5VdnotgmPE19vxU=+SQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <016201d1ae19$91212920$b3637b60$@att.net>


>... On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty
Subject: Re: [ExI] survivor

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:40 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>> ... (Saul Alinsky would agree 
> wholeheartedly (if you win, then even if your reasoning is flawed, it 
> becomes sound by definition after the fact (that?s magic of winning 
> (the same logic behind the old familiar saying the winners write the