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 
> 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.  :)

_______________________________________________


Ja.  Mike back when I was in college in the 1980s (uh... early... 1980s...) we were starting to talk about Artificial Intelligence.  Of course none of us knew anything about anything then.  I was told that to do serious AI, you needed LISP.  So I learned LISP.  We soon realized what the acronym was really for: Lotsa Idiotic Stupid Parentheses.  

I wondered, is there a better way to do function hierarchies?  But by then, it was clear enough that LISP wasn't getting us any closer anyway, it was yet another blind alley with a dead end.  

What we needed was some kind of effective feedback and self-modification loop paradigms which we did not really have then, and do not today (AI hipsters, do prove me wrong (go ahead, I can take it (I would be very pleased to be wrong on that.)))  Leave it to a mechanical engineer who studies controls, to point out to software people that AI needs some kind of self-referential control loops. 

>From Thune's class a couple years ago, I am astonished at how little some sub-areas of AI have advanced since those benighted times so tragically long ago.

All real intelligence, bio or artificial, needs some form of introspection and self-modification.  (Quote me on that if you wish (no need for attribution (plenty of us have recognize it (a long time ago.)))) 

spike




From pharos at gmail.com  Fri May 13 08:35:16 2016
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 09:35:16 +0100
Subject: [ExI] AI Lawyer now employed
Message-ID: <CAL_armjR-hN-OPVpPNm2dc4SqMn67YYTWBBb9aON5axQNviRyg@mail.gmail.com>

Artificially Intelligent Lawyer ?Ross? Has Been Hired By Its First
Official Law Firm

<http://futurism.com/artificially-intelligent-lawyer-ross-hired-first-official-law-firm/>

Quotes:

Ross, ?the world?s first artificially intelligent attorney? built on
IBM?s cognitive computer Watson, was designed to read and understand
language, postulate hypotheses when asked questions, research, and
then generate responses (along with references and citations) to back
up its conclusions. Ross also learns from experience, gaining speed
and knowledge the more you interact with it.

?You ask your questions in plain English, as you would a colleague,
and ROSS then reads through the entire body of law and returns a cited
answer and topical readings from legislation, case law and secondary
sources to get you up-to-speed quickly,? the website says. ?In
addition, ROSS monitors the law around the clock to notify you of new
court decisions that can affect your case.?
---------


Looks like research lawyers will be looking for new employment now.
How soon till Watson replaces judges?

After Robocop arrives the job of totally controlling erratic humans
can be fully automated.
Paradise or Hell?


BillK



From hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu  Sat May 14 20:23:54 2016
From: hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu (Henry Rivera)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 16:23:54 -0400
Subject: [ExI] my unified theory etc
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEZ9ggkEs9kch8GyWwm6sKp6-KyEj-Dq+Mr-e43mpaN1mQ@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>
 <CAO+xQEZ9ggkEs9kch8GyWwm6sKp6-KyEj-Dq+Mr-e43mpaN1mQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BC86305E-1964-4820-878F-FBFD68B83C1D@alumni.virginia.edu>


> On May 12, 2016, at 5:29 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> ?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've heard stories of his inner circle largely doing the decision-making including Nancy, who took advice from astrologers if I recall correctly. Didn't cause trouble at the time, that was made public at least, but I wouldn't feel confident saying he was the one running things at the time. Who knows if he was even asked to make decisions then; if not, there wouldn't be any to junk. "Sign here Mr. President," might have been the extent of it. 
-Henry


From anders at aleph.se  Sat May 14 20:37:07 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 22:37:07 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Security clearances
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armi+ugfDggOsTrwHWZL+i_jEVks1F98Z3LqVOFEG5mqKSw@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$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEZyoTmpjxnoe8VsBFGZutzSM2TYwWhTLkq8xzRFnT6qng@mail.gmail.com>
 <009901d1ac83$eca75ea0$c5f61be0$@att.net> <5736E56E.7010303@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armi+ugfDggOsTrwHWZL+i_jEVks1F98Z3LqVOFEG5mqKSw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57378C73.4010009@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-14 21:01, BillK wrote:
> 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.

That is one of my concerns. How much does vetting and clearing 
perpetuate a particular culture or particular biases? I can easily 
imagine that this process could make for a community with very divergent 
views from the rest of society, simply because it selects people of a 
particular kind, who get to define what normal is, and from whom the 
next generation of selectors are selected.


I recently met the president for a major UK charity, who had noticed 
they mostly hired people from Oxbridge. Sure, those universities are 
good, but why were there no hires from the other universtities? They 
looked into the interview process and realized it consisted of having 
somebody ask the candidate tricky questions and discussing the answers 
over the span of an hour - exactly the same process as a tutorial in 
Oxford or Cambridge. The candidates had years of training for this 
situation. When they changed it to involve a group doing the same 
process, the Oxbridge dominance disappeared and they got other good 
candidates.

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



From spike66 at att.net  Sat May 14 20:41:14 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 13:41:14 -0700
Subject: [ExI] two genders? is that really all there are? RE: Will ems have
	two genders?
Message-ID: <017901d1ae20$f5cfd540$e16f7fc0$@att.net>

 

 

 

Cool, it is great to see the ExI server is back.

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki
Subject: [ExI] Will ems have two genders?

 

>?Is there a reason to expect that ems would have a male and a female gender? ?Rafa?

 

Completely off Dr. Rafal?s topic but a fun aside anyway: American culture has extrapolated from the admirable notion that discrimination is bad.  It eventually goes to ANY and ALL discrimination is bad.  Kurt Godel has pointed out that every logical system has singularities and points where it breaks down.  Eventually we get a conniption like the one the USA is likely to experience as soon as next week.  The president has issued a letter regarding gender discrimination in public schools.  Let us ignore the Federal government overreach, since that is a separate issue.  Just for fun, let us make some speculations on how young Americans will react.

 

Here is the letter.  Note what it says and what it does not say:

 

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-departments-justice-and-education-release-joint-guidance-help-schools-ensure-civil-rights

 

Clearly the letter is aimed at restrooms and treatment of transgender people.  However? it doesn?t actually say this non-discrimination policy excludes high school locker rooms, showers, dressing rooms or any other gender-specific room, nor does it clearly define a transgender person.  When a person decides to undergo surgery for gender assignment, at what point does he or she become a transgender person?  When the scalpel makes the first incision?  Does shaving the area in preparation constitute cutting of tissue and thus qualify?  If the operation is called off, does the person stop being transgender?  If the first surgery is actually cosmetic and is on the face, does that count?  Or is the patient already transgender when he or she utters the comment to his or her doctor that he or she wishes to have surgery?  Or when he or she first decides to do it?  Or when he or she looks in the mirror realizes his or her gender disagrees with his or her birth certificate?  How can we verify a person has or has not made this determination?

 

Samantha!  Are ye out there, me lass?  Help us on this one.  Anyone else with firsthand knowledge please?

 

Sounds to me like anyone who says he or she is transgender qualifies for nondiscrimination, no medics required.

 

Well, if so, the current administration has a true and impressive accomplishment: it has eliminated the salary gender gap.  Now, we have no way of knowing if there is such a thing, because we no longer have any legitimate way to know a person?s gender, even at the pool at the  local nudist camp.  So poof!  That gender pay gap is gone.  Solved!

 

But now we are allowed to have a little fun, speculating on what will happen next week, particularly at High School USA and University USA.  Oh it is a perfect storm: it is middle of May, end of the school year, ambiguous suggestions being made by the source the high schoolers and collegians think of as the highest legal authority or relevance (reminder: state governments run public schools (but fail to teach their students (or the students fail to realize the Fed is not in charge here.)))  High schoolers are ballsy types, they have already been accepted into colleges by now if they are going, it is spring, so they are ready for some really cool fun demonstrations, stunts or statements on their way out the door, eager for their fifteen minutes of fame, they are eager to have some fun crazy stories to tell their grandchildren etc.  Soooo? what do you suppose will happen next week?

 

Speculation: a group of girls will make signs saying things like ?I am transgender, hear me roar? and ?I identify as a man, prove me wrong? and so forth.  They get enough of them together so it isn?t risky or dangerous, then the couple dozen of them barge into the boys locker room five minutes before the dismissal bell.

 

OK so what happens then?  They get expelled?  If there is an actual self-identifier-as-transgender but with M on ?his? BC in the crowd of demonstrators, does ?he? get expelled as well?  What did ?he? do wrong exactly?  Wouldn?t it be fun to be ?him? afterwards?  What if ?he? didn?t carry a sign, didn?t say a word, just went in there with them?  Then if nothing happens to ?him? he vocally comes forth with ?I am Sparticus, I am a woman? flim flam.

 

Oh this could be hilarious.  The potential for really good gags, oh the mind boggles.  Oh to be a high school senior right now.  I would have been the yahoo organizing all this and spewing toxic notions like the hyperactive idea-hamster.  Oh what a golden opportunity.  If the current generation fails to take advantage of this, we will know the spirit has fled, youthful exuberance has perished, truly precious youth is wasted on all the wrong people.

 

Further speculation: there will not be a counterpart group of guys trying that stunt with the women?s locker room.  They already know there would be hell to pay, regardless of that absurd White House letter, so they will hang back and watch what happens when the cheerleaders crash the men?s locker room.

 

On the other hand, several guys could be in on the whole gag and could arrange to be extra naked when all those newly-minted ?men? show up, then act like they don?t even notice that there are FREAKING DOZENS OF WOMEN IN THE LOCKER ROOM, perhaps take their time in reacting or dressing themselves.  Are they then in for any kind of punishment?  The principal shows up, women casually pretending they belong, men with everything hanging out still pretending they don?t notice, still strolling over with their towel over the bare shoulder, oh what delightful chaos, what exhilarating disorder! 

 

OK so then the Fed issues another memo clarifying that the non-discrimination policy is specifically for restrooms, not locker rooms.  However, my high school locker room has toilets.  School?s response is easy: install lockers in the restrooms and call them locker rooms.

 

We should make some play money wagers on what happens in the next three weeks before school?s out.

 

Others please?

 

Come on, it is spring, we can be fair and benign for everyone, we are among friends, it is OK to have some fun.

 

spike

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160514/1d642971/attachment.html>

From hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu  Sat May 14 21:17:14 2016
From: hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu (Henry Rivera)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 17:17:14 -0400
Subject: [ExI] two genders? is that really all there are? RE: Will ems
	have two genders?
In-Reply-To: <017901d1ae20$f5cfd540$e16f7fc0$@att.net>
References: <017901d1ae20$f5cfd540$e16f7fc0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <100DFCB1-952C-45A9-B345-6E8A67AD993B@alumni.virginia.edu>


On May 14, 2016, at 4:41 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> 
> Well, if so, the current administration has a true and impressive accomplishment: it has eliminated the salary gender gap.  Now, we have no way of knowing if there is such a thing, because we no longer have any legitimate way to know a person?s gender, even at the pool at the  local nudist camp. 

I agree it is impressive without the sarcasm or implication of an overreaching edict. The domain of applicability of the letter is schools. Also, gender therein is defined by self-identification. I would expect the self-identified gender to be the same that society sees in most cases. The salary gap I propose results in part from the employer making a determination of gender based on observation of traits and social cues related to clothing and other things observable. The self-identified gender in most cases will be consistent with the employer determination of gender. So we will continue to have data on gender gap using self-identified gender, which btw is probably the same "legitimate" data we had before the school letter. Transpeople tend to not use their biologically based sex when responding to questions about that on surveys in my experience. 
-Henry


From spike66 at att.net  Sat May 14 21:06:04 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 14:06:04 -0700
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: <019201d1ae24$6d851930$488f4b90$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf
Of Anders Sandberg
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2016 1:45 AM
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Subject: Re: [ExI] Security clearances

 

>.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.

 

Anders, this might be the only time this ever happens: I disagree with much
or most of what you posted (I left it in, below.)

I need to run soon, but let me explain in few words.

4-something million security clearances: there are different levels of
clearances.  The high-up ones where the person handles really damaging
materials, are rare, usually temporary, and super specialized.  4-something
million security clearances, most of those are probably to military
ossifers, others who never see a secret document and don't know what a SAR
looks like.

Little evidence they work: very much on the contrary sir.  I might not say
anything more on that topic other than I disagree.

The Clinton email scandal and why it is important: we realize we have a
special case where otherwise unclearable people can be elected to the
highest and second highest office in the land, and we recognize they need to
be cleared anyway, regardless of who are their friends, their past, any of
that.  But we had a weird novel oddball case here where a person who was not
elected was assigned to a post where a clearance was required, and she was
not clearable, by ordinary standards.  So. what then?  Always before, the
pool of those eligible for Secretary of State had to be clearable, and were
in every known case.  But Mrs. Clinton was not, for she had that Whitewater
business behind her (note that security clearances can be and routinely are
denied if people have been tried and acquitted (OJ Simpson would be
unclearable, even after 3 October 1995 (and none of the attorneys, defense
or prosecution, plus at least one witness would have been clearable after
the trial.))  The Clinton family has unresolved connections, mysterious
family "charities" all that stuff.  Anything that even looks suspicious can
be grounds for denial, and the security people are not required to tell why
the clearance was denied.  Her investigation would have taken minutes, then
stamped with a big red NO, and then over-stamped with a bigger, redder HELL.
Way too many untraceable transactions, too much secrecy, etc.  The level she
was shooting for requires openness, a verifiable everything since forever.
Mrs. Clinton isn't even close to that standard.  Donald Trump is nowhere
close to that standard, so is not clearable to be SecState.

OK suppose we recognize and accept that a president and VP must have top
level clearances, and that being elected is a voter-level acceptance of the
person, warts and all.  That standard does not apply to a SecState, for the
voters do not give that dispensation or defacto pardon.  We now have a case
where the president takes responsibility for a post he filled with an
otherwise unclearable person.

Gotta scoot,

spike

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



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-clea
rances/
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  <mailto:extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
<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 <mailto: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/ed47aee9/attachment.html>

From brent.allsop at canonizer.com  Sat May 14 21:24:13 2016
From: brent.allsop at canonizer.com (Brent Allsop)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 15:24:13 -0600
Subject: [ExI] fun outsider's view on ai
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEZ-XwYeORyZQ_Urd8CBsw8y4OT6Zdv75TP7SLcCAnoFDQ@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>
 <318ed875-967d-f374-c014-970e6be31b78@canonizer.com>
 <CAO+xQEZ-XwYeORyZQ_Urd8CBsw8y4OT6Zdv75TP7SLcCAnoFDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c70ffb99-dcfa-9867-833a-db7e2fa097ae@canonizer.com>


Hi William,

Thanks for asking.  It all has to do with the theoretical possibility of 
inverted qualia.  For example, the qualitative nature of my "redness" 
may be more like the qualitative nature of your "greenness".  If it is, 
or if it is not, how could you know? We all interpret "redness", based 
on the consensus about the source of the perception process, rather than 
the quality of our knowledge, or the result of our knowledge.  This 
failure to qualitatively interpret things correctly is the only thing 
that is standing in the way from us knowing and detecting, at least on a 
qualitatively elemental level, what other minds are like, and whether or 
not they are conscious "like we are".  Sure, you can simulate any 
intelligent behavior with abstract representations, but unless you know 
how to properly interpret what an abstract simulation is meant to 
represent, you can't know what the thing being simulated is 
qualitatively like.


For more information on "effing the ineffable" and how to interpret 
things correctly, google for the 15 minute video of my talk on 
"detecting qualia":


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHuqZKxtOf4


Brent Allsop



On 5/14/2016 11:19 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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>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 <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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160514/21cfdc8d/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Sat May 14 21:27:22 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 17:27:22 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Clinton is wrong about everything,
	but wrong within normal parameters
Message-ID: <CAJPayv3jqeA7CHbLLA54kHesG7iLGTuryPbEjFtq7wHtZXW94w@mail.gmail.com>

*Satirist  P.J. O?Rourke is a conservative Republican, but for the first
time in his life is endorsing a Democrat for President, here he explains
why :*

==

I endorse Hillary Clinton for president. She is the second-worst thing that
could happen to America. I endorse her. And all her pomps. And all her
empty promises. Better the devil you know than the Lord of the Flies on his
own 757. Flying to and fro in the earth, with gold-plated seatbelt buckles,
talking nativist, isolationist, mercantilist, bigoted, rude, and vulgar
crap. The electorate is possessed by a demon. (Two, if you count Bernie
Sanders, the Donald Trump for people still living in their
parents? basements.) America is experiencing the most severe outbreak of
mass psychosis since the Salem witch trials of 1692. No, it?s worse than
that. What kind of witch hunt leaves goodwife Hillary not dunked in a pond?
Wicked and all wet though she is, I pledge my all to aid Hillary in
confining Donald Trump to the stocks on the It-Takes-A-Village green.
(Bernie?s already been pressed under heavy stones?a real pair of
stones?Hillary?s.)

Dorothy and Toto?s house fell on Hillary. I endorse her. Munchkins endorse
her. Donald Trump is a flying monkey. Except what the flying monkeys have
to say, ?oreoreoreo,? makes more sense than Trump?s policy statements. Not
that Hillary makes much sense either. Hillary is wrong about everything.
She is to politics and statecraft what Pope Urban VIII and the Inquisition
were to Galileo. She thinks the sun revolves around herself. But Trump
Earth? is flat. We?ll sail over the edge. Here be monsters. Hillary is a
terrible bien pensant, taking her opinions from the top of the star-studded
social ladder. In another day and place she?d be campaigning from Tara with
the slogan ?Fiddle-Dee-Dee.? Frankly, Hillary, I don?t give a damn. I
endorse you anyway.

Better bien pensant than pas de pensees. Better a nit of wit than a louse.
Better a mangy cat than a rabid dog. Better the scurrying of mousey
progressivism gnawing at the fabric of society in the White House than a
rat sitting on the Oval Office desk. Better to root up the garden of free
enterprise with the Democratic pigs than run off a protectionist cliff with
the Gadarene swine Republicans.

Ever since Athens in the 5th century B.C. the great enemy of democracy has
been the demagogue. But?O tempora! O mores!?now we?ve got a firebrand soap
box orator who cannot so much as put a coherent sentence together. He likes
to ?talk bigly.? Here?s to you, Hillary, for saving your best bloviation
for your highly paid speeches to shady bankers. I would, if I could, pay
Trump more to shut up. Hillary, you are the crone in crony capitalism. I
endorse you. I choose Goldman Sachs?s milch cow over the cretin bull siring
his herds of mini-Minotaurs?half-men, half-bullshit?laying waste to
the country.

Better a Marie Antoinette of the left saying, ?Let them eat fruit and
fiber,? than a Know Nothing who would be Robespierre if he could spell it.
Let me tell you why Hillary is a great presidential candidate?by
comparison. Don?t rush me here... Did I mention that she?s the second-worst
thing that could happen to America?

She?s a better real-estate developer than Donald Trump. Trump Taj Mahal
Casino, Trump Plaza Hotel, and Trump Entertainment Resorts went bankrupt.
Trump restructured $3.5 billion in business debt and $900 million in
personal debt. ?Restructured? being the Trump way of saying he didn?t pay
it. The $39.2 million that it cost taxpayers to investigate Hillary?s
Whitewater scam is nothing by comparison. She doesn?t cheat at golf. True,
Hillary screwed up during the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. As
opposed to Donald Trump, who would have sent his supporters to boo and hiss
the Islamic extremist attackers and then ask the police to take the
extremists away. Yes, Hillary sent twenty-some top-secret State Department
documents to her personal email server. But this shows that she can keep a
secret, even if she doesn?t know where to put it and it ends up decorating
her Pinterest site. Trump would have sold the top-secret documents on eBay.
Also, at least the CIA and NSA and so forth tell Hillary secrets. Would you
tell a secret to Donald Trump?

Speaking of which? Like a toddler in a home with a loaded handgun, sooner
or later Donald will find the briefcase with the nuclear launch codes.
Better set the combination lock code to ?411? before he does?he?ll never
think of that. Donald hates information. And the Clinton Foundation is an
ugly mess of American foreign policy influence peddling and conflict of
interest. Donald Trump will fix it. He has no interest in foreign policy so
where?s the conflict? Give him a few months in office and America
won?t have any influence left to peddle. Hillary, I endorse you although
you don?t belong in power?you picture of self-satisfaction out of doors.
Count me the Iago of your supporters, you ding-dong bell in your West Wing,
wild-cat in your can?t-stand-the-heat-get-out-of-the-kitchen, plaster saint
in your injuries, player in your housewifery, and housewife in your bed.
(Sorry, my mistake, that?s somebody else?s wife in bed with your husband.)
You?re a smug one, Hillary,
You really are a snoot,
You?re as cuddly as a cactus, you?re as charming as a newt, Hillary,
You?re a bad banana in an garish and expensive power suit!
You?re a limousine liberal, Hillary,
Your heart?s an empty hole,
Your brain is full of Sidney Blumenthal, you have boiled kale in your soul,
Hillary,

I endorse you with a thirty-nine-and-a-half foot pole!
In sure and certain hope of resurrection I endorse Hillary.
She?ll work a miracle for the Republican Party. I?ve seen the GOP die and
be buried before?with Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Watergate. In four
short years there was a Second Coming. I endorse Hillary. Ecce feminae.
Behold Jimmy Carter in a pantsuit.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160514/ba1ed4f3/attachment.html>

From johntc at gmail.com  Sat May 14 20:35:29 2016
From: johntc at gmail.com (John Tracy Cunningham)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 00:35:29 +0400
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: <CAAYfg-jRNExegk=N=R+3FqnAKFyzYcO7VBab9sJLwpJ+Vb+KJg@mail.gmail.com>

The information is what's important, and all the procedures are there to
protect the information.  If all works correctly, the information doesn't
get into the wrong hands.  Occasionally, one questions why something is
classified, and there are procedures for that, too.

An example of info that perhaps shouldn't have been classified: Suppose the
NATO-Warsaw Pact war happened.  In the plan, there was one line something
like, Infantry Company A of 180 men is scheduled to arrive at airport B in
Germany on D+17, go to a nearby warehouse to draw their stored equipment,
then proceed by surface to their position on the front line, arriving and
reporting combat ready by C+21.  Should that have been classified?
Perhaps; the guys in Company A might think so if they were attacked
enroute.  It was part of a database of hundreds of thousands of lines
describing the deployment of the US Armed Forces to Europe, and that
database was classified, period.

Most clearances are held by people in and around the military, the CIA, and
State, and there are certainly well-documented selection effects going on
in those organizations.  One cannot be a commissioned officer unless one
can obtain a Secret clearance.  Many positions, military and civilian,
depend on being able to obtain and to hold a clearance.  But people can't
simply collect clearances on their own initiative.  The initiative lies
with the government.  All of my clearances went poof two years after I
retired; if I wanted to go back into the business, I'd have to be
re-investigated from scratch, not just a simple five-year bring-up.

There is certainly a security culture.  Security is supposed to be part of
everyone's mindset.  One is reminded of it daily, hourly even.  On a daily
basis, clearances only come up if someone new needs to see something.  Far
more important are the procedures for protection - marking documents; use
of safes, alarms, SCIFs (Faraday cages), proper use of the SIPRNet
(intranet classified up to Secret) and the High Side, which goes higher.
Seldom does a problem arise because somebody shouldn't really have a
clearance; it's alway about protection.

What do you mean by "works well"?  No breaches?  Certainly the people who
run the system think that way.  But we are all fallible, and breaches are
going to occur, intentionally or unintentionally.  When they occur, they
might not always be made public, but internally there is increased
emphasis, a damage assessment perhaps with necessary consequent changes to
things, more training, new procedures, and so on.  Careers can be broken.
I point out the case of General David Petraeus, very very highly respected,
who retired to avoid being cashiered after giving his biographer classified
information.  (That he was having an affair with her didn't help.)  He has
however continued to do very well post-retirement.

You have the Clinton situation exactly right, I think.  Those on the inside
are horrified.  But the FBI is not done yet.

In what way are cleared people "deeply annoyed"?

You have a point about soft protection.  When I worked on The Joint Staff
at the Pentagon, I could have walked out one evening with the entire NATO
war plan in my briefcase, copied it overnight, and replaced it the
following morning, and no one would have been the wiser.  There was no
daily inventory, and no one checked briefcases.  But I didn't.  I
understand the KGB was quite a bit more serious in their procedures.
Ultimately we rely on one human being trusting another.

Regards

John

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> 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
> <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>
> <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 listextropy-chat at lists.extropy.orghttp://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
> --
> 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/20160515/0fa2394e/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Sat May 14 23:10:40 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 19:10:40 -0400
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: <CAJPayv0Uq3K4xQPE25fj8DONQEUyiDs++FjjUjhGP6-vHODAYg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 14, 2016, Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at canonizer.com> wrote:

?> ?
> We are talking about two different thing here.  There is the manufacturing
> process, and then there is what is manufactured.
>

?I don't understand your distinction. If I make a book and the book makes
money then I make money. The information in DNA makes a brain and the brain
makes the subjective red qualia, therefore ?DNA makes the the subjective
red qualia; or at least that's what happened with my DNA and my brain.

?> ?
> Would you agree that there are likely other ways of building what is
> responsible for an elemental redness and greenness qualities besides DNA
> manufacturing?
>

Yes I would agree with that and I would also agree that I am not the only
conscious being in the universe, although I can't prove either one and
never will.
? But there are some things I can prove although the proof is available
only to me. I know with rock sold certainty that energy, just 25 different
kinds of parts, and a assembly instruction booklet less than a million
lines long (and probably a lot less)  the subjective experience of red can
be produced. I strongly suspect, although can not prove, that other
people's DNA gives them subjective experiences too.   ?

?> ?
> So you are saying that qualia will eternally be ineffable or not
> understandable / mapable / observable,
>

?Ineffable may be too grand a word, it's not that there is some deep truth
that our puny human minds can never grasp, it's just that the chain of
"what caused that?" questions is not infinitely long and some things are
just brute facts. And after saying that consciousness is what data feels
like when it is being processed there is simply nothing more to be said on
the subject of consciousness. Evolutionary Biology has been screaming in
our ear since 1859 that consciousness is a inevitable byproduct of
intelligent behavior and I think it's high time to listen to what it's
saying,     ?



> ?> ?
> I am predicting that there is an elemental, fully understandable / mapable
> qualia level,
>

?And I predict that if Darwin was right then qualia effects behavior and
behavior effects qualia and thus the Turing Test works for consciousness
and not just intelligence. ?
?I further predict that Darwin ?was right.


> ?> ?
> especially for qualia like redness and greenness.
> ?
>  And that we can detect, understand, a communicate the quality
>

?
I can detect redness no doubt about it, and when I talk about it to other
English speakers they seem to understand what I mean, and I understand that
when matter that is organized in a johnkclarkian way interacts with 630
manometer electromagnetic waves a red qualia is produced. What more is
needed?
  ?


?>?
> Would you agree that an abstract symbol like the word "red" does not have
> a redness quality?
>

?Symbols don't exist is isolation.
?The symbol "red" must exist in a environment that understand English
otherwise "red" is not a symbol at all it's just a squiggle, but with
people who can read English it manufacture the quail red qualia in them.
Likewise in all cells on this planet the sequence of bases CUA in DNA
symbolizes the amino acid
Leucine
?, but in the biology ?on another planet it might symbolize another amino
acid or is might be meaningless and symbolize nothing at all.

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160514/5c8a4023/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Sat May 14 23:12:48 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 18:12:48 -0500
Subject: [ExI] AI Lawyer now employed
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armjR-hN-OPVpPNm2dc4SqMn67YYTWBBb9aON5axQNviRyg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armjR-hN-OPVpPNm2dc4SqMn67YYTWBBb9aON5axQNviRyg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEb0vERMFe8c2O2XEW3oB+vAE3rCtvBpMh=rpmwasXGu3A@mail.gmail.com>

Looks like research lawyers will be looking for new employment now.
How soon till Watson replaces judges?

After Robocop arrives the job of totally controlling erratic humans
can be fully automated.
Paradise or Hell?


BillK

Hell.  The only thing I liked about law school was learning about equity
courts.  These do not decide on the basis of law, but on the personal
decision of the judges as to what is the fairest thing to do.

It will be a very long time before we have AI that can do those things.
How does one teach an AI fairness?  (Anders?)  Quantitative judgments,
fine.  Who lost the most monetary value.  Easy.  Qualitative, trying to
measure human suffering, for example, are very difficult even for people.
 (Reminds me of Queen for a Day, from the 50s, where the entrants, always
women, told their heart-rending story about why they should be a queen for
a day.  Maudlin.  Everyone crying.  Bathos.)

I can easily see AI replacing paralegals and other assistants - doing basic
research.

bill w

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 3:35 AM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> Artificially Intelligent Lawyer ?Ross? Has Been Hired By Its First
> Official Law Firm
>
> <
> http://futurism.com/artificially-intelligent-lawyer-ross-hired-first-official-law-firm/
> >
>
> Quotes:
>
> Ross, ?the world?s first artificially intelligent attorney? built on
> IBM?s cognitive computer Watson, was designed to read and understand
> language, postulate hypotheses when asked questions, research, and
> then generate responses (along with references and citations) to back
> up its conclusions. Ross also learns from experience, gaining speed
> and knowledge the more you interact with it.
>
> ?You ask your questions in plain English, as you would a colleague,
> and ROSS then reads through the entire body of law and returns a cited
> answer and topical readings from legislation, case law and secondary
> sources to get you up-to-speed quickly,? the website says. ?In
> addition, ROSS monitors the law around the clock to notify you of new
> court decisions that can affect your case.?
> ---------
>
>
> Looks like research lawyers will be looking for new employment now.
> How soon till Watson replaces judges?
>
> After Robocop arrives the job of totally controlling erratic humans
> can be fully automated.
> Paradise or Hell?
>
>
> 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/20160514/71a47302/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sat May 14 23:20:29 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 19:20:29 -0400
Subject: [ExI] AI Lawyer now employed
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEb0vERMFe8c2O2XEW3oB+vAE3rCtvBpMh=rpmwasXGu3A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armjR-hN-OPVpPNm2dc4SqMn67YYTWBBb9aON5axQNviRyg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEb0vERMFe8c2O2XEW3oB+vAE3rCtvBpMh=rpmwasXGu3A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFiP+X6n20oNfci-P5pCni-aEGFguipw6fcaHPHU9-kDtA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 7:12 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Looks like research lawyers will be looking for new employment now.
> How soon till Watson replaces judges?
>
> After Robocop arrives the job of totally controlling erratic humans
> can be fully automated.
> Paradise or Hell?
>
> ### As usual, it depends on who owns the judge. Nothing new under the sun
:)

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160514/2517a267/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Sat May 14 23:37:57 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 01:37:57 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Security clearances
In-Reply-To: <019201d1ae24$6d851930$488f4b90$@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> <5736E56E.7010303@aleph.se>
 <019201d1ae24$6d851930$488f4b90$@att.net>
Message-ID: <5737B6D5.7060103@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-14 23:06, spike wrote:
>
> Anders, this might be the only time this ever happens: I disagree with 
> much or most of what you posted (I left it in, below.)
>
Cool. And mildly frightening.

> Little evidence they work: very much on the contrary sir.  I might not 
> say anything more on that topic other than I disagree.
>

Would there be any way to actually document this fact?

My problem is that in my world a claim is not to be trusted until there 
are ways of verifying it or that all (reasonable) counterclaims have 
been falsified. Finding a way of demonstrating that classifying actually 
does work (and how much) would be very useful, and actually pretty 
important.

I can imagine looking for natural experiments where the system 
accidentally failed to classify or not in parallel organisations, a bit 
like how the US Army accidentally demonstrated the role of IQ in soldier 
usability due to a clerical error.


-- 
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/20160515/65620fdc/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sat May 14 23:44:07 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 19:44:07 -0400
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: <CAAc1gFgBwPd+wqq3PWX=4gG0zMxK9iTuSCrxtmMJRXoJoAtrig@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:08 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. ?
>
> ?> ?
>> 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?
>

### Not plausible. You don't get to keep and expand a business over 40
years by being impulsive and prone to tantrums. Also, Trump has made some
very explicitly isolationist comments, which implies a much lower
likelihood of getting into tense situations with the Russians or the
Chinese.

On the other hand, the Old Witch of Arkansas has a proven track record of
ineptitude specifically in managing US foreign policy and a hawkish
attitude.

You should try to look at the record of the candidates' actions, rather
than what they say on the campaign trail. A single deed is worth a thousand
words.

I think neither candidate is likely to cause a nuclear war but if anything,
Clinton is the higher risk.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160514/9c0ce486/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sat May 14 23:46:10 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 19:46:10 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv0nUx5TQDZ0X9UJMDs74BUx1dpovOs1tzsXvod=4aEmDA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACB7g25J8AxAxkdhsJBJnjmkjeUUxhACx1-ySUk_-pYb2VNv7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0nUx5TQDZ0X9UJMDs74BUx1dpovOs1tzsXvod=4aEmDA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFhts87_yUd=wrbi7CZU9zwxGgc6r2Hh1aVZ5_wkbhC0_A@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:58 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.
>
>
### It's OK to use hyperbole as a joke but it just uncool if it's serious.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160514/82b6ed2e/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Sun May 15 01:05:11 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 21:05:11 -0400
Subject: [ExI] What is Trump ashamed of?
Message-ID: <CAJPayv0oyeBBiPQhZPMYibaboVQXjN_tu=Zjf9hrzPE7M2u8=g@mail.gmail.com>

When
?
Donald
?
Trump
?
filed his financial disclosure report with the Federal Election Commission
?
it said "Mr. Trump's
?
net worth is in excess of TEN BILLION DOLLARS?
?
(those capital letters are trump's not mine, I'm not sure if it was
followed by a
?
exclamation point). Virtually everybody says that figure is too big but
just how much did Trump exaggerate? After the real estate bubble burst
financial journalist Timothy O?Brien
?
figured that Trump was worth between 150 and 250 million
? dollars?
, and sue happy Donald
?
Trump
?
sued
?
O?Brien
?
for libel
?. He?
sued him for 5 BILLION DOLLARS! Think about that for a minute and let it
sink in
?;?
Trump says the law should punish anyone who thinks he's only a multi
millionaire. Trump was unable to prove that what
?
O?Brien
?
said
?
was untrue so he lost the case, but Trump says we should
?change the?
 libel laws
? to make it easier for him to win cases like that next time.

Trump's extreme sensitivity on this topic may explain why he took the
unrepresented step of refusing to make his tax return public. Every
presidential candidate in modern times has done so, "
?C?
rooked Hillary" has done so going back to 1977 and so has her husband Bill,
but not Donald. He says he won't do it because he's under a IRS audit, but
Richard Nixon made his tax report public when he ran for president and he
was under a audit at the time. And Trump was under an audit in the late
1990's but made his tax report public anyway to get a casino licence (for a
casino that later went bankrupt). He did it then but not now, what changed
that he doesn't want the American people to know about? No doubt Donald has
a very low tax rate and seldom gives to charity but he wouldn't be ashamed
of that, but he would be ashamed if he isn't a billionaire anymore.

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160514/721771db/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Fri May 13 07:37:24 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 09:37:24 +0200
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: <57358434.8050109@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-12 21:41, Dan TheBookMan wrote:
>
> "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.)
You can estimate the base rate by doing a Bayesian update on a uniform 
prior [0,1] of nuclear war probability per year, given 70 years of no 
war. That gives you an expected 1.4% risk per year.

If we accept the 2.5 increase, that means 3.5% risk per year. Over 4 
years that is 13% risk of a nuclear war (compared to 5.4% for normal 
presidents).

(Note that if you accept the above calculation, living in the vicinity 
of a primary target makes a health risk more significant than almost any 
pollutants or epidemic diseases.)

> Now, what can you do about this? Panic? Build a bomb shelter? My guess 
> is very little aside from get worked up."

Move to Tasmania?

-- 
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/20160513/4c99c3c9/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Sun May 15 02:54:20 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 22:54:20 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFgBwPd+wqq3PWX=4gG0zMxK9iTuSCrxtmMJRXoJoAtrig@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>
 <CAAc1gFgBwPd+wqq3PWX=4gG0zMxK9iTuSCrxtmMJRXoJoAtrig@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv3cof55h0D=LKnHzE6HZXm4UhdUHdW_KEu6NA3VYc94BQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 14, 2016 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:

?>> ?
>> 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?
>>
>
> ?> ?
> Not plausible. You don't get to keep and expand a business over 40 years
>

?If Trump ?released his tax returns we'd have some idea just how much if
any those businesses have expanded, but he's ashamed to tell us.


> ?> ?
> by being impulsive and prone to tantrums.
>

?Donald Trump said on his iPhone that the father of Ted Cuz murdered John F
Kennedy, that his wife was ugly and that ?Barack Obama was born in Kenya.
When he lost the Iowa caucus
? he tweeted that the results should be invalidated.
Then he tweeted: ?

?*"?*
*Robert Pattinson should not take back Kristen Stewart. She cheated on him
like a dog & will do it again--just watch. He can do much better!?"*

And of course the words that will be chiseled in marble on the future Trump
Monument that will be built in Washington next to Jefferson's and
Lincoln's:     ?

*?"?Amazing how the haters & losers keep tweeting the name ?Fuckface Von
Clownstick? like they are so original & like no one else is doing it...?"?*

?So when Mr.Clownstick is president and gets mad will he reach for his
iPhone or his Red Telephone?  ?


?> ?
> Also, Trump has made some very explicitly isolationist comments, which
> implies a much lower likelihood of getting into tense situations with the
> Russians or the Chinese.
>

Fuckface Von Clownstick
? says when he becomes president "ISIS will be
gone quickly, very quickly
?".  Mr. Clownstick won't say how he'll do it but he will say he won't rule
out nuclear weapons. But it's not just ISIS, he won't rule out using
nuclear weapons against Europe either because after all  "Europe is a big
place".

Doesn't that make you at least a little bit nervous? It scares the hell out
of me. Some would say when
? he?
 becomes president he will
?feel the awesome weight ?of the office and start to behave more
responsibly and his megalomania will go into remission,
and I admit that is a possibility, but I really don't want to bet my life
on it. I think it's equally likely that when 4 star Generals salute him and
call him "Sir" his
megalomania

?will metastasize. ?He wouldn't be the first leader who got power drunk,
but he would be the first with Nuclear launch Codes.

?> ?
> You should try to look at the record of the candidates' actions, rather
> than what they say on the campaign trail.
>

?One candidate has no record to look at because unlike every other
presidential candidate in modern history he has never held any political
office before, never been in the cabinet, never served in the military; all
we know is he "restructures his debt" a lot, which is a euphemism for
refusing to pay back the loans you promised to pay back.


> ?> ?
> It's OK to use hyperbole as a joke but it just uncool if it's serious.


?I used to think Trump was funny and I still think a buffoon can be funny,
but not when the buffoon has the keys to a Trident Nuclear Submarine.

 John K Clark  ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160514/d54d2998/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Sun May 15 06:00:29 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 23:00:29 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Security clearances
In-Reply-To: <5737B6D5.7060103@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>
 <019201d1ae24$6d851930$488f4b90$@att.net> <5737B6D5.7060103@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <00fc01d1ae6f$16359bf0$42a0d3d0$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf
Of Anders Sandberg
Subject: Re: [ExI] Security clearances

 

On 2016-05-14 23:06, spike wrote:



 

Anders, this might be the only time this ever happens: I disagree with much
or most of what you posted (I left it in, below.)

Cool. And mildly frightening. 




Little evidence they work: very much on the contrary sir.  I might not say
anything more on that topic other than I disagree.


Would there be any way to actually document this fact? Anders Sandberg

 

 

 

Sure, but I would be far more comfortable with it if we can go back to WW2.
The allies broke the Nazi codes, but they had to keep secret the fact that
they had done it.  Plenty of people knew about it at Bletchley Park and some
over on this side of the pond, but this would be a perfect example of a SAR
program.  We know they did an excellent job of keeping that secret.  Those
with SAR badges followed the gentle suggestion of this poster:

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=big+cup+of+shut+the+f+up+images
<https://www.google.com/search?q=big+cup+of+shut+the+f+up+images&rlz=1C1QJDB
_enUS649US649&espv=2&biw=617&bih=701&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwix
yY-Yr9vMAhUW-mMKHeILChkQ_AUIBigB>
&rlz=1C1QJDB_enUS649US649&espv=2&biw=617&bih=701&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&v
ed=0ahUKEwixyY-Yr9vMAhUW-mMKHeILChkQ_AUIBigB

 

A lot of people knew what had happened at Bletchley and a lot of people shut
it and kept it shut.  How was that done?

 

Anders, the process works.

 

To your other points, we know that this process works if it filters out
plenty of good capable people who should have been cleared.  But these are
sacrificed to cleanse the system of those few who would have leaked what
happened at Bletchley.  We know that the process tends to keep military-ey
types.  We get that.  These military-ey types are hard to define, but you
know one when you see one.  We know that offices with only those type people
are not big fun offices.  

 

I worked in an office like that for many years, doing interesting work, but
this kind of place would never get together for something like a pool party
for instance.  They seldom would even go out to a bar after hours; too much
risk of accidentally saying something which shouldn't be uttered outside the
SCIF (and if something was said, the person saying it would have to
self-report, and those who heard it would have to report it, and the talker
better hope to hell the stories agreed perfectly or his clearance is a
fading memory.)  It was a highly disciplined no-nonsense kind of workplace.
Interesting work compensated for the lack of silliness; richly compensated
for it.  There are terrific opportunities for learning cool stuff such as
advanced physics right there while doing one's job.  It wasn't a leaky
office.  The company treated those people well; turnover was very low.

 

How to document it?  I don't know.  Do we have any evidence that anyone
inside at Bletchley Park talked?  We have evidence that Klaus Fuchs from Los
Alamos leaked, but I think that was after the program was already well
along.  Roosevelt told Joe Stalin after he had already heard that Joe Stalin
had been briefed by a spy at Los Alamos, but then-VP Harry Truman had not
received any word on what was going on with the A-bomb program.

 

What other big-secret programs do we have that are now public domain?  Oh
how about that caper where the US recovered a commie submarine?  Is there
any evidence that the Glomar Explorer was leaked?

 

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb305/

 

spike

 

 

 

 

 





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160514/0d6d7234/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Sun May 15 08:31:17 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 10:31:17 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Security clearances
In-Reply-To: <00fc01d1ae6f$16359bf0$42a0d3d0$@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> <5736E56E.7010303@aleph.se>
 <019201d1ae24$6d851930$488f4b90$@att.net> <5737B6D5.7060103@aleph.se>
 <00fc01d1ae6f$16359bf0$42a0d3d0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <573833D5.3010108@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-15 08:00, spike wrote:
>
> Sure, but I would be far more comfortable with it if we can go back to 
> WW2.  The allies broke the Nazi codes, but they had to keep secret the 
> fact that they had done it.  Plenty of people knew about it at 
> Bletchley Park and some over on this side of the pond, but this would 
> be a perfect example of a SAR program. We know they did an excellent 
> job of keeping that secret.

Yes, I agree Bletchley Park worked realy well. As far as I know they 
never had a leak. I have also heard oldtimers in the UK establishment 
worry that they do not think they could maintain the same organisational 
culture today.

> To your other points, we know that this process works if it filters 
> out plenty of good capable people who should have been cleared.  But 
> these are sacrificed to cleanse the system of those few who would have 
> leaked what happened at Bletchley.
>

I don't think this follows. It is trivial to make a system that filters 
out good people without being effective against bad people.

A simple model of a filter: "security quality" of people is N(0,1) 
normally distributed. Measurements (vetting) has a normal error 
distribution N(mu,sigma^2), we remove everybody below a certain 
threshold. The probability of letting through a bad guy (SQ < 0) is 
integral_-\infty^0 f(x) (1-Phi( (-x-mu)/sigma)) dx = 
1-\integral_-\infty^0 f(x) Phi((-mu-x)/sigma) dx where f(x) is the 
N(0,1) distribution finction and Phi is the cdf. No neat analytic 
solution, but when you plot it versus the probability of filtering out 
good guys you get a classic ROC curve, where the goodness depends on 
sigma. The problem is that security quality is not well defined 
(circumstances may make a would-be leaker not do it, or a secure guy 
decide to leak) so there is an extra "noise" term that would make a 
perfect measurement of the initial state uncertain: this can be added to 
the variance of the measurement, and reduce the ROC curve.

So my question can maybe be turned into: do we know the parameters for 
the security ROC curves?


> How to document it?  I don?t know.  Do we have any evidence that 
> anyone inside at Bletchley Park talked?  We have evidence that Klaus 
> Fuchs from Los Alamos leaked, but I think that was after the program 
> was already well along.  Roosevelt told Joe Stalin after he had 
> already heard that Joe Stalin had been briefed by a spy at Los Alamos, 
> but then-VP Harry Truman had not received any word on what was going 
> on with the A-bomb program.
>
Manhattan leaked *a lot*, I have found papers on that. They were worried 
about Germans, who never even heard of it, while the commies were 
getting the prime information.

> What other big-secret programs do we have that are now public domain?  
> Oh how about that caper where the US recovered a commie submarine?  Is 
> there any evidence that the Glomar Explorer was leaked?
>
That is a good case. I think it remained quiet for a long while.

We should look for more examples like that; I can actually turn loose an 
intern to investigate in detail.



-- 
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/20160515/94bd09d4/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Sun May 15 08:38:44 2016
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 09:38:44 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Drake Equation Musings
Message-ID: <CAL_armiT=A=jFACmt5zRX=+Y_jEUFYjo5dCFtk9aaME++KmDFQ@mail.gmail.com>

A Less Bleak Lesson from the Silent Universe
May 7, 2016 by Rick Searle

<https://utopiaordystopia.com/2016/05/07/a-less-bleak-lesson-from-the-silent-universe/>

Quotes:

The astronomers Adam Frank and Woodruff Sullivan have an interesting
paper out where they?ve essentially flipped the Drake Equation on its
head. If that equation is meant to give us some handle on the
probability that there are aliens out there, Frank and Sullivan have
used the plethora of exoplanets discovered since the launch of the
Kepler space telescope to calculate the chance that, so far, we alone
have been the only advanced civilization in the 13.7 billion year
history of the universe. I won?t bore you with actual numbers, but
they estimate the chance that we?re the first and only is 1 in 10
billion trillion. I shouldn?t have to tell you that is a really,
really small number.
----
We do have pretty good evidence of at least one thing: if there are,
or have been, technological civilizations out there none is using the
majority of its galaxy?s energy. As Jim Wright at Penn State who
conceived of the recent scanning 100,000 galaxies that had been
observed by NASA?s Wise satellite for the infrared fingerprints of a
galactic civilization  discovered. Wright observed:

Our results mean that, out of the 100,000 galaxies that WISE could see
in sufficient detail, none of them is widely populated by an alien
civilization using most of the starlight in its galaxy for its own
purposes. That?s interesting because these galaxies are billions of
years old, which should have been plenty of time for them to have been
filled with alien civilizations, if they exist. Either they don?t
exist, or they don?t yet use enough energy for us to recognize them.
-----
Yet perhaps we should conclude something different about the human
future from this absence of galactic scale civilizations than the sad
recognition that our species is highly unlikely to have one.  Instead,
maybe what we?re learning is that the kind of extrapolation of the
industrial revolution into an infinite future that has been prevalent
in science-fiction and futurism for well over a century is itself
deeply flawed. We might actually have very little idea of what the
future will actually be like.

Then again, maybe the silence gives us some clues. Rather than present
us with evidence for our species probable extinction, perhaps what
we?re witnessing is the propensity of civilizations to reach
technological limits *before* they have grown to the extent that they
are observable across great interstellar distances by other
technological civilizations.
----
Since the industrial revolution our ideas about both the human future
and the nature of any alien civilization have taken the shape of being
more of the same. Yet the evidence so far seems to point to a much
different fate. We need to start thinking through the implications of
the silence beyond just assuming we are either prodigies, or that, in
something much less than the long run, we?re doomed.
-------------------------
End Quotes.


To me, that seems an optimistic interpretation of the Great Silence.
Given the billions of galaxies we see and the billions of star systems
in each galaxy, that humans are the only intelligent species is
really, really unlikely. The other option, that all intelligent
species quickly become extinct (in galactic time scales) gives
humanity a very bleak future.

So that leaves a more optimistic option.
As Searle suggests, civilisations might hit technological limits that
force them to stabilise at a level undetectable at interstellar
distances. Mastering nano-tech might enable very complex civilisations
to exist in small spatial dimensions.

This is an appealing solution to the Great Silence. As previous
commentators have noted, there has been plenty of time for just one
exponential species to have colonised the whole galaxy. So that vision
of the future is almost certainly mistaken.
For long-lived civilisations nano-tech and sustainable energy
efficiency looks good.


BillK



From anders at aleph.se  Sun May 15 08:46:08 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 10:46:08 +0200
Subject: [ExI] AI Lawyer now employed
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEb0vERMFe8c2O2XEW3oB+vAE3rCtvBpMh=rpmwasXGu3A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armjR-hN-OPVpPNm2dc4SqMn67YYTWBBb9aON5axQNviRyg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEb0vERMFe8c2O2XEW3oB+vAE3rCtvBpMh=rpmwasXGu3A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57383750.8000608@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-15 01:12, William Flynn Wallace wrote:
> Looks like research lawyers will be looking for new employment now.
> How soon till Watson replaces judges?

Judging at its core has a representative function rather than a 
cognitive function. Also, common sense and clear explanations of the 
foundations of a decision, which is relatively hard for Watson-like 
systems to do reliabily, is a key part of being a reliable judge - that 
will likely take a fair bit of future work to get.

Law is getting transformed by AI, but it seeps in through automating the 
legal search and analysis rather than decisionmaking. Paralegals are in 
trouble, but lawyers have hard to automate social skills.


-- 
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/20160515/d7b5b493/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Sun May 15 09:00:04 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 11:00:04 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Will ems have two genders?
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFgD3Q3MzkK=4wbuMFvQdX2K=9LN=T8qbLWNoQXVbCdPfA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFgD3Q3MzkK=4wbuMFvQdX2K=9LN=T8qbLWNoQXVbCdPfA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57383A94.3050501@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-14 04:04, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> 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.

But ems start as scans of biological brains and retain the memories, 
personalities and identity constructs of the bio-original. Since most 
people strongly identify with one gender or the other, they are likely 
to keep doing that as ems.

I think furries, transgender people and experimentation online with 
alternative personas demonstrate that there is more fluidity than many 
people think, but they are hardly evidence that ems will lose gender 
identity. In the longer run, when people start mind editing, yes, but 
not in the short-run scenario in Robin's book.



-- 
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/20160515/c1d176ef/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Sun May 15 09:06:06 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 11:06:06 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Drake Equation Musings
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armiT=A=jFACmt5zRX=+Y_jEUFYjo5dCFtk9aaME++KmDFQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armiT=A=jFACmt5zRX=+Y_jEUFYjo5dCFtk9aaME++KmDFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57383BFE.9080200@aleph.se>

It is IMHO not a very impressive paper. Basically their argument is 
"Look, the probability per star needed to get an empty universe is 
really low, so a priori we should expect it to be higher." My own 
upcoming paper shows that if you do the probabilities right you can 
easily get empty universes given what we know.

(The quick of it: people assume some key Drake equation parameters must 
lie in a far smaller range than they are allowed to by our actual 
knowledge, and this produces over-optimistic estimates. When you update 
on the empty sky, it makes the past great filter more likely than a 
future great filter.)

On 2016-05-15 10:38, BillK wrote:
> A Less Bleak Lesson from the Silent Universe
> May 7, 2016 by Rick Searle
>
> <https://utopiaordystopia.com/2016/05/07/a-less-bleak-lesson-from-the-silent-universe/>
>
> Quotes:
>
> The astronomers Adam Frank and Woodruff Sullivan have an interesting
> paper out where they?ve essentially flipped the Drake Equation on its
> head. If that equation is meant to give us some handle on the
> probability that there are aliens out there, Frank and Sullivan have
> used the plethora of exoplanets discovered since the launch of the
> Kepler space telescope to calculate the chance that, so far, we alone
> have been the only advanced civilization in the 13.7 billion year
> history of the universe. I won?t bore you with actual numbers, but
> they estimate the chance that we?re the first and only is 1 in 10
> billion trillion. I shouldn?t have to tell you that is a really,
> really small number.
> ----
> We do have pretty good evidence of at least one thing: if there are,
> or have been, technological civilizations out there none is using the
> majority of its galaxy?s energy. As Jim Wright at Penn State who
> conceived of the recent scanning 100,000 galaxies that had been
> observed by NASA?s Wise satellite for the infrared fingerprints of a
> galactic civilization  discovered. Wright observed:
>
> Our results mean that, out of the 100,000 galaxies that WISE could see
> in sufficient detail, none of them is widely populated by an alien
> civilization using most of the starlight in its galaxy for its own
> purposes. That?s interesting because these galaxies are billions of
> years old, which should have been plenty of time for them to have been
> filled with alien civilizations, if they exist. Either they don?t
> exist, or they don?t yet use enough energy for us to recognize them.
> -----
> Yet perhaps we should conclude something different about the human
> future from this absence of galactic scale civilizations than the sad
> recognition that our species is highly unlikely to have one.  Instead,
> maybe what we?re learning is that the kind of extrapolation of the
> industrial revolution into an infinite future that has been prevalent
> in science-fiction and futurism for well over a century is itself
> deeply flawed. We might actually have very little idea of what the
> future will actually be like.
>
> Then again, maybe the silence gives us some clues. Rather than present
> us with evidence for our species probable extinction, perhaps what
> we?re witnessing is the propensity of civilizations to reach
> technological limits *before* they have grown to the extent that they
> are observable across great interstellar distances by other
> technological civilizations.
> ----
> Since the industrial revolution our ideas about both the human future
> and the nature of any alien civilization have taken the shape of being
> more of the same. Yet the evidence so far seems to point to a much
> different fate. We need to start thinking through the implications of
> the silence beyond just assuming we are either prodigies, or that, in
> something much less than the long run, we?re doomed.
> -------------------------
> End Quotes.
>
>
> To me, that seems an optimistic interpretation of the Great Silence.
> Given the billions of galaxies we see and the billions of star systems
> in each galaxy, that humans are the only intelligent species is
> really, really unlikely. The other option, that all intelligent
> species quickly become extinct (in galactic time scales) gives
> humanity a very bleak future.
>
> So that leaves a more optimistic option.
> As Searle suggests, civilisations might hit technological limits that
> force them to stabilise at a level undetectable at interstellar
> distances. Mastering nano-tech might enable very complex civilisations
> to exist in small spatial dimensions.
>
> This is an appealing solution to the Great Silence. As previous
> commentators have noted, there has been plenty of time for just one
> exponential species to have colonised the whole galaxy. So that vision
> of the future is almost certainly mistaken.
> For long-lived civilisations nano-tech and sustainable energy
> efficiency looks good.
>
>
> BillK
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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



From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sun May 15 10:52:49 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 06:52:49 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Will ems have two genders?
In-Reply-To: <57383A94.3050501@aleph.se>
References: <CAAc1gFgD3Q3MzkK=4wbuMFvQdX2K=9LN=T8qbLWNoQXVbCdPfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <57383A94.3050501@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFjs16FwNQoirx-feR=M-C-2WrtOr4PWed_ecBYJy9Mqzw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 5:00 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> On 2016-05-14 04:04, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
> But ems start as scans of biological brains and retain the memories,
> personalities and identity constructs of the bio-original. Since most
> people strongly identify with one gender or the other, they are likely to
> keep doing that as ems.
>
> I think furries, transgender people and experimentation online with
> alternative personas demonstrate that there is more fluidity than many
> people think, but they are hardly evidence that ems will lose gender
> identity. In the longer run, when people start mind editing, yes, but not
> in the short-run scenario in Robin's book.
>

### I have to read it, once it comes out on Kindle. In the meantime I would
think that the short-run scenario is going to be really short-run, running
in internet time on yottaflop steroids.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160515/db8c1826/attachment.html>

From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Sun May 15 13:23:05 2016
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 14:23:05 +0100
Subject: [ExI] two genders? is that really all there are?
In-Reply-To: <mailman.10.1463259339.321.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.10.1463259339.321.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <57387839.4010107@yahoo.com>

LOL.
Clearly no-one in the U.S. Departments of Justice and Education has ever 
been a teenage boy! (and so don't remember that teenage boys would do 
almost anything in order to get inside the girls changing room).

This is going to end well.


From atymes at gmail.com  Sun May 15 15:44:25 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 08:44:25 -0700
Subject: [ExI] AI Lawyer now employed
In-Reply-To: <57383750.8000608@aleph.se>
References: <CAL_armjR-hN-OPVpPNm2dc4SqMn67YYTWBBb9aON5axQNviRyg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEb0vERMFe8c2O2XEW3oB+vAE3rCtvBpMh=rpmwasXGu3A@mail.gmail.com>
 <57383750.8000608@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNQJe33VGWaXPa7mAxVrVTF_WbOLm7feXnNOB3oKmkUJ3A@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 1:46 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

>
> On 2016-05-15 01:12, William Flynn Wallace wrote:
>
> Looks like research lawyers will be looking for new employment now.
> How soon till Watson replaces judges?
>
>
> Judging at its core has a representative function rather than a cognitive
> function. Also, common sense and clear explanations of the foundations of a
> decision, which is relatively hard for Watson-like systems to do reliabily,
> is a key part of being a reliable judge - that will likely take a fair bit
> of future work to get.
>
> Law is getting transformed by AI, but it seeps in through automating the
> legal search and analysis rather than decisionmaking. Paralegals are in
> trouble, but lawyers have hard to automate social skills.
>

I recall, some years back, hearing of a Brazilian judge who wrote an
automated assistant to handle the simplest of traffic ticket cases.  I can
not find the story now, but if I recall correctly it worked, but only for
tickets within its domain.  Anything complex (or not a traffic ticket)
still had to go to the judge, and he had to sign off on what cases his bot
did decide (since "a judge" needed to decide them).  Still, it reduced his
workload significantly.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160515/a40b1650/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Sun May 15 15:52:16 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 08:52:16 -0700
Subject: [ExI] my unified theory etc
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEZ9ggkEs9kch8GyWwm6sKp6-KyEj-Dq+Mr-e43mpaN1mQ@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>
 <CAO+xQEZ9ggkEs9kch8GyWwm6sKp6-KyEj-Dq+Mr-e43mpaN1mQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNTtJv8DJymc-gsY=o64nGwYYqg+xoR1Wj83f_ztDZfg9A@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 2:29 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I am 74 and I don't think anyone my age or older could say that their mind
> was completely unaffected?.
>

I know at least two people that old whose minds are as sharp as ever.
Granted, they stay very active intellectually, which is probably the reason
why.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160515/92bd1d03/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Sun May 15 16:12:37 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 11:12:37 -0500
Subject: [ExI] my unified theory etc
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNTtJv8DJymc-gsY=o64nGwYYqg+xoR1Wj83f_ztDZfg9A@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>
 <CAO+xQEZ9ggkEs9kch8GyWwm6sKp6-KyEj-Dq+Mr-e43mpaN1mQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNTtJv8DJymc-gsY=o64nGwYYqg+xoR1Wj83f_ztDZfg9A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEY=G0vXB5sKM9-bhCctO5=L4ikV7aKUzsC5bBXorS1ZRg@mail.gmail.com>

?
I know at least two people that old whose minds are as sharp as ever.
Granted, they stay very active intellectually, which is probably the reason
why.  adrian

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 2:29 PM, William Flynn Wallace <
> foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I am 74 and I don't think anyone my age or older could say that their
>> mind was completely unaffected?.
>>
>
> We're good at faking it, too -  and hiding it.  No way anyone over 35 is
as good as they used to be.  Brain cell loss.  Of course we make up for
declining function by getting more efficient, detecting logical and
cognitive errors and so forth.  I am surprised that theoretical
mathematicians aren't fired after about 30, as their days are over.?

? ( a lot of flak here, I expect)?

?It's likely that the people you know are pretty darn smart, and the
smarter you are the farther you have to fall before it's detectable.  Ask
those two if they think that they haven't lost anything.

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/20160515/0eb6c719/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Sun May 15 16:18:02 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 09:18:02 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Security clearances
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>
 <019201d1ae24$6d851930$488f4b90$@att.net> <5737B6D5.7060103@aleph.se> 
Message-ID: <01cd01d1aec5$5b473a40$11d5aec0$@att.net>

 

>.Cool. And mildly frightening. Anders

Hi Anders,

It is not mildly frightening to those of us yanks living in the
libertarian's worst nightmare, it is terrifying.  We see appalling
stockpiles of nukes being handed over to one of two candidates, both of whom
have demonstrated clear evidence of being authoritarian to the point of
totalitarian warhawks.  The rest of the world has a huge vested interest in
how this comes out.  Can this get any worse?  Eh. ja.

For those who believe that anything posted on FoxNews automatically defaults
to memetic toxic waste, do feel free to skip this article, but if so I will
summarize: if the government does not like whoever the voters choose, there
are ways to elect someone else, someone who never campaigned, even someone
nobody ever heard of, to be president.  This was intentional.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/14/in-strange-election-cycle-elector
al-college-deciding-who-s-president-must-be-mentioned.html?intcmp=hpbt1

We often hear citations to Andrew Jackson, the populist outsider who came
into the presidency in 1824 and turned everything on its head.  He was ready
to use the military to enforce law, ready to do all the things libertarians
worry about.  Somehow. he ended up on our 20 dollar bill, which has become
perhaps the most important remaining paper currency we have, since fifties
are oddballs (they look too much like the far more common 20s) 100s are
viewed with suspicion because they are worth attempting to counterfeit.  So.
cash machines spit out pictures of Jackson.

OK so we face the possibility of a Jacksonian administration.  Over forty
years ago, a president asked if a sitting president could pardon himself.
All witnesses agree he said it in jest, with the implied no, of course not,
the people would riot and they are armed, etc.  Now. it is easy enough to
imagine that same question being asked on the first day of a new president's
administration, by either of the leading candidates, not at all in jest,
with the surprise answer coming back that that power damn sure can be
misused that way, even if we know it wasn't intended for that.  If the
people riot, the US Marines have a fighting chance in holding them off, and
even if they cannot, there is a safe room, etc.

Anders, since you are a black swan expert, it occurred to me there is a gray
swan scenario which could turn even worse.  Although it has never happened,
our recent failure of the ExI server (DNS?  What's that?)  Thursday and
Friday reminds us that the internet could fail somehow, perhaps a virus of
some kind shutting down main hubs and so forth.  Suppose. someone figured
out a way to crash the internet and shut down much or most electronic
communications for just a day or two, even just a few hours.  Now suppose
someone or someones realized the perfect time to pull this gag: on USA
election day 2016.  What if there is suddenly no news, no email, no
internet, nada nada nada.  The phones all still work, but what good are
they?  Who are you going to call?  The mainstream news agencies?  They can't
help, for they don't know what is going on either; their computers are down.
All of them.  The newspaper?  What is a newspaper?  

We are all dependent on electronic communications.  If that whole system
somehow crashes on USA election day, we will not know what happened that day
and will not accept the outcome after the fact, even if anyone can tell us
what that outcome was.  We will have no way of verifying it.  We have
another case like 2000 where it probably all will come down to the election
outcome in. Florida.  Have you noticed that any weird crime story currently
being used as filler on slow news days, about a quarter of it happened in
Florida.  That is one weird state, something I didn't even realize until I
moved away to a slightly less weird one.  Florida may elect a president for
us.  Again.  And we won't like either choice.  And some parts of Florida
still have un-auditable machine voting.

So what if.the internet goes down that day, or some important portion of it,
and now America does not know the rightful legal custodian of all those
fireworks?  What if there is an ambiguous outcome and the electoral college
convenes, then perfectly legally hands us a third candidate?

Anders, being an outsider and black swan expert, your take on this will
likely be most enlightening.

spike

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160515/48b3d201/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Sun May 15 17:22:42 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 13:22:42 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Drake Equation Musings
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armiT=A=jFACmt5zRX=+Y_jEUFYjo5dCFtk9aaME++KmDFQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armiT=A=jFACmt5zRX=+Y_jEUFYjo5dCFtk9aaME++KmDFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv0kz8y3t-N6Y78xeKZMvqGjbu_OuqG2dXM9iB4FJ++wwA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 15, 2016  BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

?> ?
> The astronomers Adam Frank and Woodruff Sullivan have an interesting
> paper out where they?ve essentially flipped the Drake Equation on its
> head. If that equation is meant to give us some handle on the
> probability that there are aliens out there, Frank and Sullivan have
> used the plethora of exoplanets discovered since the launch of the
> Kepler space telescope to calculate the chance that, so far, we alone
> have been the only advanced civilization in the 13.7 billion year
> history of the universe. I won?t bore you with actual numbers, but
> they estimate the chance that we?re the first and only is 1 in 10
> billion trillion. I shouldn?t have to tell you that is a really,
> really small number.
>

?
Astronomers alone can never produce a meaningful figure of the likelihood
of ET. Yes astronomy can come up with amazingly big numbers
? ?
but biology can come up with amazingly small numbers; if you multiply those
2 numbers together do you get a number greater than one? The Great Silence
makes me think the answer is no
?,?
and in the very big (or very small) numbers game Biology is the boss not
Astronomy.

Incidentally
?
 one of the factors in the Drake Equation is not biological or
astronomical, it's the lifetime of a technological civilization.  Donald
Trump may be able to show us
?exactly ?
how that works.
?

 John K Clark?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160515/3efacc0e/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Sun May 15 17:47:45 2016
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 18:47:45 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Drake Equation Musings
In-Reply-To: <57383BFE.9080200@aleph.se>
References: <CAL_armiT=A=jFACmt5zRX=+Y_jEUFYjo5dCFtk9aaME++KmDFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <57383BFE.9080200@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAL_armhGLGQgsDqMXG+L_Zwm3vWnE63MTu4WYP5QXozWmCW+2g@mail.gmail.com>

On 15 May 2016 at 10:06, Anders Sandberg  wrote:
> It is IMHO not a very impressive paper. Basically their argument is "Look,
> the probability per star needed to get an empty universe is really low, so a
> priori we should expect it to be higher." My own upcoming paper shows that
> if you do the probabilities right you can easily get empty universes given
> what we know.
>
> (The quick of it: people assume some key Drake equation parameters must lie
> in a far smaller range than they are allowed to by our actual knowledge, and
> this produces over-optimistic estimates. When you update on the empty sky,
> it makes the past great filter more likely than a future great filter.)
>


So your paper intends to show that it is quite likely humans are the
only intelligent species in the universe? The universe is ours for the
taking! Yippee! Though that could be the definition of maximum hubris.
But you are facing very big odds. The universe is quite big, you know.  ;)

Even if your calculations allow for a few intelligent species, you
still face the problem that none of them can be exponential species
that have colonised their galaxy, as we see no signs of them. So the
suggestion of nano-tech and resource optimised species could apply to
one or millions of species, all undetectable by each other.

This is more optimistic than saying that *all* technological
civilisations go extinct before expanding through the galaxy.


BillK


From dsunley at gmail.com  Sun May 15 18:02:02 2016
From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 12:02:02 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Will ems have two genders?
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFjs16FwNQoirx-feR=M-C-2WrtOr4PWed_ecBYJy9Mqzw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFgD3Q3MzkK=4wbuMFvQdX2K=9LN=T8qbLWNoQXVbCdPfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <57383A94.3050501@aleph.se>
 <CAAc1gFjs16FwNQoirx-feR=M-C-2WrtOr4PWed_ecBYJy9Mqzw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEptUkQeQWxmB8iO7o-kXrm7NF+2FiL+SHon-TOrQOEM8YncDA@mail.gmail.com>

If we visualize the space of all possible minds, the human male and female
genders are tiny, almost infinitesimal, adjacent volumes in one small
corner. The vast, vast majority of possible minds are not categorizable as
either male or female, and the set of all genders is the /power set/ of all
possible minds.

The very first human uploads will retain a recognizable gender. But if any
ems are allowed any capacity for self-modification, they will rapidly,
almost immediately, wander into realms that are no longer categorizable as
human genders.

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 4:52 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 5:00 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-05-14 04:04, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> But ems start as scans of biological brains and retain the memories,
>> personalities and identity constructs of the bio-original. Since most
>> people strongly identify with one gender or the other, they are likely to
>> keep doing that as ems.
>>
>> I think furries, transgender people and experimentation online with
>> alternative personas demonstrate that there is more fluidity than many
>> people think, but they are hardly evidence that ems will lose gender
>> identity. In the longer run, when people start mind editing, yes, but not
>> in the short-run scenario in Robin's book.
>>
>
> ### I have to read it, once it comes out on Kindle. In the meantime I
> would think that the short-run scenario is going to be really short-run,
> running in internet time on yottaflop steroids.
>
> Rafa?
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160515/8c8cfbf7/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Sun May 15 19:35:11 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 21:35:11 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Drake Equation Musings
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armhGLGQgsDqMXG+L_Zwm3vWnE63MTu4WYP5QXozWmCW+2g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armiT=A=jFACmt5zRX=+Y_jEUFYjo5dCFtk9aaME++KmDFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <57383BFE.9080200@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armhGLGQgsDqMXG+L_Zwm3vWnE63MTu4WYP5QXozWmCW+2g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5738CF6F.9050407@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-15 19:47, BillK wrote:
> So your paper intends to show that it is quite likely humans are the 
> only intelligent species in the universe? The universe is ours for the 
> taking! Yippee! Though that could be the definition of maximum hubris. 
> But you are facing very big odds. The universe is quite big, you know. ;) 

"Big" is the interesting term here: what is a big universe? If I tell 
you the universe may have 10^10, 10^20 , 10^50, 10^100, or 10^10^100 
stars, when will you say "whoa, that sounds unlikely?" (assuming we are 
doing this from comfy armchairs without actually rushing off to a 
telescope to check). Presumably you will have some feeling that certain 
numbers are so large that they are a priori unlikely. Conversely, if I 
ask if you think the probability of life on an earthlike planet is about 
1, 0.01, 10^-6, 10^-30 or 10^-10^115, you will likely think some of the 
numbers sound unlikely. But why? How would you justify this from the 
armchair? Much of people's prior estimates have far too narrow ranges of 
likely numbers.

The main point of the paper is that a reasonable range for the life 
probability easily runs from from 1 to 10^-100 given what we know (and 
this does not include the rather uncertain intelligence and tech 
probabilities). There are about 10^25 stars in the observable universe. 
So there is 25 orders of magnitude between the sun and the observable 
universe - but if you choose an exponent for the probability of life 
uniformly between -100 and 0, that means that we have just one chance in 
four to get more life than us in the observable universe.

Now, many of us think we know better. But if we think life has a chance 
in between 10^-6 to 10^-2, we need to give evidence for this range. If 
you think my above log-uniform distribution of probability is stupid, 
you need to have an argument for why something less spread out is 
reasonable. And my argument is not that the universe *must* be empty, 
just that armchair astrobiology, when properly done and taking actual 
uncertainty into account, makes it look like the most likely possibility.


> Even if your calculations allow for a few intelligent species, you 
> still face the problem that none of them can be exponential species 
> that have colonised their galaxy, as we see no signs of them. So the 
> suggestion of nano-tech and resource optimised species could apply to 
> one or millions of species, all undetectable by each other. This is 
> more optimistic than saying that *all* technological civilisations go 
> extinct before expanding through the galaxy.

The fact that we do not see primitive aliens nearby nor 
supercivilizations far away serves to update our initial guesses in such 
a way that a past great filter (low probability of life, complex life, 
or intelligence) is more likely than a future great filter (low 
probability of communication ability or longevity). We do not know the 
likeliehood of undetectable civilizations, but our framework can 
actually model the effect on our conclusions for different likeliehoods, 
and generally the effect is that unless you claim they are extremely 
(0.9999... for some large number of decimals) certain the empty universe 
observation still moves the filter guess significantly.

It is a funny paper: it looks like astrobiology, but it is really about 
uncertainty.

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



From anders at aleph.se  Sun May 15 19:57:29 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 21:57:29 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Trust (Was:  Security clearances)
In-Reply-To: <01cd01d1aec5$5b473a40$11d5aec0$@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> <5736E56E.7010303@aleph.se>
 <019201d1ae24$6d851930$488f4b90$@att.net> <5737B6D5.7060103@aleph.se>
 <01cd01d1aec5$5b473a40$11d5aec0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <5738D4A9.7050605@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-15 18:18, spike wrote:
>
> >?Cool. And mildly frightening? Anders
>
I was refering to disagreeing with Spike as mildly frightening, but 
sure, crazy presidents also belong in that category :-)

> So what if?the internet goes down that day, or some important portion 
> of it, and now America does not know the rightful legal custodian of 
> all those fireworks?  What if there is an ambiguous outcome and the 
> electoral college convenes, then perfectly legally hands us a third 
> candidate?
>
> Anders, being an outsider and black swan expert, your take on this 
> will likely be most enlightening.
>

The key thing is trust. That is what holds societies together, not 
communications nor money. If there is trouble and confusion, will you 
trust your neighbour? Or the local authority figure? Or other 
institutions? It seems to me that the US is suffering a pretty big 
breakdown of trust in federal institutions, although it is hard to tell 
how much that is actual distrust and how much is venting. It is harder 
to tell what the trust levels in civil society is, since it is fairly 
inhomogeneous in the US. But overall my impression is that it is 
actually fairly OK compared to many other places.

If the net goes down on election day, you will have a lot of 
institutions scrambling for restoring legitimate structure. Some will be 
at odds by accident or design. Believing they will fail to come up with 
workable solutions suggests a rather serious distrust of them. But that 
is not the same as actual reasons to think they will fail. Compare to 
thinking that the engineers and sysadmins will fail at restoring the 
Internet after a serious error: does that (less political) scenario 
sound likely? Sure, we can construct scenarios where it happens, but do 
we really think those scenarios have the bulk of probability?

My outside perspective is that the US is a loud, messy democracy with 
some unhealthy polarisation and obsession with the constitution, but 
also fairly competent political engineers and a way stronger civil 
society than many other western states. Just like how courts often 
sidestep what seems to be deep technological or logical problems by 
using rough but kind of common sense praxis, that messy system is 
actually quite robust to even severe challenges as long as the core 
trust is good enough.

Your (and many others) disquiet is perhaps not driven by evidence of 
maliciousness or incompetence, but rather a feeling that DC (and many 
other governments) is not really legitimate anymore. If it does not 
represent you in the proper way, then it is a frightening, dangerous 
behemoth. If it is really true that general trust is too low, then it 
might be fragile to a disturbance. But the real problem remains the lack 
of trust-building legitimacy: no amount of risk management can fix that.




-- 
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/20160515/15a51588/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Sun May 15 20:12:00 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 15:12:00 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Security clearances
In-Reply-To: <01cd01d1aec5$5b473a40$11d5aec0$@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> <5736E56E.7010303@aleph.se>
 <019201d1ae24$6d851930$488f4b90$@att.net> <5737B6D5.7060103@aleph.se>
 <01cd01d1aec5$5b473a40$11d5aec0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEavN0+ZED=qCXXjpUrmSow0iiDqu2j+9qCo3qcc4v=p-Q@mail.gmail.com>

It is not mildly frightening to those of us yanks living in the
libertarian?s worst nightmare, it is terrifying.  We see appalling
stockpiles of nukes being handed over to one of two candidates, both of
whom have demonstrated clear evidence of being authoritarian to the point
of totalitarian warhawks.  The rest of the world has a huge vested interest
in how this comes out.  Can this get any worse?  Eh? ja.
spike

My guess is that no president (or cannot?) do it alone.  They need
backing.  If the Cabinet members and the military all agree with the pres,
then what can one do?  If they all disagree, then I think no pres would
(could?) order strikes.  Maybe Trump would try to go it alone, but I have
to doubt even that.

I would dearly like to see Congress act as a balance here, as they are
supposed to do.  No military action without agreement by Congress.
Otherwise, where is the balance of powers?  Would that take a
Constitutional Amendment?

bill w

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 11:18 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
> >?Cool. And mildly frightening? Anders
>
> Hi Anders,
>
> It is not mildly frightening to those of us yanks living in the
> libertarian?s worst nightmare, it is terrifying.  We see appalling
> stockpiles of nukes being handed over to one of two candidates, both of
> whom have demonstrated clear evidence of being authoritarian to the point
> of totalitarian warhawks.  The rest of the world has a huge vested interest
> in how this comes out.  Can this get any worse?  Eh? ja.
>
> For those who believe that anything posted on FoxNews automatically
> defaults to memetic toxic waste, do feel free to skip this article, but if
> so I will summarize: if the government does not like whoever the voters
> choose, there are ways to elect someone else, someone who never campaigned,
> even someone nobody ever heard of, to be president.  This was intentional.
>
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/14/in-strange-election-cycle-electoral-college-deciding-who-s-president-must-be-mentioned.html?intcmp=hpbt1
>
> We often hear citations to Andrew Jackson, the populist outsider who came
> into the presidency in 1824 and turned everything on its head.  He was
> ready to use the military to enforce law, ready to do all the things
> libertarians worry about.  Somehow? he ended up on our 20 dollar bill,
> which has become perhaps the most important remaining paper currency we
> have, since fifties are oddballs (they look too much like the far more
> common 20s) 100s are viewed with suspicion because they are worth
> attempting to counterfeit.  So? cash machines spit out pictures of Jackson.
>
> OK so we face the possibility of a Jacksonian administration.  Over forty
> years ago, a president asked if a sitting president could pardon himself.
> All witnesses agree he said it in jest, with the implied no, of course not,
> the people would riot and they are armed, etc.  Now? it is easy enough to
> imagine that same question being asked on the first day of a new
> president?s administration, by either of the leading candidates, not at all
> in jest, with the surprise answer coming back that that power damn sure can
> be misused that way, even if we know it wasn?t intended for that.  If the
> people riot, the US Marines have a fighting chance in holding them off, and
> even if they cannot, there is a safe room, etc.
>
> Anders, since you are a black swan expert, it occurred to me there is a
> gray swan scenario which could turn even worse.  Although it has never
> happened, our recent failure of the ExI server (DNS?  What?s that?)
> Thursday and Friday reminds us that the internet could fail somehow,
> perhaps a virus of some kind shutting down main hubs and so forth.
> Suppose? someone figured out a way to crash the internet and shut down much
> or most electronic communications for just a day or two, even just a few
> hours.  Now suppose someone or someones realized the perfect time to pull
> this gag: on USA election day 2016.  What if there is suddenly no news, no
> email, no internet, nada nada nada.  The phones all still work, but what
> good are they?  Who are you going to call?  The mainstream news agencies?
> They can?t help, for they don?t know what is going on either; their
> computers are down.  All of them.  The newspaper?  What is a newspaper?
>
> We are all dependent on electronic communications.  If that whole system
> somehow crashes on USA election day, we will not know what happened that
> day and will not accept the outcome after the fact, even if anyone can tell
> us what that outcome was.  We will have no way of verifying it.  We have
> another case like 2000 where it probably all will come down to the election
> outcome in? Florida.  Have you noticed that any weird crime story currently
> being used as filler on slow news days, about a quarter of it happened in
> Florida.  That is one weird state, something I didn?t even realize until I
> moved away to a slightly less weird one.  Florida may elect a president for
> us.  Again.  And we won?t like either choice.  And some parts of Florida
> still have un-auditable machine voting.
>
> So what if?the internet goes down that day, or some important portion of
> it, and now America does not know the rightful legal custodian of all those
> fireworks?  What if there is an ambiguous outcome and the electoral college
> convenes, then perfectly legally hands us a third candidate?
>
> Anders, being an outsider and black swan expert, your take on this will
> likely be most enlightening.
>
> 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/20160515/36520a95/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Sun May 15 20:25:24 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 13:25:24 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Security clearances
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEavN0+ZED=qCXXjpUrmSow0iiDqu2j+9qCo3qcc4v=p-Q@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$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEZyoTmpjxnoe8VsBFGZutzSM2TYwWhTLkq8xzRFnT6qng@mail.gmail.com>
 <009901d1ac83$eca75ea0$c5f61be0$@att.net> <5736E56E.7010303@aleph.se>
 <019201d1ae24$6d851930$488f4b90$@att.net> <5737B6D5.7060103@aleph.se>
 <01cd01d1aec5$5b473a40$11d5aec0$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEavN0+ZED=qCXXjpUrmSow0iiDqu2j+9qCo3qcc4v=p-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <005201d1aee7$e9c5fc80$bd51f580$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2016 1:12 PM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] Security clearances

 

It is not mildly frightening to those of us yanks living in the libertarian?s worst nightmare, it is terrifying.  We see appalling stockpiles of nukes being handed over to one of two candidates, both of whom have demonstrated clear evidence of being authoritarian to the point of totalitarian warhawks.  The rest of the world has a huge vested interest in how this comes out.  Can this get any worse?  Eh? ja.

spike

 

My guess is that no president (or cannot?) do it alone.  They need backing.  If the Cabinet members and the military all agree with the pres, then what can one do?  If they all disagree, then I think no pres would (could?) order strikes.  Maybe Trump would try to go it alone, but I have to doubt even that.

 

I would dearly like to see Congress act as a balance here, as they are supposed to do.  No military action without agreement by Congress.  Otherwise, where is the balance of powers?  Would that take a Constitutional Amendment?

 

bill w

 

 

 

 

 

BillW, you know we love like a brother pal.  But you need to educate yourself on this process please sir.

 

A US president can unilaterally order a nuclear strike, enter the code into the football, no permissions needed from anyone, congress or anyone else.  The sub commanders receive a code, they carry out their orders, for they don?t know if their own country is at that moment under attack or is already a smoldering ash heap.  They don?t know what has happened.  They will fire those rockets.  The US president is the only person who can physically do that.

 

No.  There are no checks and balances on that process.

 

spike

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160515/8e193f81/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Sun May 15 21:25:28 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 17:25:28 -0400
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: <CAJPayv1fASmj_2H5isO--sPgtE9j+0Ytupp3ABsYKfKpdVG0jQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 3:24 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

?> ?
> this is another case of the incident itself is irrelevant, but lying about
> it is critical.


OK let's talk about perjury.
? ?
When Truthful Trump filed he taxes he swore under the penalty of perjury
that the information in it was true, but he won't let the people of the
United
?States
, the
?very ?
people he wants to lead, see it.
? He says they should trust him but he obviously doesn't trust them. ?
Meanwhile Crocked Hillary has made her tax information public going
?all the way ?
back to 1977
?. E
ven Tricky Dick Nixon let the American people see his tax return, b
?u?
t not Truthful Trump. Why? What is
?it?
 that Truthful Trump doesn't want the
?American ?
people to know?

?> ?
> Where does the constitution say a sitting president may not self-pardon?


?
Nowhere.
?
A president could
?pardon himself?
 if he wanted, but it would be very bad PR, the American people wouldn't
like it and more important congress wouldn't like it either and congress
would be in a position to do something about it.

?> ?
> If we admit that this is theoretically possible and that Nixon could have
> just pardoned himself and held his office,


I don't admit that theoretical possibility at all
?.?
Yes a president can pardon himself and prevent his prosecution when he
leaves office and becomes a private citizen
?, and the congress can turn the president into a private citizen for doing
so. ?The senate acts like a jury and if that jury says there are grounds to
remove a president from office then he is removed from office. The only
difference between the senate jury any any other jury is there is no
constitutional way for the guilty party (the president) to appeal the
verdict.


> > ?
> Without strict definition, the presidential pardon is a ticket to
> totalitarianism far worse than Germany?s bitter experience.
>
>
Totalitarianism far worse than Germany?s
?? Far worse?

  John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160515/8293fe9d/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Sun May 15 21:48:14 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 17:48:14 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Security clearances
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEavN0+ZED=qCXXjpUrmSow0iiDqu2j+9qCo3qcc4v=p-Q@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$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEZyoTmpjxnoe8VsBFGZutzSM2TYwWhTLkq8xzRFnT6qng@mail.gmail.com>
 <009901d1ac83$eca75ea0$c5f61be0$@att.net>
 <5736E56E.7010303@aleph.se>
 <019201d1ae24$6d851930$488f4b90$@att.net>
 <5737B6D5.7060103@aleph.se>
 <01cd01d1aec5$5b473a40$11d5aec0$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEavN0+ZED=qCXXjpUrmSow0iiDqu2j+9qCo3qcc4v=p-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv0g+fPi+1pRjF67=zedmztTqk7WHhjBjGHaOHGTW6pK3Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 15, 2016  William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:

?> ?
> My guess is that no president (or cannot?) do it alone.  They need
> backing.  If the Cabinet members and the military all agree with the pres,
> then what can one do?  If they all disagree, then I think no pres would
> (could?) order strikes.  Maybe Trump would try to go it alone, but I have
> to doubt even that.
>

?All the Cabinet members serve at the pleasure of the President, he hired
them and he can fire them whenever he wants, and Trump is not shy about
firing people. And the same goes for the top military brass, the president
outranks them all. As for Trident Submarine Commanders, their knowledge of
current events will be 2 to 3 months out of date and they will be in no
position to second guess their Commander In Chief.

Don't expect some third party to save you, if the president is a madman
you're dead. ?


?> ?
> I would dearly like to see Congress act as a balance here, as they are
> supposed to do.  No military action without agreement by Congress.
>

?That's not going to happen because it would invite a first strike,
especial on ?
?Washington DC.?

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160515/a65bebae/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Sun May 15 22:38:29 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 18:38:29 -0400
Subject: [ExI] two genders? is that really all there are? RE: Will ems
 have two genders?
In-Reply-To: <017901d1ae20$f5cfd540$e16f7fc0$@att.net>
References: <017901d1ae20$f5cfd540$e16f7fc0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv1AV+r5pd+6jOUJCubcY6_4YGX=ENjGKnKxrk+mvpOnZQ@mail.gmail.com>

>
>
>
>
Rafal Smigrodzki
?
Wrote:

 >?Is there a reason to expect that ems would have a male and a female
> gender?


Is there a reason
? to expect?
that humans or any other multi cellular animal
?
would have a male and a female gender?
?The embarrassing answer is "not that we know of". The existence of sex is
one of the biggest mysteries in Evolutionary Biology. And in fact there are
a group of animals called "
Bdelloidea
?" that have been around for at least 40 million years and they have no
males, only females.
Bdelloidea
? are ?
?multi cellular
? and ?big enough to be seen if you have good eyes but have no sex.

Some textbooks say there are 450 different species Bdelloidea
?
but that's misleading, a species is a group that can interbred but
Bdelloidea
?
engage in no breeding; so really there are 450 types of
?
Bdelloidea
?
that look different from each other, but "species" is a meaningless concept
for them.

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160515/ba86dced/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Mon May 16 00:39:35 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 19:39:35 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Security clearances
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv0g+fPi+1pRjF67=zedmztTqk7WHhjBjGHaOHGTW6pK3Q@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$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEZyoTmpjxnoe8VsBFGZutzSM2TYwWhTLkq8xzRFnT6qng@mail.gmail.com>
 <009901d1ac83$eca75ea0$c5f61be0$@att.net> <5736E56E.7010303@aleph.se>
 <019201d1ae24$6d851930$488f4b90$@att.net> <5737B6D5.7060103@aleph.se>
 <01cd01d1aec5$5b473a40$11d5aec0$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEavN0+ZED=qCXXjpUrmSow0iiDqu2j+9qCo3qcc4v=p-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0g+fPi+1pRjF67=zedmztTqk7WHhjBjGHaOHGTW6pK3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZGkNZJUjNSX5b56_XXx7hXwu2bCeO7wP-h=0n7SxR=xw@mail.gmail.com>

No.  There are no checks and balances on that process.



spike


Well, there needs to be.  for John - in an emergency, such as when the pres
is informed that missiles are on the way, I can see letting one man do
that.  For a planned attack we should change the way it's handled.  No one
man should have that power.


I can see now why y'all are so inflamed about Trump and nuclear attacks by
us.

Live and learn - thanks.


bill w

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 4:48 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, May 15, 2016  William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ?> ?
>> My guess is that no president (or cannot?) do it alone.  They need
>> backing.  If the Cabinet members and the military all agree with the pres,
>> then what can one do?  If they all disagree, then I think no pres would
>> (could?) order strikes.  Maybe Trump would try to go it alone, but I have
>> to doubt even that.
>>
>
> ?All the Cabinet members serve at the pleasure of the President, he hired
> them and he can fire them whenever he wants, and Trump is not shy about
> firing people. And the same goes for the top military brass, the president
> outranks them all. As for Trident Submarine Commanders, their knowledge of
> current events will be 2 to 3 months out of date and they will be in no
> position to second guess their Commander In Chief.
>
> Don't expect some third party to save you, if the president is a madman
> you're dead. ?
>
>
> ?> ?
>> I would dearly like to see Congress act as a balance here, as they are
>> supposed to do.  No military action without agreement by Congress.
>>
>
> ?That's not going to happen because it would invite a first strike,
> especial on ?
> ?Washington DC.?
>
>  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/20160515/3bd47e19/attachment.html>

From jasonresch at gmail.com  Mon May 16 00:41:13 2016
From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 19:41:13 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Drake Equation Musings
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armiT=A=jFACmt5zRX=+Y_jEUFYjo5dCFtk9aaME++KmDFQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armiT=A=jFACmt5zRX=+Y_jEUFYjo5dCFtk9aaME++KmDFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+BCJUjL+HjvF9r2VyL9_MGHurKhVh85CjBkWJ6fmfX1VWGs3g@mail.gmail.com>

I've found the "Transcension hypothesis" as reasonable answer to the Fermi
paradox:

http://accelerating.org/articles/transcensionhypothesis.html

Another nice (and similar) exploration of the trancension idea:

http://frombob.to/you/index.html

Jason

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 3:38 AM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> A Less Bleak Lesson from the Silent Universe
> May 7, 2016 by Rick Searle
>
> <
> https://utopiaordystopia.com/2016/05/07/a-less-bleak-lesson-from-the-silent-universe/
> >
>
> Quotes:
>
> The astronomers Adam Frank and Woodruff Sullivan have an interesting
> paper out where they?ve essentially flipped the Drake Equation on its
> head. If that equation is meant to give us some handle on the
> probability that there are aliens out there, Frank and Sullivan have
> used the plethora of exoplanets discovered since the launch of the
> Kepler space telescope to calculate the chance that, so far, we alone
> have been the only advanced civilization in the 13.7 billion year
> history of the universe. I won?t bore you with actual numbers, but
> they estimate the chance that we?re the first and only is 1 in 10
> billion trillion. I shouldn?t have to tell you that is a really,
> really small number.
> ----
> We do have pretty good evidence of at least one thing: if there are,
> or have been, technological civilizations out there none is using the
> majority of its galaxy?s energy. As Jim Wright at Penn State who
> conceived of the recent scanning 100,000 galaxies that had been
> observed by NASA?s Wise satellite for the infrared fingerprints of a
> galactic civilization  discovered. Wright observed:
>
> Our results mean that, out of the 100,000 galaxies that WISE could see
> in sufficient detail, none of them is widely populated by an alien
> civilization using most of the starlight in its galaxy for its own
> purposes. That?s interesting because these galaxies are billions of
> years old, which should have been plenty of time for them to have been
> filled with alien civilizations, if they exist. Either they don?t
> exist, or they don?t yet use enough energy for us to recognize them.
> -----
> Yet perhaps we should conclude something different about the human
> future from this absence of galactic scale civilizations than the sad
> recognition that our species is highly unlikely to have one.  Instead,
> maybe what we?re learning is that the kind of extrapolation of the
> industrial revolution into an infinite future that has been prevalent
> in science-fiction and futurism for well over a century is itself
> deeply flawed. We might actually have very little idea of what the
> future will actually be like.
>
> Then again, maybe the silence gives us some clues. Rather than present
> us with evidence for our species probable extinction, perhaps what
> we?re witnessing is the propensity of civilizations to reach
> technological limits *before* they have grown to the extent that they
> are observable across great interstellar distances by other
> technological civilizations.
> ----
> Since the industrial revolution our ideas about both the human future
> and the nature of any alien civilization have taken the shape of being
> more of the same. Yet the evidence so far seems to point to a much
> different fate. We need to start thinking through the implications of
> the silence beyond just assuming we are either prodigies, or that, in
> something much less than the long run, we?re doomed.
> -------------------------
> End Quotes.
>
>
> To me, that seems an optimistic interpretation of the Great Silence.
> Given the billions of galaxies we see and the billions of star systems
> in each galaxy, that humans are the only intelligent species is
> really, really unlikely. The other option, that all intelligent
> species quickly become extinct (in galactic time scales) gives
> humanity a very bleak future.
>
> So that leaves a more optimistic option.
> As Searle suggests, civilisations might hit technological limits that
> force them to stabilise at a level undetectable at interstellar
> distances. Mastering nano-tech might enable very complex civilisations
> to exist in small spatial dimensions.
>
> This is an appealing solution to the Great Silence. As previous
> commentators have noted, there has been plenty of time for just one
> exponential species to have colonised the whole galaxy. So that vision
> of the future is almost certainly mistaken.
> For long-lived civilisations nano-tech and sustainable energy
> efficiency looks good.
>
>
> 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/20160515/86608e40/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Mon May 16 01:02:02 2016
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 11:02:02 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Drake Equation Musings
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armhGLGQgsDqMXG+L_Zwm3vWnE63MTu4WYP5QXozWmCW+2g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armiT=A=jFACmt5zRX=+Y_jEUFYjo5dCFtk9aaME++KmDFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <57383BFE.9080200@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armhGLGQgsDqMXG+L_Zwm3vWnE63MTu4WYP5QXozWmCW+2g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH=2ypXZ1MxRangFJdi1v-vfmT-WCc0M2qKvN5CkfvgZePhUMw@mail.gmail.com>

On Monday, 16 May 2016, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 15 May 2016 at 10:06, Anders Sandberg  wrote:
> > It is IMHO not a very impressive paper. Basically their argument is
> "Look,
> > the probability per star needed to get an empty universe is really low,
> so a
> > priori we should expect it to be higher." My own upcoming paper shows
> that
> > if you do the probabilities right you can easily get empty universes
> given
> > what we know.
> >
> > (The quick of it: people assume some key Drake equation parameters must
> lie
> > in a far smaller range than they are allowed to by our actual knowledge,
> and
> > this produces over-optimistic estimates. When you update on the empty
> sky,
> > it makes the past great filter more likely than a future great filter.)
> >
>
>
> So your paper intends to show that it is quite likely humans are the
> only intelligent species in the universe? The universe is ours for the
> taking! Yippee! Though that could be the definition of maximum hubris.
> But you are facing very big odds. The universe is quite big, you know.  ;)


The universe is perhaps infinite, but the observable universe is finite.
Set a low enough probability of life arising and it is no surprise that we
don't and will never see alien civilisations, even though the universe may
be filled with them.


> Even if your calculations allow for a few intelligent species, you
> still face the problem that none of them can be exponential species
> that have colonised their galaxy, as we see no signs of them. So the
> suggestion of nano-tech and resource optimised species could apply to
> one or millions of species, all undetectable by each other.
>
> This is more optimistic than saying that *all* technological
> civilisations go extinct before expanding through the galaxy.
>
>
> BillK
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org <javascript:;>
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160516/fb975f04/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Mon May 16 01:05:50 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 20:05:50 -0500
Subject: [ExI] polls link
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZNzLLAKEQQ706uL4AmjdeobCpN-XGngBJMkgmdDZtYFg@mail.gmail.com>

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/opinion/campaign-stops/how-many-people-support-trump-but-dont-want-to-admit-it.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

Scary.  Look at the chart too for shameful levels of bigotry even by
liberal Democrats.
bill w
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160515/3c3873f3/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Mon May 16 01:35:48 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 18:35:48 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Security clearances
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEZGkNZJUjNSX5b56_XXx7hXwu2bCeO7wP-h=0n7SxR=xw@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$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEZyoTmpjxnoe8VsBFGZutzSM2TYwWhTLkq8xzRFnT6qng@mail.gmail.com>
 <009901d1ac83$eca75ea0$c5f61be0$@att.net> <5736E56E.7010303@aleph.se>
 <019201d1ae24$6d851930$488f4b90$@att.net> <5737B6D5.7060103@aleph.se>
 <01cd01d1aec5$5b473a40$11d5aec0$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEavN0+ZED=qCXXjpUrmSow0iiDqu2j+9qCo3qcc4v=p-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0g+fP
 i+1pRjF67=zedmztTqk7WHhjBjGHaOHGTW6pK3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZGkNZJUjNSX5b56_XXx7hXwu2bCeO7wP-h=0n7SxR=xw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00f401d1af13$46a6c8f0$d3f45ad0$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2016 5:40 PM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] Security clearances

 

>>?No.  There are no checks and balances on that process.  spike

 

>?Well, there needs to be.

 

How do we do that?

 

>?for John - in an emergency, such as when the pres is informed that missiles are on the way, I can see letting one man do that?

 

I don?t know how else.

 

>?For a planned attack we should change the way it's handled?

 

A planned nuclear attack?  If you meant a planned pre-emptive attack by the USA, it already is that way.  To do a planned attack legally would require a declaration of war, which requires congress.  But the way system actually works, a president could plan an attack by herself, then dismiss everyone, call for the football, enter the codes, off they go.

 

It is an absurd amount of power to vest in one person.  I don?t know how else to do it.  BillW if you do, we are all ears.

 

>?I can see now why y'all are so inflamed about Trump and nuclear attacks by us.  

Live and learn - thanks?bill w

 

Sure we can use that argument, sorta.  How do we know it only applies to one of the candidates?  We have seen a president order an attack (not nuclear, but an attack) under questionable circumstances.  This occurred on 20 August 1998 when the president ordered missile strikes on Sudan and Afghanistan.  The approximately seven hundred million dollars worth of armaments fired in the strikes managed to take out several terrorist trainees and a pharmaceutical plant, but I have never bought that whole pharmaceutical plan flim flam.  They always claim everything we hit was an orphanage or a pharmaceutical plant.  

 

The interesting part of it was the attack was ordered three days after President Clinton admitted that he had in fact misbehaved with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.  The attack managed to give FoxNews something else to talk about however.

 

Now a perhaps more relevant case: right after the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, we were told by then Secretary of State Hilliary Clinton that it was all caused by an internet video.  The SecState and even President then went on a tour to apologize for something we did not do, over which we had no control, and which had nothing to do with the attack in any case.  We now rather suspect that attack had something to do with yoga routines.  But the evidence has mysteriously gone missing on that.  Maybe.  For now.  Recall the Whitewater evidence was missing for a long time.  Until the trouble blew over.  Then it appeared.

 

A man went to prison over that video story, Sam the Swindler on parole at the time, who had been ordered as a condition of parole to not use the internet.  Clearly he had used the internet to recruit actors.  The alternative would be to place an ad in the newspaper, but by 2012, no currently-relevant actors knew what is a newspaper, and wouldn?t know where to actually get one even if they did know what it is or how to actually operate one.  So a man went to prison over a cover story, blamed for something he did not do.

 

So now we have two cases where government authority was used in a dubious manner, in a way that benefitted the person who ordered an attack or promoted a cover story.  In both cases the beneficiaries were named Clinton.  It is almost like the Clintons somehow mold public opinion by the way they wield the news media.  This is not to suggest that the current administration does things like that.  Or anything.  That Ben Rhodes with his echo-chamber gags, he is such a joker.

 

So now we are to assume that we must vote for Mrs. Clinton (who has already apparently abused power) for fear that her opponent will abuse power.  But never do we see any kind of evidence or indication that Mrs. Clinton will not fire nukes at whoever is leaking her yoga routines.

 

Both of these two are bad news.

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160515/03d8e662/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Mon May 16 01:49:45 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 21:49:45 -0400
Subject: [ExI] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNQfRcrb5K6KrTUv1J1pGJukuGTnq5RPfgV_fPg56shhiA@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>
 <CALAdGNQfRcrb5K6KrTUv1J1pGJukuGTnq5RPfgV_fPg56shhiA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFgymxH3qrHQSn4Ham1UVv+FrFR9q-zg86Uz8GqWG3-37g@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
### If this were true, claiming you sell fat-free milk or lead-free
gasoline could put you in prison. All kinds of products contain lots of
substances while being explicitly sold as being free of such substance. So
what?

So, you don't know what were the nicotine levels, do you?

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

> >
> > ### 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.
>
### You did not quote anything from the memo which would support the ban.

Give it a try, if there is something substantial you will easily find it,
it's a short memo.

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

> The lack of reliability is not an attribute of the research itself.  Stop
> blatantly lying.
>
### The BMJ says the research is not reliable. Stop accusing me of lying.

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

> > Wasn't this article the one you highlighted as being most convincing?
>
> Irrelevant.
>

### Oh, very relevant. It tells me you hastily grabbed together a few
references that vaguely go with what you think you know. You didn't read
them before posting, or else you would have noticed they are worthless. Or
did you?

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

> 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.
>
### For the addicts it is reasonably good. They do not need a +/-1%
accuracy of nicotine assay in their vapes.

I think you are just pretending that you want protect the addicts from
getting up to 25% more nicotine in their vapes.

Seriously, why do you want to have a life-saving innovation banned? Do you
want the addicts to die?

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

> 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.
>
### The FDA should not be allowed to attack vapes, whatever the pretext
they use to attack this life-saving innovation.

Here is Reason Magazine on this subject:

http://reason.com/archives/2016/05/11/the-fdas-deadly-e-cigarette-regulations
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160515/adc1f41e/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Mon May 16 01:54:05 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 21:54:05 -0400
Subject: [ExI] two genders? is that really all there are? RE: Will ems
 have two genders?
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv1AV+r5pd+6jOUJCubcY6_4YGX=ENjGKnKxrk+mvpOnZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <017901d1ae20$f5cfd540$e16f7fc0$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1AV+r5pd+6jOUJCubcY6_4YGX=ENjGKnKxrk+mvpOnZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFivfomEw59HUDbajPJS265zxJXd6RA4XjxNUtBwykNfnA@mail.gmail.com>

Yeah, I mentioned bdelloid rotifers in my post.

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 6:38 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>>
>>
> Rafal Smigrodzki
> ?
> Wrote:
>
>  >?Is there a reason to expect that ems would have a male and a female
>> gender?
>
>
> Is there a reason
> ? to expect?
> that humans or any other multi cellular animal
> ?
> would have a male and a female gender?
> ?The embarrassing answer is "not that we know of". The existence of sex is
> one of the biggest mysteries in Evolutionary Biology. And in fact there are
> a group of animals called "
> Bdelloidea
> ?" that have been around for at least 40 million years and they have no
> males, only females.
> Bdelloidea
> ? are ?
> ?multi cellular
> ? and ?big enough to be seen if you have good eyes but have no sex.
>
> Some textbooks say there are 450 different species Bdelloidea
> ?
> but that's misleading, a species is a group that can interbred but
> Bdelloidea
> ?
> engage in no breeding; so really there are 450 types of
> ?
> Bdelloidea
> ?
> that look different from each other, but "species" is a meaningless
> concept for them.
>
>  John K Clark
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>


-- 
Rafal Smigrodzki, MD-PhD
Senior Scientist,
Gencia Corporation
706 B Forest St.

Charlottesville, VA 22903

tel: (434) 295-4800

fax: (434) 295-4951



This electronic message transmission contains information from the
biotechnology firm of Gencia Corporation which may be confidential or
privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual
or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic
transmission in error, please notify us by telephone (434-295-4800) or by
electronic mail (fportell at genciabiotech.com) immediately.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160515/c81167cb/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Mon May 16 01:59:28 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 18:59:28 -0700
Subject: [ExI] polls link
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEZNzLLAKEQQ706uL4AmjdeobCpN-XGngBJMkgmdDZtYFg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEZNzLLAKEQQ706uL4AmjdeobCpN-XGngBJMkgmdDZtYFg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <013b01d1af16$9558c860$c00a5920$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace
Subject: [ExI] polls link

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/opinion/campaign-stops/how-many-people-support-trump-but-dont-want-to-admit-it.html?ref=opinion <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/opinion/campaign-stops/how-many-people-support-trump-but-dont-want-to-admit-it.html?ref=opinion&_r=0> &_r=0

 

Scary.  Look at the chart too for shameful levels of bigotry even by liberal Democrats.

bill w

 

 

 

BillW, the poll notes the numbers who support Trump but will not admit it.  I am seeing an astonishing signal in my own area: those who presumably support Trump and Hilliary will not admit it.  Such a stark contrast from all previous election years.  In previous years, we saw by the ides of March primary campaign stickers and yard signs everywhere, eeeeverywhere.  Now, I see some Feel the Berns, not all that many really.  And a mere three weeks from the primary, I have yet to see a single Hilliary or Trump sticker or yard sign, not a single one.  I am still looking, but this is really a remarkable signal.  Those who have a preference for one or the other of those two are ashamed to admit it.

 

Good.

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160515/f91180ec/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Mon May 16 02:14:22 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 19:14:22 -0700
Subject: [ExI] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFgymxH3qrHQSn4Ham1UVv+FrFR9q-zg86Uz8GqWG3-37g@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>
 <CALAdGNQfRcrb5K6KrTUv1J1pGJukuGTnq5RPfgV_fPg56shhiA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgymxH3qrHQSn4Ham1UVv+FrFR9q-zg86Uz8GqWG3-37g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNRChW5Eyk6GXDpZz36XFTX_mydFy59Hw2iRPZKVrmjk-w@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:

> Seriously, why do you want to have a life-saving innovation banned? Do you
> want the addicts to die?
>

Why do you advocate for genocide through torture?

Why did you confess to raping that whole orphanage, which distracted the
cops so the real rapist got away?

If you're going to transparently lie, such as by claiming e-cigarettes are
"life-saving" when the data says otherwise (there are more effective,
healthier, and cheaper methods of kicking cigarette addiction than
e-cigarettes), there's no point in continuing this thread.  For debate to
occur, there must be agreement on facts.  Even after I provided data
sources as you requested, you kept insisting - where convenient for you -
that these sources did not say what they plainly did.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160515/1b61d7f8/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Mon May 16 02:16:43 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 22:16:43 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Drake Equation Musings
In-Reply-To: <5738CF6F.9050407@aleph.se>
References: <CAL_armiT=A=jFACmt5zRX=+Y_jEUFYjo5dCFtk9aaME++KmDFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <57383BFE.9080200@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armhGLGQgsDqMXG+L_Zwm3vWnE63MTu4WYP5QXozWmCW+2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <5738CF6F.9050407@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFgzx0phW3D7-tO3tzZMVz_6skABBME9m95D3zR9S8_5Ug@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

>
> The fact that we do not see primitive aliens nearby nor supercivilizations
> far away serves to update our initial guesses in such a way that a past
> great filter (low probability of life, complex life, or intelligence) is
> more likely than a future great filter (low probability of communication
> ability or longevity).


### I find it fascinating that looking at the universe means an analysis
stretched in time. Anything outside of our galaxy supercluster is already
hundreds of millions of years back in time. If there is a time-dependent
process that has to finish before technogenesis, then looking outside
Laniakea might mean observing galaxies at the time when were still too
young to have star extinction bubbles, even if in fact all the stars there
were already eaten by aliens.

The only part of the universe which we see in close to real time is our
direct neighborhood, so we only need to explain absence of civs here, not
in the whole universe (of which we do not have current images). Our
supercluster has only 10e15 solar masses, which is 10e-7th part of the
visible universe (if the Wikipedia article is correct). So if the
likelihood of technogenesis at this time since the big bang is on the order
of 10e-15 per solar mass, then observing just one civ would not be
surprising.

Is the technogenesis likelihood of 10e-15 per solar mass a reasonable
estimate?

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160515/22762133/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Mon May 16 02:23:31 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 22:23:31 -0400
Subject: [ExI] polls link
In-Reply-To: <013b01d1af16$9558c860$c00a5920$@att.net>
References: <CAO+xQEZNzLLAKEQQ706uL4AmjdeobCpN-XGngBJMkgmdDZtYFg@mail.gmail.com>
 <013b01d1af16$9558c860$c00a5920$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFiDUaYaa2W-zuR3drm9RHJO8if3bbGojMnFgT1R7H3ZgA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 9:59 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:


>   Those who have a preference for one or the other of those two are
> ashamed to admit it.
>

### Well, yes, anybody who wants to vote for either one should be ashamed
of herself.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160515/dcbabc10/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Mon May 16 02:16:35 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 19:16:35 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv3cof55h0D=LKnHzE6HZXm4UhdUHdW_KEu6NA3VYc94BQ@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>
 <CAAc1gFgBwPd+wqq3PWX=4gG0zMxK9iTuSCrxtmMJRXoJoAtrig@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3cof55h0D=LKnHzE6HZXm4UhdUHdW_KEu6NA3VYc94BQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <001801d1af18$f948aaa0$ebd9ffe0$@att.net>

 

 

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



?>>? ?Not plausible. You don't get to keep and expand a business over 40 years

 

?>?If Trump ?released his tax returns we'd have some idea just how much if any those businesses have expanded, but he's ashamed to tell us?

 

How?  His tax return is about last years? income.  That won?t tell us his net worth, doesn?t tell us what he is holding that doesn?t go on tax returns such as assets that are not being sold, or hard assets such as gold holdings.  If Trump?s income is from gambling, that would be variable; we still wouldn?t know what his net worth might be.  Good chance Trump didn?t sell much of anything last year, for he was thinking about politics rather than business.  That tax return will not tell us any of that.

 

spike

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160515/fe224536/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Mon May 16 02:32:29 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 22:32:29 -0400
Subject: [ExI] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNRChW5Eyk6GXDpZz36XFTX_mydFy59Hw2iRPZKVrmjk-w@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>
 <CALAdGNQfRcrb5K6KrTUv1J1pGJukuGTnq5RPfgV_fPg56shhiA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgymxH3qrHQSn4Ham1UVv+FrFR9q-zg86Uz8GqWG3-37g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRChW5Eyk6GXDpZz36XFTX_mydFy59Hw2iRPZKVrmjk-w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFhcw83-HZTRtuTgWtJJJcj8Ke1PXLmzMexomx4QkpmnFA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Why do you advocate for genocide through torture?
>

### I love to see them squirm.
 ---------------

>
> Why did you confess to raping that whole orphanage, which distracted the
> cops so the real rapist got away?
>

### Now this one boggles my logical mind...

Please don't try to explain yourself.

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

>
> If you're going to transparently lie, such as by claiming e-cigarettes are
> "life-saving" when the data says otherwise (there are more effective,
> healthier, and cheaper methods of kicking cigarette addiction than
> e-cigarettes), there's no point in continuing this thread.  For debate to
> occur, there must be agreement on facts.  Even after I provided data
> sources as you requested, you kept insisting - where convenient for you -
> that these sources did not say what they plainly did.
>

### You provided garbage references and yes, Adrian, vapes are life-saving.
These are the facts.

Over to you.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160515/f39947d2/attachment.html>

From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Mon May 16 03:00:04 2016
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 20:00:04 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Drake Equation Musings
Message-ID: <CAPiwVB7To3vNouN=cfJjF4hJtto5q4-7xTjOBaP1QJ5pOVJ73A@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 5:40 PM,  Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

Snip

> The fact that we do not see primitive aliens nearby

Note that the jury is still out on Tabby's star.  But probably not.
It's still the most interesting star we know of.

> nor supercivilizations far away

So far at least.  If you want to travel star to star, using the stars
to power big lasers is the obvious way to go.  Such a transportation
network would be visible and obviously the work of sapients across the
entire visible universe if it were in our light cone.

I largely agree with your analysis.  But it's possible we missed
something, like a physics based reason for intelligent species to stay
in their star system or even to stick to their home planet.  I have
speculated about civilizations "collapsing" to 300 m spheres sunk in
the deep ocean.  The small size gets the latency down and the cold
water deals with the waste heat problem.

Keith


From steinberg.will at gmail.com  Mon May 16 04:14:30 2016
From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 00:14:30 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Will ems have two genders?
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFjs16FwNQoirx-feR=M-C-2WrtOr4PWed_ecBYJy9Mqzw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFgD3Q3MzkK=4wbuMFvQdX2K=9LN=T8qbLWNoQXVbCdPfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <57383A94.3050501@aleph.se>
 <CAAc1gFjs16FwNQoirx-feR=M-C-2WrtOr4PWed_ecBYJy9Mqzw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAKrqSyEQuDJuDFhQiaYs0h3Pju9b1ws4vrwmYgRWTDt7g_MstQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:

>  In the meantime I would think that the short-run scenario is going to be
> really short-run, running in internet time on yottaflop steroids.
>
>

But then you can't speak as to perception-of-time on those yottaflop
steroids.  Or perception of anything really in any uploading scenario.  And
any mind upload will still have to be faith-based, no? Unless we connect
with mechanical consciousness in a slow way where we can verify our
consciousness' transmigration is successful.  Death still hovers.

But this stuff to me is so foreign, not worth talking about--or, worth
talking about, but as a very very non-serious thought experiment.  Like
people in 3000 BC talking about the future.  And I bet they had lots of
ideas we've forgotten today, being closer to the dawn of self-consciousness
and state-of-nature and all that.  Take some LSD and wonder about this
stuff again.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160516/39a6c060/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Mon May 16 04:53:45 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 21:53:45 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv33F7zSeNf0SYUx653K_wo6nAN=oJrO9Vaj0Afr7LmJBw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACB7g26p0w-qZABLrWz1eT2R71-CFr9+N2yHnzmvjdwDkf8wtA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0R3e+xgP4dJnDwcoV014TLFu9bgwv+fmYjqq71XF7dDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACB7g241rh=hSBRCfhqgQogmcRKevMC3QS7sNh4g9ABp=4xCKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv33F7zSeNf0SYUx653K_wo6nAN=oJrO9Vaj0Afr7LmJBw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACB7g26sw9ikzwH=EbWdZXx3ewtq1OC21Q2TspkCHO+cEKB4AQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 1:24 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com>
wrote:
>>> 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.

Aside from that hypothetical, how many actual decisions of late have
required that kind of quick action? How often are they likely to occur?
What are they compared to the vast majority of decisions presidents now
make without consulting anyone yet that might plausibly be better made by
consultation? Why would they do better than Stanislav Petrov?

>> 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.

Again, aside from that, which has never yet happened, what decisions
require that decisive decision-making by a national executive?

And, further, imagine there was a need for that, why not simply limit
executive authority to only those decisions and NONE of the others? And who
would ensure that the executive never exceeds their authority? As it
stands, it seems like your fear that this decision will have to be made
trumps all else -- indeed, all limits on power.

And I'm leaving aside that if there is an ICBM attack, it's unlikely the
president can do much about it. If there's no missile shield in place -- if
one is possible -- then all a president can do is really authorize a
counter-strike, no?

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/20160515/624ee617/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Mon May 16 05:03:38 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 22:03:38 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <57358434.8050109@aleph.se>
References: <CACB7g26p0w-qZABLrWz1eT2R71-CFr9+N2yHnzmvjdwDkf8wtA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0R3e+xgP4dJnDwcoV014TLFu9bgwv+fmYjqq71XF7dDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACB7g241rh=hSBRCfhqgQogmcRKevMC3QS7sNh4g9ABp=4xCKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <57358434.8050109@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CACB7g25tyyTPWfH=kDxPZY8jRozj07ox3nbsTzyBEsEHt76+2g@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:
> On 2016-05-12 21:41, Dan TheBookMan wrote:
> "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.)
>
> You can estimate the base rate by doing a Bayesian update on a uniform
prior
> [0,1] of nuclear war probability per year, given 70 years of no war. That
gives
> you an expected 1.4% risk per year.
>
> If we accept the 2.5 increase, that means 3.5% risk per year. Over 4
years that
> is 13% risk of a nuclear war (compared to 5.4% for normal presidents).

I think that estimate is too high. Caplan's view is for a major war -- not
necessarily a nuclear war. I think we'd have to include another term to
determine what the rate of any major war turning into a nuclear one. But
let's run with it.

> (Note that if you accept the above calculation, living in the vicinity of
a primary
> target makes a health risk more significant than almost any pollutants or
> epidemic diseases.)

I think that would be the case even without the 2.5 multiplier. :/ Either
we're doomed to a nuclear war or something's wrong with our estimates or
Bayesian reasoning is wrong about this case. (Compare to Erwin S. Strauss's
views on mass nuclear proliferation from the 1970s. I don't think he used
Bayesian reasoning, but I'm reckoning if he did and were honest, the big
problem for him is mass proliferation hasn't happened by now. Of course, it
could be more complicated and might end being how personal computing took
some time to get from hobbyists to many folks having handheld devices much
more powerful than anything hobbyists were making forty years ago. And, in
between, there was a zone when the average person probably noticed no
improvement and even experts were likely starting to doubt the wild-eyed
predictions.)

> Now, what can you do about this? Panic? Build a bomb shelter? My guess is
> very little aside from get worked up."
>
> Move to Tasmania?

Bouvet might be better. :/

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/20160515/95f5bdb5/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Mon May 16 05:32:10 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 22:32:10 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
Message-ID: <CACB7g24DcS04UgCshdM=FSfA-5K6yhwMh1VDFi5S9TQuHPAT4g@mail.gmail.com>

I'd like to get back to considering what one person here believes is
unthinkable: national debt repudiation. Recall I offered that there might
be a sunny day outcome: the debt gets repudiated, lots of immediate pain
especially for large lenders who hold most of this debt, and the national
government finding it hard to borrow money for some time (and folks who
believe this to be likely and who like this outcome might think this is a
good thing).

The rainy day outcome would be what? Well, John Clark believes it would
'collapse the world economy,' presumably in a fashion that would set
everything back decades or more. I'm not sure if he means a replay of
something like the Great Depression or something far worse.

There are other scenarios that can play too. I'm curious what folks here
actually believe likely and what kind of things they'd want to avoid. By
the latter, I mean some might want to play it safe even if they think a
sunny day outcome is likely. Think of playing Russian roulette: the sunny
day outcome is very likely, but the rainy day one, while less likely, is
not nil and the cost of it is extremely high. I'm sure most folks here, me
included, wouldn't want to play actual Russian roulette.

Then there's another issue: Even should we discuss the unthinkable here,
our opinions and desires are unlikely to have much impact on whether
national debt repudiation actually happens. This is more for the folks
forecasting a rainy day scenario. What can we do if a rainy day scenario
comes about? What actions can we take? Anders brought up, for raising the
likelihood of nuclear war, moving to Tasmania. Is there a Tasmania for
something like world economic collapse?

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/20160515/b0bb67fb/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Mon May 16 06:16:17 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 02:16:17 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Will ems have two genders?
In-Reply-To: <CAKrqSyEQuDJuDFhQiaYs0h3Pju9b1ws4vrwmYgRWTDt7g_MstQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFgD3Q3MzkK=4wbuMFvQdX2K=9LN=T8qbLWNoQXVbCdPfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <57383A94.3050501@aleph.se>
 <CAAc1gFjs16FwNQoirx-feR=M-C-2WrtOr4PWed_ecBYJy9Mqzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyEQuDJuDFhQiaYs0h3Pju9b1ws4vrwmYgRWTDt7g_MstQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFgZf63SEQXRHxO9_v9cDmU8vo81_SFL_CR6Q_eZpgSMPg@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 12:14 AM, Will Steinberg <steinberg.will at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> But this stuff to me is so foreign, not worth talking about--or, worth
> talking about, but as a very very non-serious thought experiment.  Like
> people in 3000 BC talking about the future.  And I bet they had lots of
> ideas we've forgotten today, being closer to the dawn of self-consciousness
> and state-of-nature and all that.  Take some LSD and wonder about this
> stuff again.
>

### I find the ems world absolutely fascinating. I see it as the only way
for me to hitch a ride into the future after superhuman AI comes online,
which with every day that passes is closer by one day.

Ems trump even cryonics as a focus of interest, and I am signed up for
cryonics.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160516/043dfce6/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Mon May 16 09:05:27 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 11:05:27 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Will ems have two genders?
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFgZf63SEQXRHxO9_v9cDmU8vo81_SFL_CR6Q_eZpgSMPg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFgD3Q3MzkK=4wbuMFvQdX2K=9LN=T8qbLWNoQXVbCdPfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <57383A94.3050501@aleph.se>
 <CAAc1gFjs16FwNQoirx-feR=M-C-2WrtOr4PWed_ecBYJy9Mqzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyEQuDJuDFhQiaYs0h3Pju9b1ws4vrwmYgRWTDt7g_MstQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgZf63SEQXRHxO9_v9cDmU8vo81_SFL_CR6Q_eZpgSMPg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57398D57.4060604@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-16 08:16, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 12:14 AM, Will Steinberg 
> <steinberg.will at gmail.com <mailto:steinberg.will at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     But this stuff to me is so foreign, not worth talking about--or,
>     worth talking about, but as a very very non-serious thought
>     experiment.  Like people in 3000 BC talking about the future.  And
>     I bet they had lots of ideas we've forgotten today, being closer
>     to the dawn of self-consciousness and state-of-nature and all
>     that.  Take some LSD and wonder about this stuff again.
>
>
> ### I find the ems world absolutely fascinating. I see it as the only 
> way for me to hitch a ride into the future after superhuman AI comes 
> online, which with every day that passes is closer by one day.

Robin's book is a pretty fascinating take on ems, since he develops the 
social side of the scenario in deep detail. We may of course want to 
work a lot on the tech side, but he is first in trying to see what our 
knowledge in the "soft sciences" actually makes likely.

A key thing in thinking about uncertain future developments is to 
realize that a high likeliehood of being wrong is not a reason not to 
try it, in many circumstances. If your models cause you to take actions 
that are maximally reasonable then it does not matter that there is a 
lot of noise.

-- 
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/20160516/e6ce3db9/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Mon May 16 09:19:41 2016
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 10:19:41 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Will ems have two genders?
In-Reply-To: <57398D57.4060604@aleph.se>
References: <CAAc1gFgD3Q3MzkK=4wbuMFvQdX2K=9LN=T8qbLWNoQXVbCdPfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <57383A94.3050501@aleph.se>
 <CAAc1gFjs16FwNQoirx-feR=M-C-2WrtOr4PWed_ecBYJy9Mqzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyEQuDJuDFhQiaYs0h3Pju9b1ws4vrwmYgRWTDt7g_MstQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgZf63SEQXRHxO9_v9cDmU8vo81_SFL_CR6Q_eZpgSMPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <57398D57.4060604@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAL_armgAE=0WC-W2i6kX8W=JVGU4W9wjyYw8QYqDusWT3i7=Mg@mail.gmail.com>

On 16 May 2016 at 10:05, Anders Sandberg  wrote:
> Robin's book is a pretty fascinating take on ems, since he develops the
> social side of the scenario in deep detail. We may of course want to work a
> lot on the tech side, but he is first in trying to see what our knowledge in
> the "soft sciences" actually makes likely.
>
> A key thing in thinking about uncertain future developments is to realize
> that a high likeliehood of being wrong is not a reason not to try it, in
> many circumstances. If your models cause you to take actions that are
> maximally reasonable then it does not matter that there is a lot of noise.
>


As a small factoid, did you know that UK Facebook has 71 gender options?
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10930654/Facebooks-71-gender-options-come-to-UK-users.html>

Another reason not to be on Facebook - It would take too much time to
decide which options to tick.  ;)


BillK


From rhanson at gmu.edu  Mon May 16 09:04:26 2016
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin D Hanson)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 09:04:26 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Will ems have two genders?
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFjs16FwNQoirx-feR=M-C-2WrtOr4PWed_ecBYJy9Mqzw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFgD3Q3MzkK=4wbuMFvQdX2K=9LN=T8qbLWNoQXVbCdPfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <57383A94.3050501@aleph.se>
 <CAAc1gFjs16FwNQoirx-feR=M-C-2WrtOr4PWed_ecBYJy9Mqzw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <380D6FCB-6024-44DD-BA0A-4F3F2B1E9137@gmu.edu>

On May 15, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com<mailto:rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>> wrote:
On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 5:00 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se<mailto:anders at aleph.se>> wrote:
On 2016-05-14 04:04, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
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.

But ems start as scans of biological brains and retain the memories, personalities and identity constructs of the bio-original. Since most people strongly identify with one gender or the other, they are likely to keep doing that as ems.

I think furries, transgender people and experimentation online with alternative personas demonstrate that there is more fluidity than many people think, but they are hardly evidence that ems will lose gender identity. In the longer run, when people start mind editing, yes, but not in the short-run scenario in Robin's book.

### I have to read it, once it comes out on Kindle. In the meantime I would think that the short-run scenario is going to be really short-run, running in internet time on yottaflop steroids.

Age of Em is available for pre-order on Kindle. I estimate that the entire Age of Em may only take a year or two, But during that time the economy would grow by an enormous factor, and at typical em subjective speeds a millennia or two would pass. Anders is right that I guess genders stay relevant over that time, because it remains hard to modify the complex spaghetti legacy code that is the brain.

Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu<mailto:rhanson at gmu.edu>
Future of Humanity Inst., Oxford University
Assoc. Prof. Economics, George Mason University
See my new book: http://ageofem.com









-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160516/0e49228e/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Mon May 16 10:10:20 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 12:10:20 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Nuclear probabilities (Was:] Repudiating the national debt)
In-Reply-To: <CACB7g25tyyTPWfH=kDxPZY8jRozj07ox3nbsTzyBEsEHt76+2g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACB7g26p0w-qZABLrWz1eT2R71-CFr9+N2yHnzmvjdwDkf8wtA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0R3e+xgP4dJnDwcoV014TLFu9bgwv+fmYjqq71XF7dDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACB7g241rh=hSBRCfhqgQogmcRKevMC3QS7sNh4g9ABp=4xCKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <57358434.8050109@aleph.se>
 <CACB7g25tyyTPWfH=kDxPZY8jRozj07ox3nbsTzyBEsEHt76+2g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57399C8C.8060907@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-16 07:03, Dan TheBookMan wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se 
> <mailto:anders at aleph.se>> wrote:
> > On 2016-05-12 21:41, Dan TheBookMan wrote:
> > "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.)
> >
> > You can estimate the base rate by doing a Bayesian update on a 
> uniform prior
> > [0,1] of nuclear war probability per year, given 70 years of no war. 
> That gives
> > you an expected 1.4% risk per year.
> >
> > If we accept the 2.5 increase, that means 3.5% risk per year. Over 4 
> years that
> > is 13% risk of a nuclear war (compared to 5.4% for normal presidents).
>
> I think that estimate is too high. Caplan's view is for a major war -- 
> not necessarily a nuclear war. I think we'd have to include another 
> term to determine what the rate of any major war turning into a 
> nuclear one. But let's run with it.

One can use Martin Hellman's Markov chain model: you have states of 
[peace], [international crisis], [major conflict] and [nuclear war], and 
transition probabilities between them.
https://www-ee.stanford.edu/~hellman/publications/75.pdf

How many years of international conflict have we had? If we use the 20th 
century and make it all UScentric we had at least two conflicts (WW I 
and WW II), lasting in total 9 years and with a transition risk to peace 
of about 0.2 per year. One might add the Korean War, where nuclear 
attacks were considered. I think assuming a 1/4 risk of nuclear attack 
in a direct power conflict is not crazy given WW II, but lets say 1/5.

Not certain how many years should be regarded as international crisis 
years. Looking at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_crisis
suggests that the US was involved in the Berlin Blockade, the Cuban 
Missile Crisis, the Pueblo Incident, the 1973 Chilean coup, Ace murder 
incident, the Iran hostage crisis, and Able Archer. These, plus the two 
major wars, suggests a probability of about 0.09 per year of a crisis 
happening, and then about 0.2 risk of war. We had at least 2-3 crisis 
situations that nearly caused nuclear war, so that transition arrow from 
crisis to war is about 0.02 or 0.03. We also had two cases of internaiton

peace -> crisis 0.09
peace -> peace 0.91
crisis -> conflict 0.2
crisis -> nuclear 0.02
crisis -> peace 0.78
conflict -> nuclear 0.2
conflict -> peace 0.2
conflict -> conflict 0.6

The transition matrix becomes:

[0.91   0.09   0      0

  0.78   0      0.2    0.02

  0.2    0      0.6    0.2

  1      0      0      0]


Note the debatable model that peace occurs after nuclear wars (the last 
line is [1 0 0 0]). In any case, the model predicts the following 
distribution: peace 87% of the years, crisis 7.8%, war 3.9% and nuclear 
war 0.93%.

One can also make nuclear wars a final state, [0 0 0 1]. I have a paper 
(in writing limbo, unfortunately) on the correction factors due to 
anthropic selection - if there are no survivors, then you cannot ever 
observe a nuclear war in your past, so the transition probabilities 
would be biased in a nontrivial way. It can be corrected, and then 
near-misses like the Petrov incident give some information. Right now 
the conclusions look rather reassuring, but that might simply be because 
nuclear disasters are somewhat survivable (if they just kill half of the 
observers you get a 2/3 bias).

If one buys the xrisk model instead, the time spent in peace in this 
post's model is 88%, crisis 7.9%, and war 3.9% - in this particular case 
there is actually very little change.

This model also supports the conclusion that the nuclear war risk per 
year is on the order of a percent.

Clearly real-world data gives us reasons to update the current level of 
concern in different ways, but this represents a large scale "outside 
view" of a century. Obviously one can tinker with the model and 
especially the transition probabilities endlessly. But I think the 
results will not be astronomically different.


>
> > Now, what can you do about this? Panic? Build a bomb shelter? My 
> guess is
> > very little aside from get worked up."
> >
> > Move to Tasmania?
>
> Bouvet might be better. :/

4 days of sunshine per year? I will take Tasmania any time. Even Kerguelen.

(My dad had a minor obsession with the island, and there is actually a 
map of it hanging in my room. Mostly ice, with the volcanic beaches 
inhabited by penguins and seals. Not the most hospitable place. )


-- 
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/20160516/44848f97/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Mon May 16 11:51:22 2016
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 12:51:22 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Drake Equation Musings
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFgzx0phW3D7-tO3tzZMVz_6skABBME9m95D3zR9S8_5Ug@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armiT=A=jFACmt5zRX=+Y_jEUFYjo5dCFtk9aaME++KmDFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <57383BFE.9080200@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armhGLGQgsDqMXG+L_Zwm3vWnE63MTu4WYP5QXozWmCW+2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <5738CF6F.9050407@aleph.se>
 <CAAc1gFgzx0phW3D7-tO3tzZMVz_6skABBME9m95D3zR9S8_5Ug@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAL_armhBkyVWye2YsREPBVi=XsQG6UTqHrg4FHg4z=MP1hVFnQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 16 May 2016 at 03:16, Rafal Smigrodzki  wrote:
> ### I find it fascinating that looking at the universe means an analysis
> stretched in time. Anything outside of our galaxy supercluster is already
> hundreds of millions of years back in time. If there is a time-dependent
> process that has to finish before technogenesis, then looking outside
> Laniakea might mean observing galaxies at the time when were still too young
> to have star extinction bubbles, even if in fact all the stars there were
> already eaten by aliens.
>
> The only part of the universe which we see in close to real time is our
> direct neighborhood, so we only need to explain absence of civs here, not in
> the whole universe (of which we do not have current images). Our
> supercluster has only 10e15 solar masses, which is 10e-7th part of the
> visible universe (if the Wikipedia article is correct). So if the likelihood
> of technogenesis at this time since the big bang is on the order of 10e-15
> per solar mass, then observing just one civ would not be surprising.
>
> Is the technogenesis likelihood of 10e-15 per solar mass a reasonable
> estimate?
>


Looking at the galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field is indeed seeing
those galaxies as they were 13 billion years ago, as young galaxies,
so signs of technology would not be expected.

But our Milky Way galaxy is also about 13 billion years old and it
hasn't been colonised by an expanding civilisation.
The Milky Way is only about 150,000 light years across and contains
about 400 billion stars (though that may be up to 1000 billion stars).
Life on earth started very soon after the formation of the Earth,
around 4 billion years ago.

Our Laniakea Supercluster has about 100,000 galaxies stretching over
only 520 million light-years.
So there are plenty of galaxies within a few million light years,
(millions - not billions) with no signs of technical civilisation
activity.


BillK


From anders at aleph.se  Mon May 16 12:48:52 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 14:48:52 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Nuclear probabilities (Was:] Repudiating the national
	debt)
In-Reply-To: <57399C8C.8060907@aleph.se>
References: <CACB7g26p0w-qZABLrWz1eT2R71-CFr9+N2yHnzmvjdwDkf8wtA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0R3e+xgP4dJnDwcoV014TLFu9bgwv+fmYjqq71XF7dDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACB7g241rh=hSBRCfhqgQogmcRKevMC3QS7sNh4g9ABp=4xCKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <57358434.8050109@aleph.se>
 <CACB7g25tyyTPWfH=kDxPZY8jRozj07ox3nbsTzyBEsEHt76+2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <57399C8C.8060907@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <5739C1B4.5030504@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-16 12:10, Anders Sandberg wrote:
>
> If one buys the xrisk model instead, the time spent in peace in this 
> post's model is 88%, crisis 7.9%, and war 3.9% - in this particular 
> case there is actually very little change.

Oops, a tiny error due to using the wrong code: the right numbers should 
be roughly peace 87.6%, crisis 7.99% and war 4.39%.

While the average time to nuclear war is 97.5 years; this corresponds to 
a yearly risk to 1.03% if you fit an exponential distribution to it (a 
fairly decent fit except for the initial few years).


-- 
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/20160516/89c1e041/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Mon May 16 14:59:13 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 07:59:13 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Security clearances
In-Reply-To: <01cd01d1aec5$5b473a40$11d5aec0$@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>
 <5736E56E.7010303@aleph.se>
 <019201d1ae24$6d851930$488f4b90$@att.net>
 <5737B6D5.7060103@aleph.se>
 <01cd01d1aec5$5b473a40$11d5aec0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNR7BtNkW1UNvVs7i3bVn8d68Bt7ywRS4Sp093jL4Va-pQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 9:18 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> Suppose? someone figured out a way to crash the internet and shut down
> much or most electronic communications for just a day or two, even just a
> few hours.  Now suppose someone or someones realized the perfect time to
> pull this gag: on USA election day 2016.  What if there is suddenly no
> news, no email, no internet, nada nada nada.  The phones all still work,
> but what good are they?  Who are you going to call?
>
Internetbusters!  (Sorry, too easy.)


> We are all dependent on electronic communications.  If that whole system
> somehow crashes on USA election day, we will not know what happened that
> day and will not accept the outcome after the fact, even if anyone can tell
> us what that outcome was.  We will have no way of verifying it.
>

This is already the case in many areas without supposing an Internet
outage.  Even if everything went as normal and Trump lost, he could simply
throw out allegations of rigged voting and a large number of people would
believe him...and given his words to date, many would conclude he would
like a riot - perhaps armed insurrection, but certainly not accepting as
legitimate a victory by anyone other than Trump - in that case.

That's part of the problem: a large number of people concluding "Trump
didn't win, therefore I have the right to not pay taxes, maybe disregard
any and all other laws as I see fit, and shoot any cops who try to convince
me otherwise".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160516/bfeab6a5/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Mon May 16 15:59:02 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 08:59:02 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Nuclear probabilities (Was:] Repudiating the
	national	debt)
In-Reply-To: <5739C1B4.5030504@aleph.se>
References: <CACB7g26p0w-qZABLrWz1eT2R71-CFr9+N2yHnzmvjdwDkf8wtA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0R3e+xgP4dJnDwcoV014TLFu9bgwv+fmYjqq71XF7dDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACB7g241rh=hSBRCfhqgQogmcRKevMC3QS7sNh4g9ABp=4xCKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <57358434.8050109@aleph.se>
 <CACB7g25tyyTPWfH=kDxPZY8jRozj07ox3nbsTzyBEsEHt76+2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <57399C8C.8060907@aleph.se> <5739C1B4.5030504@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <00ce01d1af8b$de3fe7a0$9abfb6e0$@att.net>

 

 

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





>.While the average time to nuclear war is 97.5 years; this corresponds to a
yearly risk to 1.03% if you fit an exponential distribution to it (a fairly
decent fit except for the initial few years). --  Anders Sandberg

 
 
Anders, this is an interesting number because of a popular educational video
I saw in the late 1970s.  The fictional US president was being briefed on
the work of his military mathematicians who had determined that the
probability of a nuclear war that calendar year was about 1%, with the risk
of war in each subsequent year declining by a factor of about 0.9
 
So in a mere seven years, by the end of that president's term, the risk of
nuclear war would be about half a percent in that year.
 
The new president was delighted with that news (this was the 1970s when the
cold war was threatening to hot at any time.)  As the mathematicians were
packing up to leave, he asked: oh by the way professor, using your model,
what are the chances of nuclear war eventually?  Answer:  100%.
 
spike
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160516/6cb3674d/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Mon May 16 16:19:41 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 12:19:41 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Sanders, Clinton and Trump
Message-ID: <CAJPayv29hVUEPhaeaHYGm9_MuGJ-ptixka-UdopVzvBZrP8pPg@mail.gmail.com>

To my mind the worst thing Hillary Clinton ever did wasn't Benghazi
? ?
and it certainly wasn't the silly Email business, it was voting in favor of
the Iraq War in 2002 when she was a Senator. That was stupid but in her
defence it was stupid within normal parameters, and although it pains me to
admit it if I were in her place in 2002 I would have made the same mistake.
But with Donald Trump we have an entirely new sort of stupid. No American
President has ever encouraged any country to develop nuclear weapons not
even Briton, but Trump wants
??
to encourage at least 5
? countries?
, INCLUDING SAUDI ARABIA
?. Trump says that "very very soon" after he becomes president he will
destroy ISIS, the only hint he gives on how he intends to do this is he
won't rule out using nuclear weapons against them, nor rule out using them
in Europe because "Europe is a big place". Is this just bluster, is Trump
just making noises with his mouth? I don't know, maybe it's just hot air, I
hope so, but I don't want to stake my life on it. One flaw Trump doesn't
have is lack of confidence, I think he sincerely believes he has the
solutions to all the world's problems and all the solutions are simple
quick direct and audacious. Believing you're the smartest man in the world
is a bad thing if you're really as dumb as a sack of rocks, and it's even
worse if you're a world leader. The historic figures that remind me the
most of Trump are
Kaiser William II
? of Germany and ?
Mussolini
? in Italy, both were absolutely convinced they were brilliant. They
weren't.  ?

As for Bernie Sanders, he doesn't want to build a stupid wall but he does
have a terrible anti free trade policy
?,?
?however ?
Trump has an almost identical and equally bad
? ?
anti free trade policy
? ?
so that cancels out.
? ?
But unlike Hillary Clinton
? ?
(and unlike me) Sanders was smart
? ?
enough
? ?
not to believe Bush when he said he had rock solid evidence that a madman,
Saddam Hussein, was
?just ?
months or even weeks
?away ?
from mass producing nuclear bombs. Sanders voted against the Iraq war in
2002
?,?
so if the election was between Trump and Sanders my decision would be easy,
I'd vote for Sanders. I think I could trust
? ?
Sanders with the nuclear launch codes, or at least as much as I can trust
anyone
? with that much power?
, but the thought of Trump getting his grubby little hands on
?those codes?
 gives me nightmares.

? John K Clark?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160516/f78b399c/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Mon May 16 16:34:21 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 12:34:21 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Drake Equation Musings
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFgzx0phW3D7-tO3tzZMVz_6skABBME9m95D3zR9S8_5Ug@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armiT=A=jFACmt5zRX=+Y_jEUFYjo5dCFtk9aaME++KmDFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <57383BFE.9080200@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armhGLGQgsDqMXG+L_Zwm3vWnE63MTu4WYP5QXozWmCW+2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <5738CF6F.9050407@aleph.se>
 <CAAc1gFgzx0phW3D7-tO3tzZMVz_6skABBME9m95D3zR9S8_5Ug@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv1TWhsCjCxsgCnmjBjEVG8vqM-zk94bWAA1Ro4izW5twA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 15, 2016  Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:

?> ?
> Our supercluster has only 10e15 solar masses, which is 10e-7th part of the
> visible universe


?It takes time for stars to brew up some of the elements needed for life
like carbon, oxygen and nitrogen and of course it takes time for
intelligent life to evolve, the universe is 13.8 billion years old so I can
understand why we don't see evidence of engineered galaxies more distant
than 7 or 8 billion light years away, but why are things so quiet closer
than that? It seems to me there are only 2 possibilities:

1) It's extremely hard and freakishly rare for Evolution to come up with
intelligent beings.

2) Technological civilizations always make somebody like Donald Trump their
leader just as they approach the singularity.

Incidentally, due to the acceleration of the universe as time goes by our
observable universe will get bigger but it will have fewer stars in it.
Only the Andromeda galaxy and a small handful of nearby dwarf galaxies
are approaching our galaxy, eventually they will merge into one
big elliptical galaxy and everything else will have receded beyond our
event horizon . If there are any astronomers around then things will be as
astronomers thought things were in the early 20th century, the universe
will consist of our galaxy and nothing else.

  John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160516/2d38b17c/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Mon May 16 17:12:12 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 12:12:12 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv29hVUEPhaeaHYGm9_MuGJ-ptixka-UdopVzvBZrP8pPg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv29hVUEPhaeaHYGm9_MuGJ-ptixka-UdopVzvBZrP8pPg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEY-magA4qLA5J+kd3mQQgNf1xK4Bn6f3zbAVoeyU9Vc3g@mail.gmail.com>

One flaw Trump doesn't have is lack of confidence, I think he sincerely
believes he has the solutions to all the world's problems and all the
solutions are simple quick direct and audacious.  john

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 11:19 AM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> To my mind the worst thing Hillary Clinton ever did wasn't Benghazi
> ? ?
> and it certainly wasn't the silly Email business, it was voting in favor
> of the Iraq War in 2002 when she was a Senator. That was stupid but in her
> defence it was stupid within normal parameters, and although it pains me to
> admit it if I were in her place in 2002 I would have made the same mistake.
> But with Donald Trump we have an entirely new sort of stupid. No American
> President has ever encouraged any country to develop nuclear weapons not
> even Briton, but Trump wants
> ??
> to encourage at least 5
> ? countries?
> , INCLUDING SAUDI ARABIA
> ?. Trump says that "very very soon" after he becomes president he will
> destroy ISIS, the only hint he gives on how he intends to do this is he
> won't rule out using nuclear weapons against them, nor rule out using them
> in Europe because "Europe is a big place". Is this just bluster, is Trump
> just making noises with his mouth? I don't know, maybe it's just hot air, I
> hope so, but I don't want to stake my life on it. One flaw Trump doesn't
> have is lack of confidence, I think he sincerely believes he has the
> solutions to all the world's problems and all the solutions are simple
> quick direct and audacious. Believing you're the smartest man in the world
> is a bad thing if you're really as dumb as a sack of rocks, and it's even
> worse if you're a world leader. The historic figures that remind me the
> most of Trump are
> Kaiser William II
> ? of Germany and ?
> Mussolini
> ? in Italy, both were absolutely convinced they were brilliant. They
> weren't.  ?
>
> As for Bernie Sanders, he doesn't want to build a stupid wall but he does
> have a terrible anti free trade policy
> ?,?
> ?however ?
> Trump has an almost identical and equally bad
> ? ?
> anti free trade policy
> ? ?
> so that cancels out.
> ? ?
> But unlike Hillary Clinton
> ? ?
> (and unlike me) Sanders was smart
> ? ?
> enough
> ? ?
> not to believe Bush when he said he had rock solid evidence that a madman,
> Saddam Hussein, was
> ?just ?
> months or even weeks
> ?away ?
> from mass producing nuclear bombs. Sanders voted against the Iraq war in
> 2002
> ?,?
> so if the election was between Trump and Sanders my decision would be
> easy, I'd vote for Sanders. I think I could trust
> ? ?
> Sanders with the nuclear launch codes, or at least as much as I can trust
> anyone
> ? with that much power?
> , but the thought of Trump getting his grubby little hands on
> ?those codes?
>  gives me nightmares.
>
> ? 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/20160516/77327117/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Mon May 16 17:19:03 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 12:19:03 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEY-magA4qLA5J+kd3mQQgNf1xK4Bn6f3zbAVoeyU9Vc3g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv29hVUEPhaeaHYGm9_MuGJ-ptixka-UdopVzvBZrP8pPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY-magA4qLA5J+kd3mQQgNf1xK4Bn6f3zbAVoeyU9Vc3g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEbVf2-bqAdyRoNN8xuXgjHj-E1PFzJVXvFKC14DgZANdQ@mail.gmail.com>

sorry

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 12:12 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com
> wrote:

> One flaw Trump doesn't have is lack of confidence, I think he sincerely
> believes he has the solutions to all the world's problems and all the
> solutions are simple quick direct and audacious.  john
>
> ?I think we don't know what he believes.  If he is a demagogue, as I
think, he is just appealing to, to put it mildly, rather unintelligent and
uninformed voters, who do think solutions are simple.  He is on a roll -
his attacks and mad schemes are winning.  I don't think Trump is as
simple-minded as John's second sentence above states.  But we just don't
know and hope we will never find out.  How successful he is as a business
man is debatable, but he has to be somewhat above average to do what he has
done (and yes, he has gone bankrupt four times, but that may be fairly
common in his highly speculative world).

bill w?


> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 11:19 AM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> To my mind the worst thing Hillary Clinton ever did wasn't Benghazi
>> ? ?
>> and it certainly wasn't the silly Email business, it was voting in favor
>> of the Iraq War in 2002 when she was a Senator. That was stupid but in her
>> defence it was stupid within normal parameters, and although it pains me to
>> admit it if I were in her place in 2002 I would have made the same mistake.
>> But with Donald Trump we have an entirely new sort of stupid. No American
>> President has ever encouraged any country to develop nuclear weapons not
>> even Briton, but Trump wants
>> ??
>> to encourage at least 5
>> ? countries?
>> , INCLUDING SAUDI ARABIA
>> ?. Trump says that "very very soon" after he becomes president he will
>> destroy ISIS, the only hint he gives on how he intends to do this is he
>> won't rule out using nuclear weapons against them, nor rule out using them
>> in Europe because "Europe is a big place". Is this just bluster, is Trump
>> just making noises with his mouth? I don't know, maybe it's just hot air, I
>> hope so, but I don't want to stake my life on it. One flaw Trump doesn't
>> have is lack of confidence, I think he sincerely believes he has the
>> solutions to all the world's problems and all the solutions are simple
>> quick direct and audacious. Believing you're the smartest man in the world
>> is a bad thing if you're really as dumb as a sack of rocks, and it's even
>> worse if you're a world leader. The historic figures that remind me the
>> most of Trump are
>> Kaiser William II
>> ? of Germany and ?
>> Mussolini
>> ? in Italy, both were absolutely convinced they were brilliant. They
>> weren't.  ?
>>
>> As for Bernie Sanders, he doesn't want to build a stupid wall but he does
>> have a terrible anti free trade policy
>> ?,?
>> ?however ?
>> Trump has an almost identical and equally bad
>> ? ?
>> anti free trade policy
>> ? ?
>> so that cancels out.
>> ? ?
>> But unlike Hillary Clinton
>> ? ?
>> (and unlike me) Sanders was smart
>> ? ?
>> enough
>> ? ?
>> not to believe Bush when he said he had rock solid evidence that a
>> madman, Saddam Hussein, was
>> ?just ?
>> months or even weeks
>> ?away ?
>> from mass producing nuclear bombs. Sanders voted against the Iraq war in
>> 2002
>> ?,?
>> so if the election was between Trump and Sanders my decision would be
>> easy, I'd vote for Sanders. I think I could trust
>> ? ?
>> Sanders with the nuclear launch codes, or at least as much as I can trust
>> anyone
>> ? with that much power?
>> , but the thought of Trump getting his grubby little hands on
>> ?those codes?
>>  gives me nightmares.
>>
>> ? 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/20160516/75b039df/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Mon May 16 17:21:44 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 13:21:44 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <001801d1af18$f948aaa0$ebd9ffe0$@att.net>
References: <CE3D4CA8-795B-428A-972B-D366FEA22020@gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3JSRkOCAz+au4pf7F8g=4beFdnyc+=t14GKCHUyVTmBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <308CCF17-DAFD-4D2E-A8E6-C9B813A4906E@gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv1E5jic-j6EatULgpQCT9PwidUm-axDLtN5GHa2ciVeiw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFht2fVPtWmAgu+htvWTg0E2Vq3=Y_S+gR=HFFYXN7PCTw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0Nr9aGDYbGFhH9hF28T97dN1jq1FU+mnBwm_LGXdq4aw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgBwPd+wqq3PWX=4gG0zMxK9iTuSCrxtmMJRXoJoAtrig@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3cof55h0D=LKnHzE6HZXm4UhdUHdW_KEu6NA3VYc94BQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <001801d1af18$f948aaa0$ebd9ffe0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv2PcvPbm6s-AXwdL5sW7dB-KFJ9SrFWXGRUWtphdJS-pA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 10:16 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
?

>
> ?> ?
> His tax return is about last years? income.  That won?t tell us his net
> worth, doesn?t tell us what he is holding that doesn?t go on tax returns
> such as assets that are not being sold, or hard assets such as gold
> holdings.
>
>
?If Trump had invested in Gold back in 1977 then today it would only be
worth about twice as much,

?NOT ACCOUNTING FOR? INFLATION; and if Truthful Trump had let the American
people that he wants to lead see all his tax information going back as far
as 1977, AS CROOKED  HILLARY DID, then we'd know just how brilliant a
businessman Donald Trump really is.


> ?> ?
> Good chance Trump didn?t sell much of anything last year, for he was
> thinking about politics rather than business.  That tax return will not
> tell us any of that.
>
>
?Well obviously it would tell us something he's ashamed of, otherwise he'd
not only tell us he'd brag about it. You know Trump, if it said he made
gobs of money he'd be eager to show us.?


? John K Clark?



>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160516/0beea9e6/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Mon May 16 17:27:05 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 12:27:05 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Prometheus and LFS
In-Reply-To: <57376C9C.2060904@mydruthers.com>
References: <57376C9C.2060904@mydruthers.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEYZg3ZM_CUDa+LwZ74+gvjz7n==y-r4SYfCwPEjbwO0ag@mail.gmail.com>

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,
visithttp://lfs.org/join.shtml and join to support our work.  chris

I don't know what flavor of libertarian I am.  Liberal libertarian is an
odd mix.  As far as I can tell, the only benefit of membership is to able
to vote.  Is that correct?  I am supporting the award and nothing else?
(When I was about your age I had an afro too.  Wake up in the morning,
scratch your head and that's all the grooming you need.)

bill w

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Chris Hibbert <hibbert at mydruthers.com>
wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160516/c2b547d9/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Mon May 16 17:42:37 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 10:42:37 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv2PcvPbm6s-AXwdL5sW7dB-KFJ9SrFWXGRUWtphdJS-pA@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>
 <CAAc1gFgBwPd+wqq3PWX=4gG0zMxK9iTuSCrxtmMJRXoJoAtrig@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3cof55h0D=LKnHzE6HZXm4UhdUHdW_KEu6NA3VYc94BQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <001801d1af18$f948aaa0$ebd9ffe0$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv2PcvPbm6s-AXwdL5sW7dB-KFJ9SrFWXGRUWtphdJS-pA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00b901d1af9a$56adcc30$04096490$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 10:22 AM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt

 

 

 

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 10:16 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net> > wrote:
?

 

?> ?>His tax return is about last years? income.  That won?t tell us his net worth, doesn?t tell us what he is holding that doesn?t go on tax returns such as assets that are not being sold, or hard assets such as gold holdings. 

 

?>?If Trump had invested in Gold back in 1977 then today it would only be worth about twice as much?

 

Indeed?  What if he invested in gold in 1977, then sold it in 1979, then bought in 2004 and sold in 2007?  And now has bought a pile again.  If he is currently holding gold, we still wouldn?t know his net worth.  It goes on a tax return if you sell an asset at a huge profit, but what if you buy something that doesn?t generate dividends?  You don?t want anyone knowing, especially government, you hold that stuff.

 

>?NOT ACCOUNTING FOR? INFLATION; and if Truthful Trump had let the American people that he wants to lead see all his tax information going back as far as 1977, AS CROOKED  HILLARY DID, then we'd know just how brilliant a businessman Donald Trump really is?

 

Ah, so now Hillary has released the financial dealings of the Clinton Family ?Charitable? foundation?  Has explained where all that money came from, who donated it and what they now expect in return?  Oh wait, that doesn?t go on a tax return, being all about ?charity? and such, giving away money to starving children and yoga and that sorta thing.  

 

Or not.  We know what that flim flammy family charity thing was about: it allowed the Clintons to control information, hide it from the IRS, hide it from the State Department, and most importantly, hide it from the voters.  We don?t know who the Clintons owe for all those charitable contributions.

 

spike

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160516/8c836815/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Mon May 16 18:09:36 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 13:09:36 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <00b901d1af9a$56adcc30$04096490$@att.net>
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>
 <CAAc1gFgBwPd+wqq3PWX=4gG0zMxK9iTuSCrxtmMJRXoJoAtrig@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3cof55h0D=LKnHzE6HZXm4UhdUHdW_KEu6NA3VYc94BQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <001801d1af18$f948aaa0$ebd9ffe0$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv2PcvPbm6s-AXwdL5sW7dB-KFJ9SrFWXGRUWtphdJS-pA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00b901d1af9a$56adcc30$04096490$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZHJ1my+Goex=7KuDns0gCYxZuPZ2ahtnpxdW5aPL=cnQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 12:42 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 16, 2016 10:22 AM
> *To:* ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 10:16 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> ?
>
>
>
> ?> ?>His tax return is about last years? income.  That won?t tell us his
> net worth, doesn?t tell us what he is holding that doesn?t go on tax
> returns such as assets that are not being sold, or hard assets such as gold
> holdings.
>
>
>
> ?>?If Trump had invested in Gold back in 1977 then today it would only be
> worth about twice as much?
>
>
>
> Indeed?  What if he invested in gold in 1977, then sold it in 1979, then
> bought in 2004 and sold in 2007?  And now has bought a pile again.  If he
> is currently holding gold, we still wouldn?t know his net worth.  It goes
> on a tax return if you sell an asset at a huge profit, but what if you buy
> something that doesn?t generate dividends?  You don?t want anyone knowing,
> especially government, you hold that stuff.
>
>
>
> >?NOT ACCOUNTING FOR? INFLATION; and if Truthful Trump had let the
> American people that he wants to lead see all his tax information going
> back as far as 1977, AS CROOKED  HILLARY DID, then we'd know just how
> brilliant a businessman Donald Trump really is?
>
>
>
> Ah, so now Hillary has released the financial dealings of the Clinton
> Family ?Charitable? foundation?  Has explained where all that money came
> from, who donated it and what they now expect in return?  Oh wait, that
> doesn?t go on a tax return, being all about ?charity? and such, giving away
> money to starving children and yoga and that sorta thing.
>
>
>
> Or not.  We know what that flim flammy family charity thing was about: it
> allowed the Clintons to control information, hide it from the IRS, hide it
> from the State Department, and most importantly, hide it from the voters.
> We don?t know who the Clintons owe for all those charitable contributions.
>
>
>
> spike
>
>
> ?I remember reading that Saudi ARabia made a very large contribution to
> it.?
>
>
> ?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/20160516/79591355/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Mon May 16 18:22:18 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 13:22:18 -0500
Subject: [ExI] the disconnect
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEY9CFWMiZEctiA7PiEoJ8JfbY+0GM2Jh9-K-c9cr4MOcw@mail.gmail.com>

We are far ahead of China and Japan - our economy is larger than theirs
combined.  Poverty, according to the World Bank, is around 10% worldwide as
opposed to 37% in 1990.  We lead the world in engineering and science and
business innovation.  Even the arts (if you can stand to call what's on TV
'art'.)

Pollution, discrimination, crime and most diseases are in a steady decline.

There's a lot more.  See link below.

So why are our politicians telling everyone that we are going to hell?
Because people just aren't getting the good messages (they don't sell
magazines and papers and TV time, apparently) and because fear is much
stronger than optimism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/opinion/sunday/when-did-optimism-become-uncool.html?_r=0

It's hard, reading all of that, not to believe that we are in the best
times the USA and the world, has even seen.

bill w
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160516/26d8c479/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Mon May 16 18:33:12 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 11:33:12 -0700
Subject: [ExI] the disconnect
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEY9CFWMiZEctiA7PiEoJ8JfbY+0GM2Jh9-K-c9cr4MOcw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEY9CFWMiZEctiA7PiEoJ8JfbY+0GM2Jh9-K-c9cr4MOcw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B6E23C73-20A6-4C39-9498-36697ACBDA0D@gmail.com>

On May 16, 2016, at 11:22 AM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
> We are far ahead of China and Japan - our economy is larger than theirs combined.  Poverty, according to the World Bank, is around 10% worldwide as opposed to 37% in 1990.  We lead the world in engineering and science and business innovation.  Even the arts (if you can stand to call what's on TV 'art'.)
> 
> Pollution, discrimination, crime and most diseases are in a steady decline.
> 
> There's a lot more.  See link below.
> 
> So why are our politicians telling everyone that we are going to hell?  Because people just aren't getting the good messages (they don't sell magazines and papers and TV time, apparently) and because fear is much stronger than optimism.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/opinion/sunday/when-did-optimism-become-uncool.html?_r=0
> 
> It's hard, reading all of that, not to believe that we are in the best times the USA and the world, has even seen.

Because pessimistic bias is pervasive (see Bryan Caplan on this). And also, especially for politicians, you don't get elected to fix critical problems if there are no severe critical to fix. So there's a perverse incentive for them to sell the view that the world is on the edge of an abyss.

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/20160516/58f8b962/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Mon May 16 21:00:02 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 14:00:02 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Prometheus and LFS
Message-ID: <CACB7g27i35gwOQLJmzhiE1C3PLar0_piVcyW1cn0n=YD0ncrkg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Chris Hibbert <hibbert at mydruthers.com>
wrote:
> 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.

Congrats!

> I would say that the reason to join isn't primarily for the newsletter
(Hardly a magazine;
> it's 8 pages,

Yes, I actually have a few issues packed away somewhere. They've taken the
tour so to speak. :)

> 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.

Speaking of, has anyone read the Saurez or Hoyt novels listed for recent
years?

> 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.

I'll pass that along.

By the way, my attempts at SF -- see below -- are free today -- the ones on
Kindle. :)

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/20160516/acff5614/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Mon May 16 21:05:06 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 17:05:06 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CACB7g24DcS04UgCshdM=FSfA-5K6yhwMh1VDFi5S9TQuHPAT4g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACB7g24DcS04UgCshdM=FSfA-5K6yhwMh1VDFi5S9TQuHPAT4g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv0wHf65Cx9b0Q5f-5sk890sk0N8Gj_9o+r8KHHr66d=Gw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 16, 2016  Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:

?> ?
> I'd like to get back to considering what one person here believes is
> unthinkable: national debt repudiation.
>

?Yes, suddenly making 20 thousand billion dollars worth? of debt that had
been considered the safest in the world worthless is unthinkable. Or at
least it should be unthinkable, but unfortunately Donald Trump thought
about it. A dollar is only valuable because the government promises to
stand behind it and people trust them to keep that promise, but if that
trust proves to be unjustified then a dollar is just a piece of paper with
some green printing on it, the dollar collapses and the world economy with
it.


> ?> ?
> Recall I offered that there might be a sunny day outcome: the debt gets
> repudiated, lots of immediate pain especially for large lenders who hold
> most of this debt,
>

?And pain for anyone who has stocks or bounds, or a mutual fund, or a
insurance policy, or has a bank account, ?

?or is on Social Security, or is receiving a annuity, or a pension or... ?

?> ?
> and the national government finding it hard to borrow money for some time
>

?It wouldn't be ?
hard to borrow money
? it would be impossible to borrow money. If it's now legal for the USA to
renege on its promise to repay what it owes it must be OK for corporations
to do so too, and individuals. If even the safest debt in the world, US
government treasury bonds, are worthless then no debt is safe and nobody in
their right mind would loan anything to anybody under any circumstances.



> ?> ?
>  John Clark believes it would 'collapse the world economy,' presumably in
> a fashion that would set everything back decades or more. I'm not sure if
> he means a replay of something like the Great Depression or something far
> worse.
>

Something far worse.
? ?T
he Great Depression
?was caused by a series of stupid decisions but it was stupidity within
normal parameters. Repudiating the
national debt
?would be an entirely different type of type of stupid, ?it would be
paranormal stupidity the like of which this country has never seen before.

  John K Clark



>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160516/444aa237/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Mon May 16 21:14:07 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 23:14:07 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Nuclear probabilities (Was:] Repudiating the national
	debt)
In-Reply-To: <00ce01d1af8b$de3fe7a0$9abfb6e0$@att.net>
References: <CACB7g26p0w-qZABLrWz1eT2R71-CFr9+N2yHnzmvjdwDkf8wtA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0R3e+xgP4dJnDwcoV014TLFu9bgwv+fmYjqq71XF7dDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACB7g241rh=hSBRCfhqgQogmcRKevMC3QS7sNh4g9ABp=4xCKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <57358434.8050109@aleph.se>
 <CACB7g25tyyTPWfH=kDxPZY8jRozj07ox3nbsTzyBEsEHt76+2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <57399C8C.8060907@aleph.se> <5739C1B4.5030504@aleph.se>
 <00ce01d1af8b$de3fe7a0$9abfb6e0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <573A381F.9050208@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-16 17:59, spike wrote:
>
> Anders, this is an interesting number because of a popular educational 
> video I saw in the late 1970s.  The fictional US president was being 
> briefed on the work of his military mathematicians who had determined 
> that the probability of a nuclear war that calendar year was about 1%, 
> with the risk of war in each subsequent year declining by a factor of 
> about 0.9
> So in a mere seven years, by the end of that president?s term, the 
> risk of nuclear war would be about half a percent in that year.
> The new president was delighted with that news (this was the 1970s 
> when the cold war was threatening to hot at any time.)  As the 
> mathematicians were packing up to leave, he asked: oh by the way 
> professor, using your model, what are the chances of nuclear war 
> eventually?  Answer:  100%.

Hehe... good story.

Of course, the math is a bit different. The probability of *no* eventual 
nuclear war is P = prod_t=0^\infty (1-0.01*0.9^t), and this infinite 
product converges (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_product 
for some ways of showing it). Better, it can converge to something 
larger than 0. Consider the case of 1% risk that halves every year. That 
will eventually sum up to 2% risk.

This is the kind of math Stuart and me used to look at backup copy 
immortality:
http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/indefinite-survival-backup.pdf



-- 
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/20160516/fbdc36f3/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Mon May 16 21:40:13 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 14:40:13 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
Message-ID: <CACB7g24fjHWwk9tOdizFKo3Jvq2s=61CVJD6gn+HhpXqVmZ2RA@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 2:05 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2016  Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'd like to get back to considering what one person here believes is
>> unthinkable: national debt repudiation.
>
> Yes, suddenly making 20 thousand billion dollars worth of debt that had
been
> considered the safest in the world worthless is unthinkable.

Why should it be unthinkable? Again, we discuss things here that sound like
they would likely have far worse downside risks. Why is this single out?
And, once more, discussing it here is more just a tiny minority of smart
folks armchairing an idea. Why are you so afraid of even discussing the
matter?

> Or at least it should be unthinkable, but unfortunately Donald Trump
thought
> about it.

Trump didn't originate the idea. Not only have others discussed long before
"The Donald" drooled over national TV about it, but it's actually happened
many times before in history. That actually gives us more to go on in
forecasting possible outcomes than if it never ever happened before --
unlike many of the other forecasts we've discussed here. (Looking to your
comments further on, we can also look at currency collapses and
devaluations too -- and not just the worst of the worst -- to see what
likely effects they might have today. Or we can panic and say it's
"unthinkable.")

> A dollar is only valuable because the government promises to stand
> behind it and people trust them to keep that promise, but if that trust
proves
> to be unjustified then a dollar is just a piece of paper with some green
printing
> on it, the dollar collapses and the world economy with it.

Okay, now there's some substance to your rant. Your view is repudiating the
national debt would not just get rid of the debt, be a deadweight loss to
[mostly big] lenders, and likely curtail future national borrowing, but it
would collapse the dollar. That's the big downside risk for you, right? The
dollar drops -- even drops to zero?

>> Recall I offered that there might be a sunny day outcome: the debt gets
repudiated,
>> lots of immediate pain especially for large lenders who hold most of
this debt,
>
> And pain for anyone who has stocks or bounds, or a mutual fund, or a
insurance
> policy, or has a bank account,
> or is on Social Security, or is receiving a annuity, or a pension or...

Again, this is because you see the national debt as shoring up the dollar.
If that weren't so -- if the debt wasn't tightly coupled to the value of
the dollar -- then this wouldn't be such an "unthinkable" scenario for you,
no?

>> and the national government finding it hard to borrow money for some time
>
> It wouldn't be
> hard to borrow money
> it would be impossible to borrow money. If it's now legal for the USA to
renege
> on its promise to repay what it owes it must be OK for corporations to do
so
> too, and individuals. If even the safest debt in the world, US government
treasury
> bonds, are worthless then no debt is safe and nobody in their right mind
would
> loan anything to anybody under any circumstances.

This doesn't make sense to me. Sure, I can see the largest debtor
defaulting causing many to be much more careful lending -- even maybe for
there being a period where most new lending stops. I don't see that as a
permanent thing.

>>  John Clark believes it would 'collapse the world economy,' presumably
in a
>> fashion that would set everything back decades or more. I'm not sure if
he
>> means a replay of something like the Great Depression or something far
worse.
>
> Something far worse.
> The Great Depression
> was caused by a series of stupid decisions but it was stupidity within
normal
> parameters. Repudiating the national debt
> would be an entirely different type of type of stupid, it would be
paranormal
> stupidity the like of which this country has never seen before.

Again, because? From your above statements, it's really about the collapse
of the dollar, right? If it's not true that the dollar collapsing would be
a likely outcome of debt repudiation, then you would admit that it's not as
bad as you believe, correct?

And I'd still like to know how likely you think national debt repudiation
is -- Trump or no -- and, if it should come to pass, what you suggest
doing? Moving to Tasmania or perhaps jumping off the nearest tall building?
:) No, seriously, what should a reasonable do if it happens? What's the
likelihood so that a reasonable person might start making plans now just in
case? (My guess it's very unlikely -- and not because of what you fear,
though I'm sure many share your fears. It's rather unlikely because
financial elites are the big lenders here, so they certainly don't want to
lose their share of your money. They also don't want to move from having
$10 million mansions to merely having $1 million homes.)

Thanks for your response.

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/20160516/428d8f68/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Mon May 16 22:30:26 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 18:30:26 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <00b901d1af9a$56adcc30$04096490$@att.net>
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>
 <CAAc1gFgBwPd+wqq3PWX=4gG0zMxK9iTuSCrxtmMJRXoJoAtrig@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3cof55h0D=LKnHzE6HZXm4UhdUHdW_KEu6NA3VYc94BQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <001801d1af18$f948aaa0$ebd9ffe0$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv2PcvPbm6s-AXwdL5sW7dB-KFJ9SrFWXGRUWtphdJS-pA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00b901d1af9a$56adcc30$04096490$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv1GBCCefk2EDivGWg81VXCwez9qkyKELi84jJBXXcgJFQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 1:42 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:



> ?>
>> ?>?
>> ?If Trump had invested in Gold back in 1977 then today it would only be
>> worth about twice as much?
>>
>


> ?> ?
> Indeed?  What if he invested in gold in 1977, then sold it in 1979, then
> bought in 2004 and sold in 2007?  And now has bought a pile again.
>

?Then Truthful ?
?Trump? should let the American people that he wants to lead see* all his
tax records from 1977 just as *
*Crooked Hillary*
*? has* and then
we can all see
?for ourselves ?
what a financial genius he is.
? But Truthful Trump doesn't want to do that. Why do you suppose that is??


?> ?
> what if you buy something that doesn?t generate dividends?  You don?t want
> anyone knowing, especially government, you hold that stuff.


?You wouldn't want government to know you were holding that stuff if you
wanted to cheat on your taxes. Are you saying that Truthful Trump is
committing a felony and is cheating on his taxes? Are you saying that the
man who wants to enforce the tax laws, the man who wants to be the boss of
the boss of the IRS, isn't obeying the tax laws himself?


> ?> ?
> Ah, so now Hillary has released the financial dealings of the Clinton
> Family ?Charitable? foundation?
>
>
?As a matter of fact?
 she has. Carly Fiorina
? said the Clinton foundation only gave 6% of annual revenue to charity,
but factcheck says that charge was bullshit: ?

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/


>
> ?> ?
> Has explained where all that money came from, who donated it


?If you want to know where the money came from see for yourself, she
doesn't keep it a secret:  ?

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors?category=%245%2C000%2C001+to+%2410%2C000%2C000


> ?> ?
> Oh wait, that doesn?t go on a tax return, being all about ?charity?


?Maybe not on Crooked Hillary's personal tax return but even
charities have to file tax returns and
Crooked Hillary
? wants the American people be able to see that too:?

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/311/580/2013-311580204-0b0083da-9.pdf


?And if that still isn't good enough, a outside audit was made of the
entire Clinton Foundation and ?Crooked Hillary thinks the American people
should see that too:

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinton_foundation_report_public_11-19-14.pdf

?I'd appreciate it if you'd post a link to a outside audit of Truthful
Trump's ?business dealings and tax records, I'm having a bit of trouble
finding them.

 John K Clark







>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160516/9a6334b6/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Tue May 17 00:53:47 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 20:53:47 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEbVf2-bqAdyRoNN8xuXgjHj-E1PFzJVXvFKC14DgZANdQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv29hVUEPhaeaHYGm9_MuGJ-ptixka-UdopVzvBZrP8pPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY-magA4qLA5J+kd3mQQgNf1xK4Bn6f3zbAVoeyU9Vc3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEbVf2-bqAdyRoNN8xuXgjHj-E1PFzJVXvFKC14DgZANdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv3tT636qp6qkVVDD02nAWnmgBCX1XH3b3en_Sws3y6pDQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 16, 2016  William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:

?> ?
> How successful he
> ? [Trump]?
> is as a business man is debatable
>

?If Trump let the American people see all his tax information ?since 1977
as
Hillary Clinton
? has it wouldn't be debatable, we'd know exactly how successful ?a
business man he is; but Trump won't let us see it. Why do you suppose that
is?


> ?>?
> and yes, he has gone bankrupt four times, but that may be fairly common in
> his highly speculative world
>

Bill Gates
?
has never gone bankrupt and in 1975 when he started
?making money ?
a PC was about as speculative as you can get; he didn't get all his money
from his daddy either.
? ?
Warren Buffett
?
never went bankrupt either, or Sergey Brin
?
or Larry
?
Page
?
or
?
Mark Zuckerberg
?. And the poorest of one these people is between 4 and 40 times as rich as
Donald Trump, depending on just how inflated Trump's claim of great wealth
really is. ?

? John K Clark ?



>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160516/165c6402/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Tue May 17 01:21:03 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 20:21:03 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv3tT636qp6qkVVDD02nAWnmgBCX1XH3b3en_Sws3y6pDQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv29hVUEPhaeaHYGm9_MuGJ-ptixka-UdopVzvBZrP8pPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY-magA4qLA5J+kd3mQQgNf1xK4Bn6f3zbAVoeyU9Vc3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEbVf2-bqAdyRoNN8xuXgjHj-E1PFzJVXvFKC14DgZANdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3tT636qp6qkVVDD02nAWnmgBCX1XH3b3en_Sws3y6pDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEabvx8fBhNzqkBHbV6CZikQ8iypJLewHS5UyZXpUb2XGQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 7:53 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Mon, May 16, 2016  William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ?> ?
>> How successful he
>> ? [Trump]?
>> is as a business man is debatable
>>
>
> ?If Trump let the American people see all his tax information ?since 1977
> as
> Hillary Clinton
> ? has it wouldn't be debatable, we'd know exactly how successful ?a
> business man he is; but Trump won't let us see it. Why do you suppose that
> is?
>
>
>> ?>?
>> and yes, he has gone bankrupt four times, but that may be fairly common
>> in his highly speculative world
>>
>
> Bill Gates
> ?
> has never gone bankrupt and in 1975 when he started
> ?making money ?
> a PC was about as speculative as you can get; he didn't get all his money
> from his daddy either.
> ? ?
> Warren Buffett
> ?
> never went bankrupt either, or Sergey Brin
> ?
> or Larry
> ?
> Page
> ?
> or
> ?
> Mark Zuckerberg
> ?. And the poorest of one these people is between 4 and 40 times as rich
> as Donald Trump, depending on just how inflated Trump's claim of great
> wealth really is. ?
>
> ? John K Clark ?
>
> ?Please do not interpret anything I say as any kind of support for him.
All I am saying is that we likely do not know his true beliefs, if he has
any in the political world that are not developed with winning votes in
mind.  Surely he does have some, but as he is a demagogue, we know only
what he says and cannot trust that.

I do want to add that the history of one's beliefs is never an accurate
story about what one believes now, nor should it be.  We should always
change with the changing environment.  Hilary changed her mind about Iraq
after voting for that war, and that's a good thing.  It actually did not
have to be as bad as it was.   And I suppose she saw that and changed her
mind.

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/20160516/0862adea/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Tue May 17 01:52:18 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 18:52:18 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEabvx8fBhNzqkBHbV6CZikQ8iypJLewHS5UyZXpUb2XGQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv29hVUEPhaeaHYGm9_MuGJ-ptixka-UdopVzvBZrP8pPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY-magA4qLA5J+kd3mQQgNf1xK4Bn6f3zbAVoeyU9Vc3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEbVf2-bqAdyRoNN8xuXgjHj-E1PFzJVXvFKC14DgZANdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3tT636qp6qkVVDD02nAWnmgBCX1XH3b3en_Sws3y6pDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEabvx8fBhNzqkBHbV6CZikQ8iypJLewHS5UyZXpUb2XGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9CF60346-856A-49EC-9DDC-96A3F0F055DF@gmail.com>

On May 16, 2016, at 6:21 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 16, 2016  William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
> ?Please do not interpret anything I say as any kind of support for him.  All I am saying is that we likely do not know his true beliefs, if he has any in the political world that are not developed with winning votes in mind.  Surely he does have some, but as he is a demagogue, we know only what he says and cannot trust that. 
> 
> I do want to add that the history of one's beliefs is never an accurate story about what one believes now, nor should it be.  We should always change with the changing environment.  Hilary changed her mind about Iraq after voting for that war, and that's a good thing.  It actually did not have to be as bad as it was.   And I suppose she saw that and changed her mind.  

Clinton changed her mind, it seems, when it was safe to do so. If that's so, then it's not really a good sign.

This, of course, does not mean Trump is any better than her.

Regarding their record, I think it should be indicative of something and that part of this would be understanding why their views might have changed. In many of these cases, the views seem to change depending on who they're talking to or which way the wind is blowing. That tells us that they're not really changing their minds in a way that's at all good.

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/20160516/79ca3d83/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Tue May 17 01:54:43 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 18:54:43 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv3tT636qp6qkVVDD02nAWnmgBCX1XH3b3en_Sws3y6pDQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv29hVUEPhaeaHYGm9_MuGJ-ptixka-UdopVzvBZrP8pPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY-magA4qLA5J+kd3mQQgNf1xK4Bn6f3zbAVoeyU9Vc3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEbVf2-bqAdyRoNN8xuXgjHj-E1PFzJVXvFKC14DgZANdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3tT636qp6qkVVDD02nAWnmgBCX1XH3b3en_Sws3y6pDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <FD1ABE49-528B-4168-84BB-16BFBDD4D151@gmail.com>

On May 16, 2016, at 5:53 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 16, 2016  William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> ?>?and yes, he has gone bankrupt four times, but that may be fairly common in his highly speculative world
> 
> Bill Gates? has never gone bankrupt and in 1975 when he started ?making money ?a PC was about as speculative as you can get; he didn't get all his money from his daddy either.? ?Warren Buffett? never went bankrupt either, or Sergey Brin? or Larry? Page? or? Mark Zuckerberg?. And the poorest of one these people is between 4 and 40 times as rich as Donald Trump, depending on just how inflated Trump's claim of great wealth really is. ?

While I agree with your overall point, I would leave out Zuckerberg because his track record, while stellar, is too short. Just a matter of wanting to compare likes to likes here. (Of course, I expect some to misinterpret this as a defense of Trump.;)

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/20160516/5a2ab1d5/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Tue May 17 08:42:02 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 10:42:02 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Drake Equation Musings
In-Reply-To: <CAPiwVB7To3vNouN=cfJjF4hJtto5q4-7xTjOBaP1QJ5pOVJ73A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB7To3vNouN=cfJjF4hJtto5q4-7xTjOBaP1QJ5pOVJ73A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <573AD95A.3030900@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-16 05:00, Keith Henson wrote:
> I largely agree with your analysis.  But it's possible we missed
> something, like a physics based reason for intelligent species to stay
> in their star system or even to stick to their home planet.  I have
> speculated about civilizations "collapsing" to 300 m spheres sunk in
> the deep ocean.  The small size gets the latency down and the cold
> water deals with the waste heat problem.

Actually, we can deal with that too:

Pr(intelligence density = x | no visible intelligence) = K Pr(no visible 
intelligence | intelligence density = x) Pr (intelligence density = x)

where K is a normalisation factor. In the vanilla version the update is 
of the form "we do not see any intelligence within distance d, but we 
would see them if they were there", which produces the factor Pr(no 
visible intelligence  | x) = exp(-(4 pi/3) d^3 x) if we assume a spatial 
Poisson model. Our observation rules out higher densities but allows for 
smaller densities.

If there is a probability p<1 of seeing a civilization that actually is 
there, then the factor becomes exp(-(4 pi/3) d^3 x p). The effect is 
that our probabilities will be less strongly updated by not seeing 
anything. If p goes down by a factor of 10, the "strength" of the update 
changes by about 10%.

If intelligence often turns into black boxes, then p is small. But note 
that you need many orders of magnitude to weaken the update a lot: since 
x can be arbitrarily large, even if you think black box civilizations 
are super-likely the lack of observed civilizations in the vicinity 
should move your views about the possible upper range of densities a 
fair bit. Arguing p=0 is a very radical knowledge claim, and equivalent 
to positing the most audacious law of sociology ever (true for every 
individual, society and species!)


[ Some of you will by now wonder why I do not say we should expect an 
uncertainty of p running over loads of orders of magnitude, like the 
life probability does in our paper. The reason is that there is a 
curious asymmetry between reasons intelligent life may not emerge and 
reasons intelligent life may be quiet. The first group is largely 
conjunctive: "intelligence will happen if X and Y and Z and W and... 
happens" - if one of the conditions in the chain is missing, there is no 
intelligence. Explanations for silence have the form "X or Y or Z or W 
or ...". If one of them is wrong, nothing happens to the outcome. But 
their probabilities need to sum to nearly exactly 1, and if one of them 
actually has less probability than needed then the entire explanation 
breaks. ]



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



From anders at aleph.se  Tue May 17 08:52:56 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 10:52:56 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Drake Equation Musings
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFgzx0phW3D7-tO3tzZMVz_6skABBME9m95D3zR9S8_5Ug@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armiT=A=jFACmt5zRX=+Y_jEUFYjo5dCFtk9aaME++KmDFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <57383BFE.9080200@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armhGLGQgsDqMXG+L_Zwm3vWnE63MTu4WYP5QXozWmCW+2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <5738CF6F.9050407@aleph.se>
 <CAAc1gFgzx0phW3D7-tO3tzZMVz_6skABBME9m95D3zR9S8_5Ug@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <573ADBE8.4000801@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-16 04:16, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>
> Is the technogenesis likelihood of 10e-15 per solar mass a reasonable 
> estimate?

Our view is that is a reasonable estimate. Although it is a fair bit 
higher than what our priors suggest - one civilization per multiple 
observable universe-volume is closer to our mean. The variance of the 
prior is *big* (I actually had to do numerical voodoo for some of the 
calculations on my computer, since precision breaks down for absurdly 
small numbers).

The thing is, people tend to assume that if you see one instance of 
something out of N objects, the probability of it happening should be 
about 1/N. But this misses the observer selection effect: if you have an 
absurdly low probability but it has to happen somewhere (because it 
results in you), then the relevant class may be far larger than N. So if 
the technogenesis probability is 10^-1000 there will still be lots of 
observers in an infinite or very large universe, but they will all be 
very distant.

-- 
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/20160517/7876fdcd/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Tue May 17 09:01:07 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 05:01:07 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Drake Equation Musings
In-Reply-To: <573ADBE8.4000801@aleph.se>
References: <CAL_armiT=A=jFACmt5zRX=+Y_jEUFYjo5dCFtk9aaME++KmDFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <57383BFE.9080200@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armhGLGQgsDqMXG+L_Zwm3vWnE63MTu4WYP5QXozWmCW+2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <5738CF6F.9050407@aleph.se>
 <CAAc1gFgzx0phW3D7-tO3tzZMVz_6skABBME9m95D3zR9S8_5Ug@mail.gmail.com>
 <573ADBE8.4000801@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFg3ReM2a-agDSiUo=8xUngcUfDU9uZKjyj-hbVFAvaoYA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 4:52 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> On 2016-05-16 04:16, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>
>
> Is the technogenesis likelihood of 10e-15 per solar mass a reasonable
> estimate?
>
>
> Our view is that is a reasonable estimate.
>

### Woohoo! We're the Old Ones!

Where can I read your article?

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160517/41e77678/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Tue May 17 10:05:42 2016
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 11:05:42 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Drake Equation Musings
In-Reply-To: <573AD95A.3030900@aleph.se>
References: <CAPiwVB7To3vNouN=cfJjF4hJtto5q4-7xTjOBaP1QJ5pOVJ73A@mail.gmail.com>
 <573AD95A.3030900@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAL_armisyJOCL3aUCfrFYSBPHJZfSuxiocukE0-AwzBB18_dtA@mail.gmail.com>

On 17 May 2016 at 09:42, Anders Sandberg  wrote:
<snip>
> [ Some of you will by now wonder why I do not say we should expect an
> uncertainty of p running over loads of orders of magnitude, like the life
> probability does in our paper. The reason is that there is a curious
> asymmetry between reasons intelligent life may not emerge and reasons
> intelligent life may be quiet. The first group is largely conjunctive:
> "intelligence will happen if X and Y and Z and W and... happens" - if one of
> the conditions in the chain is missing, there is no intelligence.
> Explanations for silence have the form "X or Y or Z or W or ...". If one of
> them is wrong, nothing happens to the outcome. But their probabilities need
> to sum to nearly exactly 1, and if one of them actually has less probability
> than needed then the entire explanation breaks. ]
>



That's logical thinking if you have no evidence for either probability.

But we do have evidence! Life on earth started immediately, as soon as
the newly formed planet had cooled down sufficiently. Unless you have
evidence that Earth is unique in the universe, (the Rare Earth
hypothesis), then life should be everywhere, in every niche where it
can survive, just like in extreme environments on Earth.

We don't have any evidence for why advanced civilisations might be
'quiet', though we can think of many possibilities. As you say it
would be nice if we could think of a universal reason that *must*
apply to every advanced civilisation. But we haven't advanced enough
yet. When the Singularity hits us, it will probably become obvious.
Duh!

Of course, sadly that reason might be that reaching the Singularity
kills civilisations. But, nil desperandum!  :)

BillK


From rhanson at gmu.edu  Mon May 16 09:08:18 2016
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin D Hanson)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 09:08:18 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Will ems have two genders?
In-Reply-To: <57398D57.4060604@aleph.se>
References: <CAAc1gFgD3Q3MzkK=4wbuMFvQdX2K=9LN=T8qbLWNoQXVbCdPfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <57383A94.3050501@aleph.se>
 <CAAc1gFjs16FwNQoirx-feR=M-C-2WrtOr4PWed_ecBYJy9Mqzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyEQuDJuDFhQiaYs0h3Pju9b1ws4vrwmYgRWTDt7g_MstQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgZf63SEQXRHxO9_v9cDmU8vo81_SFL_CR6Q_eZpgSMPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <57398D57.4060604@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <5AC07E47-0DFE-41CD-8D52-16B0E159263C@gmu.edu>


On May 16, 2016, at 10:05 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se<mailto:anders at aleph.se>> wrote:

On 2016-05-16 08:16, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 12:14 AM, Will Steinberg <<mailto:steinberg.will at gmail.com>steinberg.will at gmail.com<mailto:steinberg.will at gmail.com>> wrote:

But this stuff to me is so foreign, not worth talking about--or, worth talking about, but as a very very non-serious thought experiment.  Like people in 3000 BC talking about the future.  And I bet they had lots of ideas we've forgotten today, being closer to the dawn of self-consciousness and state-of-nature and all that.  Take some LSD and wonder about this stuff again.

### I find the ems world absolutely fascinating. I see it as the only way for me to hitch a ride into the future after superhuman AI comes online, which with every day that passes is closer by one day.

Robin's book is a pretty fascinating take on ems, since he develops the social side of the scenario in deep detail. We may of course want to work a lot on the tech side, but he is first in trying to see what our knowledge in the "soft sciences" actually makes likely.

A key thing in thinking about uncertain future developments is to realize that a high likeliehood of being wrong is not a reason not to try it, in many circumstances. If your models cause you to take actions that are maximally reasonable then it does not matter that there is a lot of noise.

Yes, surely ExI chat list is exactly the sort of place where readers would be open to considering what purports to be a careful analysis of the future. It is hard to know just how far you can get with analysis of a topic until you try. So you might as well just look at any given proposed analysis to see how well it works. If you think my analysis fails, please do tell me, and explain where and how you think it fails.

Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu<mailto:rhanson at gmu.edu>
Future of Humanity Inst., Oxford University
Assoc. Prof. Economics, George Mason University
See my new book: http://ageofem.com









-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160516/71f5d744/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Tue May 17 10:43:58 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 12:43:58 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Drake Equation Musings
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFg3ReM2a-agDSiUo=8xUngcUfDU9uZKjyj-hbVFAvaoYA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armiT=A=jFACmt5zRX=+Y_jEUFYjo5dCFtk9aaME++KmDFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <57383BFE.9080200@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armhGLGQgsDqMXG+L_Zwm3vWnE63MTu4WYP5QXozWmCW+2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <5738CF6F.9050407@aleph.se>
 <CAAc1gFgzx0phW3D7-tO3tzZMVz_6skABBME9m95D3zR9S8_5Ug@mail.gmail.com>
 <573ADBE8.4000801@aleph.se>
 <CAAc1gFg3ReM2a-agDSiUo=8xUngcUfDU9uZKjyj-hbVFAvaoYA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <573AF5EE.1080304@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-17 11:01, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 4:52 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se 
> <mailto:anders at aleph.se>> wrote:
>
>     On 2016-05-16 04:16, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>>
>>     Is the technogenesis likelihood of 10e-15 per solar mass a
>>     reasonable estimate?
>
>     Our view is that is a reasonable estimate.
>
>
> ### Woohoo! We're the Old Ones!
>
> Where can I read your article?

Happy to send it to you when it is presentable. Still rather messy, but 
we will hopefully soon finish it and send it to PNAS.

-- 
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/20160517/420a309a/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Tue May 17 10:59:17 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 12:59:17 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Drake Equation Musings
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armisyJOCL3aUCfrFYSBPHJZfSuxiocukE0-AwzBB18_dtA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB7To3vNouN=cfJjF4hJtto5q4-7xTjOBaP1QJ5pOVJ73A@mail.gmail.com>
 <573AD95A.3030900@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armisyJOCL3aUCfrFYSBPHJZfSuxiocukE0-AwzBB18_dtA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <573AF985.1070307@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-17 12:05, BillK wrote:
> That's logical thinking if you have no evidence for either probability.
>
> But we do have evidence! Life on earth started immediately, as soon as
> the newly formed planet had cooled down sufficiently. Unless you have
> evidence that Earth is unique in the universe, (the Rare Earth
> hypothesis), then life should be everywhere, in every niche where it
> can survive, just like in extreme environments on Earth.
Nope :-)

Remember the Carter argument: the probability of life emerging may be 
very low, and there could be secondary low-probability steps between it 
and intelligence. So most planets never get it, and among those that get 
it the secondary steps never happen. The planets with observers on them 
will be the ones that have the unlikely combination of getting all the 
steps, and if the natural rate of them happening is slow, we should 
expect them to be about equidistant across the time interval the planet 
is habitable. So early life is not evidence of easy life unless there is 
no reason to think there are any hard steps. However, we do have some 
evidence for hard steps (e.g. at least one transition in genetic coding, 
which is something we know tends to be stable over 10^80 cell divisions).

In short, observer selection bias makes data from Earth suspect in 
updating our probabilities.

Note that your idea is nicely testable: if we do find life on Mars, 
Europa or Ceres, then we have reason to think life is indeed common and 
not a great filter. That is bad news for our future, though: while the 
probability of intelligence evolving factor decreases the most given 
this, the expected lifespan of civilization decreases second most.


> We don't have any evidence for why advanced civilisations might be
> 'quiet', though we can think of many possibilities. As you say it
> would be nice if we could think of a universal reason that *must*
> apply to every advanced civilisation. But we haven't advanced enough
> yet. When the Singularity hits us, it will probably become obvious.
> Duh!

Isn't this a rather backward way of reasoning? "It would be nice if we 
could figure out what property of the lumiferous aether that makes the 
Michelson-Morley experiment fail - there are so many possibilities - but 
I have no doubt that when we find it it will be a totally obvious 
property of the aether."



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



From sparge at gmail.com  Tue May 17 12:13:02 2016
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 08:13:02 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv1GBCCefk2EDivGWg81VXCwez9qkyKELi84jJBXXcgJFQ@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>
 <CAAc1gFgBwPd+wqq3PWX=4gG0zMxK9iTuSCrxtmMJRXoJoAtrig@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3cof55h0D=LKnHzE6HZXm4UhdUHdW_KEu6NA3VYc94BQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <001801d1af18$f948aaa0$ebd9ffe0$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv2PcvPbm6s-AXwdL5sW7dB-KFJ9SrFWXGRUWtphdJS-pA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00b901d1af9a$56adcc30$04096490$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1GBCCefk2EDivGWg81VXCwez9qkyKELi84jJBXXcgJFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM5aL2deYihutXsmMRp1NfXEd_Xj6AWaw68swMo-SuUZv0G87A@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 6:30 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> You wouldn't want government to know you were holding that stuff if you
> wanted to cheat on your taxes.


Or maybe it's none of the government's business what you own, only what
sell.

-Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160517/a818aeb0/attachment.html>

From sparge at gmail.com  Tue May 17 12:13:46 2016
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 08:13:46 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv0wHf65Cx9b0Q5f-5sk890sk0N8Gj_9o+r8KHHr66d=Gw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACB7g24DcS04UgCshdM=FSfA-5K6yhwMh1VDFi5S9TQuHPAT4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0wHf65Cx9b0Q5f-5sk890sk0N8Gj_9o+r8KHHr66d=Gw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM5aL2djLx1Hp=B4xpgjPjzySztK-J4rwGUkixRpAR5_=OOFzA@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 5:05 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, suddenly making 20 thousand billion dollars worth? of debt that had
> been considered the safest in the world worthless is unthinkable.


No, nothing is unthinkable.

-Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160517/a1cdc77e/attachment.html>

From sparge at gmail.com  Tue May 17 12:40:36 2016
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 08:40:36 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv3tT636qp6qkVVDD02nAWnmgBCX1XH3b3en_Sws3y6pDQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv29hVUEPhaeaHYGm9_MuGJ-ptixka-UdopVzvBZrP8pPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY-magA4qLA5J+kd3mQQgNf1xK4Bn6f3zbAVoeyU9Vc3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEbVf2-bqAdyRoNN8xuXgjHj-E1PFzJVXvFKC14DgZANdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3tT636qp6qkVVDD02nAWnmgBCX1XH3b3en_Sws3y6pDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM5aL2fkK1JHpeWdS7n6G7MK74y_HUmS9q_jQJQAy4mZv8pigQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 8:53 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> ?If Trump let the American people see all his tax information ?since 1977
> as
> Hillary Clinton
> ? has it wouldn't be debatable, we'd know exactly how successful ?a
> business man he is; but Trump won't let us see it.
>

No, tax returns only tell part of the story.

-Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160517/1bf53932/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Tue May 17 13:25:37 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 15:25:37 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CAM5aL2djLx1Hp=B4xpgjPjzySztK-J4rwGUkixRpAR5_=OOFzA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACB7g24DcS04UgCshdM=FSfA-5K6yhwMh1VDFi5S9TQuHPAT4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0wHf65Cx9b0Q5f-5sk890sk0N8Gj_9o+r8KHHr66d=Gw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2djLx1Hp=B4xpgjPjzySztK-J4rwGUkixRpAR5_=OOFzA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <573B1BD1.8000208@aleph.se>

Big countries have repudiated their debts before. Argentina is perhaps 
the best known example, and the aftermath is a pretty good indicator of 
why it is a bad idea. When part of your navy gets impounded when 
visiting foreign ports you are in trouble.

(OK, ARA Libertad was more for show and training than a military vessel, 
but still...)


On 2016-05-17 14:13, Dave Sill wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 5:05 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com 
> <mailto:johnkclark at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Yes, suddenly making 20 thousand billion dollars worth? of debt
>     that had been considered the safest in the world worthless is
>     unthinkable.
>
>
> No, nothing is unthinkable.
>
> -Dave
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160517/7a73da06/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Tue May 17 16:03:47 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 12:03:47 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Will ems have two genders?
In-Reply-To: <5AC07E47-0DFE-41CD-8D52-16B0E159263C@gmu.edu>
References: <CAAc1gFgD3Q3MzkK=4wbuMFvQdX2K=9LN=T8qbLWNoQXVbCdPfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <57383A94.3050501@aleph.se>
 <CAAc1gFjs16FwNQoirx-feR=M-C-2WrtOr4PWed_ecBYJy9Mqzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKrqSyEQuDJuDFhQiaYs0h3Pju9b1ws4vrwmYgRWTDt7g_MstQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgZf63SEQXRHxO9_v9cDmU8vo81_SFL_CR6Q_eZpgSMPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <57398D57.4060604@aleph.se>
 <5AC07E47-0DFE-41CD-8D52-16B0E159263C@gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFjQt-DQ0EOEGwD3CCcwf5bjkwmeL+ytNNiF7biSc_4-aA@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 5:08 AM, Robin D Hanson <rhanson at gmu.edu> wrote:

>
> On May 16, 2016, at 10:05 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:
>
> On 2016-05-16 08:16, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 12:14 AM, Will Steinberg <
> <steinberg.will at gmail.com>steinberg.will at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> But this stuff to me is so foreign, not worth talking about--or, worth
>> talking about, but as a very very non-serious thought experiment.  Like
>> people in 3000 BC talking about the future.  And I bet they had lots of
>> ideas we've forgotten today, being closer to the dawn of self-consciousness
>> and state-of-nature and all that.  Take some LSD and wonder about this
>> stuff again.
>>
>
> ### I find the ems world absolutely fascinating. I see it as the only way
> for me to hitch a ride into the future after superhuman AI comes online,
> which with every day that passes is closer by one day.
>
>
> Robin's book is a pretty fascinating take on ems, since he develops the
> social side of the scenario in deep detail. We may of course want to work a
> lot on the tech side, but he is first in trying to see what our knowledge
> in the "soft sciences" actually makes likely.
>
> A key thing in thinking about uncertain future developments is to realize
> that a high likeliehood of being wrong is not a reason not to try it, in
> many circumstances. If your models cause you to take actions that are
> maximally reasonable then it does not matter that there is a lot of noise.
>
>
> Yes, surely ExI chat list is exactly the sort of place where readers would
> be open to considering what purports to be a careful analysis of the
> future. It is hard to know just how far you can get with analysis of a
> topic until you try. So you might as well just look at any given proposed
> analysis to see how well it works. If you think my analysis fails, please
> do tell me, and explain where and how you think it fails.
>

### Robin, you just made some money off me, I ordered Age of Em on Kindle.

I am sure I'll have more comments once I read it.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160517/a1124a80/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Tue May 17 16:37:22 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 12:37:22 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAM5aL2fkK1JHpeWdS7n6G7MK74y_HUmS9q_jQJQAy4mZv8pigQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv29hVUEPhaeaHYGm9_MuGJ-ptixka-UdopVzvBZrP8pPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY-magA4qLA5J+kd3mQQgNf1xK4Bn6f3zbAVoeyU9Vc3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEbVf2-bqAdyRoNN8xuXgjHj-E1PFzJVXvFKC14DgZANdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3tT636qp6qkVVDD02nAWnmgBCX1XH3b3en_Sws3y6pDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2fkK1JHpeWdS7n6G7MK74y_HUmS9q_jQJQAy4mZv8pigQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv2VB4r7m5CiyQ+WMOrM91LHHeZfkaLXjWL4GXAMpj=eZQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Dave Sill <sparge at gmail.com> wrote:


> ?>>?
>> ?If Trump let the American people see all his tax information ?since 1977
>> as
>> Hillary Clinton
>> ? has it wouldn't be debatable, we'd know exactly how successful ?a
>> business man he is; but Trump won't let us see it.
>>
>
> ?> ?
> No, tax returns only tell part of the story.
>

?We have 38 ?years of Clinton's tax returns, if we had 38 years of Trump's
tax returns we'd know enough of the story to determine if he's really as
smart a businessman as he claims to be. And if Trump let us see a outside
audit of his business empire as Clinton showed us a audit of her foundation
then we'd know all the story there is to tell. But Trump won't do either of
these things. Why do you suppose that is?

 John K Clark






>
>
> -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/20160517/adabf3e4/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Tue May 17 16:42:11 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 09:42:11 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv2VB4r7m5CiyQ+WMOrM91LHHeZfkaLXjWL4GXAMpj=eZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv29hVUEPhaeaHYGm9_MuGJ-ptixka-UdopVzvBZrP8pPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY-magA4qLA5J+kd3mQQgNf1xK4Bn6f3zbAVoeyU9Vc3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEbVf2-bqAdyRoNN8xuXgjHj-E1PFzJVXvFKC14DgZANdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3tT636qp6qkVVDD02nAWnmgBCX1XH3b3en_Sws3y6pDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2fkK1JHpeWdS7n6G7MK74y_HUmS9q_jQJQAy4mZv8pigQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2VB4r7m5CiyQ+WMOrM91LHHeZfkaLXjWL4GXAMpj=eZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <010101d1b05b$0fdfe920$2f9fbb60$@att.net>

 

 

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

 

?> ?>?No, tax returns only tell part of the story.

 

?>? And if Trump let us see a outside audit of his business empire as Clinton showed us a audit of her foundation then we'd know all the story there is to tell. But Trump won't do either of these things. Why do you suppose that is? John K Clark

 

 

John, that Clinton Foundation audit doesn?t tell us who donated the money to that Canadian charity which donated to the Clintons.  We don?t know who put that money there or what they expect in return.  That all disappeared with the yoga routines.  We might not know who did that until after the election.  Then what?

 

spike

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160517/3c7a0ad4/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Tue May 17 17:09:15 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 13:09:15 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CAM5aL2deYihutXsmMRp1NfXEd_Xj6AWaw68swMo-SuUZv0G87A@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>
 <CAAc1gFgBwPd+wqq3PWX=4gG0zMxK9iTuSCrxtmMJRXoJoAtrig@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3cof55h0D=LKnHzE6HZXm4UhdUHdW_KEu6NA3VYc94BQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <001801d1af18$f948aaa0$ebd9ffe0$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv2PcvPbm6s-AXwdL5sW7dB-KFJ9SrFWXGRUWtphdJS-pA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00b901d1af9a$56adcc30$04096490$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1GBCCefk2EDivGWg81VXCwez9qkyKELi84jJBXXcgJFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2deYihutXsmMRp1NfXEd_Xj6AWaw68swMo-SuUZv0G87A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv0d+ijQ4Zaz+dg4+uQ-U2Z9X+qp2T_8UOtJD-hgi7HuWg@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Dave Sill <sparge at gmail.com> wrote:


> ?>> ?
>> You wouldn't want government to know you were holding that stuff if you
>> wanted to cheat on your taxes.
>
>
> ?> ?
> Or maybe it's none of the government's business what you own, only what
> sell.
>

?Perhaps, but Trump wants to be the boss of the boss of the IRS, the very
organization that insists it *IS* the government's business to know what
you own! Trump is saying "I don't have to obey the tax laws because I am
Donald Trump and I am **HUGE**, but you're different you're just a lowly
serf so I will use force to make sure you obey the tax laws. But cheer up,
if you're a good boy and don't make noise maybe I'll get you a job on one
of my golf courses, or if you're a woman and have big boobs I'll make you
Miss America".

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160517/46b24284/attachment.html>

From sparge at gmail.com  Tue May 17 17:20:10 2016
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 13:20:10 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv0d+ijQ4Zaz+dg4+uQ-U2Z9X+qp2T_8UOtJD-hgi7HuWg@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>
 <CAAc1gFgBwPd+wqq3PWX=4gG0zMxK9iTuSCrxtmMJRXoJoAtrig@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3cof55h0D=LKnHzE6HZXm4UhdUHdW_KEu6NA3VYc94BQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <001801d1af18$f948aaa0$ebd9ffe0$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv2PcvPbm6s-AXwdL5sW7dB-KFJ9SrFWXGRUWtphdJS-pA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00b901d1af9a$56adcc30$04096490$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1GBCCefk2EDivGWg81VXCwez9qkyKELi84jJBXXcgJFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2deYihutXsmMRp1NfXEd_Xj6AWaw68swMo-SuUZv0G87A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0d+ijQ4Zaz+dg4+uQ-U2Z9X+qp2T_8UOtJD-hgi7HuWg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM5aL2fB+V2KK+T8=g4_zgv_yJuTaeryW3vM_V=x95c8s1FoEQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 1:09 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> ?Perhaps, but Trump wants to be the boss of the boss of the IRS, the very
> organization that insists it IS the government's business to know what you
> own!
>

No it doesn't, John. Look, I get it: you think Trump is evil and you do
anything to stop him, including making stuff up. Have you ever filed a
1040? Do you understand that it doesn't ask what you own?

-Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160517/5c01c37c/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Tue May 17 17:32:20 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 13:32:20 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <010101d1b05b$0fdfe920$2f9fbb60$@att.net>
References: <CAJPayv29hVUEPhaeaHYGm9_MuGJ-ptixka-UdopVzvBZrP8pPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY-magA4qLA5J+kd3mQQgNf1xK4Bn6f3zbAVoeyU9Vc3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEbVf2-bqAdyRoNN8xuXgjHj-E1PFzJVXvFKC14DgZANdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3tT636qp6qkVVDD02nAWnmgBCX1XH3b3en_Sws3y6pDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2fkK1JHpeWdS7n6G7MK74y_HUmS9q_jQJQAy4mZv8pigQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2VB4r7m5CiyQ+WMOrM91LHHeZfkaLXjWL4GXAMpj=eZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <010101d1b05b$0fdfe920$2f9fbb60$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv2qjN7_7CoiPYP3=pYviuQ=QSdYDNLNQodKcXO_-354TA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 12:42 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:


> ?>
> ?> ?
> ? And if Trump let us see a outside audit of his business empire as
> Clinton showed us a audit of her foundation then we'd know all the story
> there is to tell. But Trump won't do either of these things. Why do you
> suppose that is? John K Clark
>
>
>
>
> John, that Clinton Foundation audit doesn?t tell us who donated the money
> to that Canadian charity which donated to the Clintons.
>

?Yes they did, they told us the  money came from Canadian ?Frank Giustra
and Mexican Carlos Slim. And that Canadian charity has spent 30 million
dollars on aids research by the way.


> ?> ?
> We don?t know who put that money there or what they expect in return.
>
>
?Oh that's easy, they expect to get a 40% interest in?
 Hillary
?'s?
? lucrative business of selling organs from aborted human fetuses to
transgender ISIS members. ?

 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/20160517/c95748ba/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Tue May 17 18:02:33 2016
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 19:02:33 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Drake Equation Musings
In-Reply-To: <573AF985.1070307@aleph.se>
References: <CAPiwVB7To3vNouN=cfJjF4hJtto5q4-7xTjOBaP1QJ5pOVJ73A@mail.gmail.com>
 <573AD95A.3030900@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armisyJOCL3aUCfrFYSBPHJZfSuxiocukE0-AwzBB18_dtA@mail.gmail.com>
 <573AF985.1070307@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAL_armgJ8hCQdOHQ4OMG3GFoea4kbOxiCK95u8CTqNfGs4yw8Q@mail.gmail.com>

On 17 May 2016 at 11:59, Anders Sandberg wrote:
> Remember the Carter argument: the probability of life emerging may be very
> low, and there could be secondary low-probability steps between it and
> intelligence. So most planets never get it, and among those that get it the
> secondary steps never happen. The planets with observers on them will be the
> ones that have the unlikely combination of getting all the steps, and if the
> natural rate of them happening is slow, we should expect them to be about
> equidistant across the time interval the planet is habitable. So early life
> is not evidence of easy life unless there is no reason to think there are
> any hard steps. However, we do have some evidence for hard steps (e.g. at
> least one transition in genetic coding, which is something we know tends to
> be stable over 10^80 cell divisions).
>
> In short, observer selection bias makes data from Earth suspect in updating
> our probabilities.
>
> Note that your idea is nicely testable: if we do find life on Mars, Europa
> or Ceres, then we have reason to think life is indeed common and not a great
> filter. That is bad news for our future, though: while the probability of
> intelligence evolving factor decreases the most given this, the expected
> lifespan of civilization decreases second most.
>

You seem to be depending on the 'Rare Earth' claim to validate
ignoring the evidence of life everywhere on Earth, even extremophiles
which live in environments that would destroy most earth life. I doubt
whether it is valid to use observer selection bias to ignore evidence
unless you first refute the arguments against the 'Rare Earth'
hypothesis.
e.g.
the really big numbers in the universe (quantity of planets, stars,
galaxies and 13.8 billion years),
the way the laws of physics are suited to life. This is a universe
where life happens. To claim it only happened on Earth and will never
happen anywhere else seems unlikely.
Amino acids are built wherever the components are available and have
been detected on meteorites, comets, etc. Organic chemistry happens in
space.
George Dvorsky has a good summary of the arguments (also discussed in comments).
<http://www.sentientdevelopments.com/2009/03/rare-earth-delusion.html>

Finding life elsewhere will certainly be another argument against the
Rare Earth hypothesis. But as we find Martian meteorites on Earth,
cross-pollination between Solar System planets could explain life on
other planets. To be definitive it would have to be very different
from terrestrial life forms.


>
> Isn't this a rather backward way of reasoning?
>

No, it's just a fancy way of saying we don't know what
post-Singularity civilisations will decide to do.
It almost certainly won't be more of the same stuff we do.
And to explain the Great Silence, it seems that they all decide on (or
are forced into) a supremely attractive path that causes them to be
undetectable by more primitive civilisations.

BillK


From danust2012 at gmail.com  Tue May 17 19:00:24 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 12:00:24 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <573B1BD1.8000208@aleph.se>
References: <CACB7g24DcS04UgCshdM=FSfA-5K6yhwMh1VDFi5S9TQuHPAT4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0wHf65Cx9b0Q5f-5sk890sk0N8Gj_9o+r8KHHr66d=Gw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2djLx1Hp=B4xpgjPjzySztK-J4rwGUkixRpAR5_=OOFzA@mail.gmail.com>
 <573B1BD1.8000208@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CACB7g26mmi734dUBm1=PN9SJDH-+RywgEZ8njexQ7Ni9xe-48A@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 6:25 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:
> Big countries have repudiated their debts before. Argentina is perhaps
> the best known example, and the aftermath is a pretty good indicator
> of why it is a bad idea. When part of your navy gets impounded when
> visiting foreign ports you are in trouble.

If it were likely that part US Navy's fleet might be impounded in foreign
ports, I'm still trying to figure out why this would be a bad outcome.

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/20160517/fe32e8bf/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Tue May 17 19:26:20 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 12:26:20 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv0d+ijQ4Zaz+dg4+uQ-U2Z9X+qp2T_8UOtJD-hgi7HuWg@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>
 <CAAc1gFgBwPd+wqq3PWX=4gG0zMxK9iTuSCrxtmMJRXoJoAtrig@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3cof55h0D=LKnHzE6HZXm4UhdUHdW_KEu6NA3VYc94BQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <001801d1af18$f948aaa0$ebd9ffe0$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv2PcvPbm6s-AXwdL5sW7dB-KFJ9SrFWXGRUWtphdJS-pA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00b901d1af9a$56adcc30$04096490$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1GBCCefk2EDivGWg81VXCwez9qkyKELi84jJBXXcgJFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2deYihutXsmMRp1NfXEd_Xj6AWaw68swMo-SuUZv0G87A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0d+ijQ4Zaz+dg4+uQ-U2Z9X+qp2T_8UOtJD-hgi7HuWg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <01b601d1b071$fe5aeda0$fb10c8e0$@att.net>

 

 

Note to our European friends who have been so patient with our current Yank madness, not complaining, ever bearing our silly American periodic conniptions, I thank you.

 

Your friendly neighborhood omnipotent moderator, spike

 

 

 

Warning, this post contains even more of it, piled higher and deeper, and I haven?t even gotten to my particular burden: un-auditable electronic voting machines, and the next logical question, what happens in the very realistic scenario where it comes down to one state (as happened in 2000) and somehow? the internet goes down.

 

Then when the smoke clears? no one knows whose finger legally goes on the trigger to global nuclear holocaust, and we have no legal means of finding out.  What then?  Are we really hanging all that on the continuous flawless performance of the internet, when few even know how the hell it works?  Anyone?  Please?  Anders?  Anyone?

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark
Subject: Re: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt

 

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Dave Sill <sparge at gmail.com <mailto:sparge at gmail.com> > wrote:

 

?>> ?>?You wouldn't want government to know you were holding that stuff if you wanted to cheat on your taxes.

 

?> ?>?Or maybe it's none of the government's business what you own, only what sell.

 

?>?Perhaps, but Trump wants to be the boss of the boss of the IRS?

 

John, you do know that until very recently, the IRS wasn?t at the command of the White House, ja?  It was assumed that organization ran independently from the rest of the government.  You are also aware that presidents and senators generally avoided contact with the IRS, certainly visible contact, and that we suddenly experienced a jarring change?  We see the IRS was used as a law-enforcement tool, but only on actual criminals and only very rarely, but suddenly it is being used in the role for the masses of law-abiding citizens, ja?

 

>?the very organization that insists it IS the government's business to know what you own!...  John K Clark

 

On the contrary sir, the IRS has no legitimate right to know what you own.  They may tax only what you earn.

 

The reason I am finding this question important is because we were faced with a new question under the current administration.  We know that Nixon had his enemies list (and that Hilliary Milhous Clinton has hers) and there was evidence he was willing to use the IRS as a weapon.  Now, the current IRS was actually caught using tax law against a political party.  CAUGHT!  GOT EM!  

 

Then a bizarre thing happened: nothing.  No one has gone to prison.  The most important perp testified she did nothing wrong, then pled the fifth (OK so which is it then?  (It is a contradiction.))  She contradicted herself under oath, then walked away unscathed.  She has never faced any legal consequences, and walks free to this day.

 

This was a scary revealing demonstration, for now we ask: where in the constitution does it actually say the IRS cannot be used as a political weapon?  Where does it say it may not be used to functionally outlaw every political party other than its own?  Answer: it doesn?t.  The constitution doesn?t even mention political parties; it predated them.  It has always been understood that the IRS is not to be used that way, but? it can be, legally.  Now we have a choice of two candidates, neither of which anyone is at all confident would not use that power for that purpose.  

 

Before, decency, honor and reason had a place in government.  Today we see that the man who revealed the government used Jedi mind tricks on child-reporters to lie to us is not being allowed to testify.  Please, where is the decency, reason and honor in that?

 

Consequently? I am cheering for Bernie Sanders in the primaries.  Reasoning:  if we get down to a contest between Trump and Sanders, we will have a Republican candidate who is not really a Republican vs. a Democrat candidate who is not really a Democrat.

 

That contest will reduce the risk that America will descend into a one-party nation, a (slightly) scaled up nuclear armed version of California, which is now a one-party state.

 

spike

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160517/c5d42734/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Tue May 17 19:43:09 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 12:43:09 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv2qjN7_7CoiPYP3=pYviuQ=QSdYDNLNQodKcXO_-354TA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv29hVUEPhaeaHYGm9_MuGJ-ptixka-UdopVzvBZrP8pPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY-magA4qLA5J+kd3mQQgNf1xK4Bn6f3zbAVoeyU9Vc3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEbVf2-bqAdyRoNN8xuXgjHj-E1PFzJVXvFKC14DgZANdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3tT636qp6qkVVDD02nAWnmgBCX1XH3b3en_Sws3y6pDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2fkK1JHpeWdS7n6G7MK74y_HUmS9q_jQJQAy4mZv8pigQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2VB4r7m5CiyQ+WMOrM91LHHeZfkaLXjWL4GXAMpj=eZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <010101d1b05b$0fdfe920$2f9fbb60$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv2qjN7_7CoiPYP3=pYviuQ=QSdYDNLNQodKcXO_-354TA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <01d801d1b074$57cdb910$07692b30$@att.net>

 

 

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

Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 10:32 AM

To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>

Subject: Re: [ExI] Sanders, Clinton and Trump

 

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 12:42 PM, spike <mailto:spike66 at att.net> wrote:

 

?

?>>? John, that Clinton Foundation audit doesn?t tell us who donated the money to that Canadian charity which donated to the Clintons.  

 

?>?Yes they did, they told us the money came from Canadian ?Frank Giustra and Mexican Carlos Slim?

 

John, I know they told us where the money came from.  My contention is that we still don?t know where the money came from.  That Canadian charity donated huge amounts to the Clinton Foundation, which means they have shady connections, which means they donated money into a ?charity? which has no legitimate reason to call itself a charity that I can see.

 

>?And that Canadian charity has spent 30 million dollars on aids research by the way? John K Clark

 

Indeed, good for them.  Now, all the money that this Canadian charity ?donated? to the Clinton Foundation could have been used to do AIDS research and perhaps actual charity, instead of supporting this mysterious untraceable yoga.  Is Carlos Slim and Frank Giustra aware and are they OK with this?  Why?  Are you?  Why?

 

spike

 

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160517/12187364/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Tue May 17 20:02:22 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 16:02:22 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CAM5aL2fB+V2KK+T8=g4_zgv_yJuTaeryW3vM_V=x95c8s1FoEQ@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>
 <CAAc1gFgBwPd+wqq3PWX=4gG0zMxK9iTuSCrxtmMJRXoJoAtrig@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3cof55h0D=LKnHzE6HZXm4UhdUHdW_KEu6NA3VYc94BQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <001801d1af18$f948aaa0$ebd9ffe0$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv2PcvPbm6s-AXwdL5sW7dB-KFJ9SrFWXGRUWtphdJS-pA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00b901d1af9a$56adcc30$04096490$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1GBCCefk2EDivGWg81VXCwez9qkyKELi84jJBXXcgJFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2deYihutXsmMRp1NfXEd_Xj6AWaw68swMo-SuUZv0G87A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0d+ijQ4Zaz+dg4+uQ-U2Z9X+qp2T_8UOtJD-hgi7HuWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2fB+V2KK+T8=g4_zgv_yJuTaeryW3vM_V=x95c8s1FoEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv3QFLM=9BeafKG3QAV8+FbyKsFKECjmR3830O164EXs3w@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Dave Sill <sparge at gmail.com> wrote:


?> ?
John. Look, I get it: you think Trump is
?evil

?I think Trump is stupid and far worse than that is totally ignorant of the
fact that he's stupid, and if he ever becomes Commander In?

?Chief that ignorance will generate an enormous amount of evil.?


> ?>?
>  Have you ever filed a 1040?
>

?Yes.?



> Do you understand that it doesn't ask what you own?
>

?If I saw Trump's 1040 I'd know ever asset he owned that produced interest
dividends or generated rent, I'd know ever asset he had that he payed state
county or city taxes on, and if he sold any asset I'd know how much he got
for it what he bought it for and when he bought it. Clinton let the
American people see all her 1040's going back to 1977, if Trump had done
the same we would have a very good idea of how much money he has; unless he
bought a lot of nontaxable stuff in 1976 that produces no income of any
sort (gold for example) and then sat on it and did nothing with it for 40
years. And if he did that then he's a terrible businessman.    ?

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160517/386e8b49/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Tue May 17 19:57:48 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 12:57:48 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CACB7g26mmi734dUBm1=PN9SJDH-+RywgEZ8njexQ7Ni9xe-48A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACB7g24DcS04UgCshdM=FSfA-5K6yhwMh1VDFi5S9TQuHPAT4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0wHf65Cx9b0Q5f-5sk890sk0N8Gj_9o+r8KHHr66d=Gw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2djLx1Hp=B4xpgjPjzySztK-J4rwGUkixRpAR5_=OOFzA@mail.gmail.com>
 <573B1BD1.8000208@aleph.se>
 <CACB7g26mmi734dUBm1=PN9SJDH-+RywgEZ8njexQ7Ni9xe-48A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <01e601d1b076$6383da30$2a8b8e90$@att.net>

 

 

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

>?If it were likely that part US Navy's fleet might be impounded in foreign ports, I'm still trying to figure out why this would be a bad outcome.  Regards, Dan

 

 

Ja, this already happened, on 12 Jan 2016: Iran seized two US Navy vessels and crews.  Nothing bad came of it, depending on how you interpret Ben Rhodes? startling admission last week that the US government tried to keep it a secret, but those damn yakkity news agencies couldn?t keep it under wraps even for a couple hours.  

 

Instead the newsers chose to stab the administration by blabbing that info just before the president?s State of the Union address, which is why no one actually saw or heard that speech in real time.  We were tuned to the station covering that story on the hostages (FoxNews (Surprise!  (not.))) wondering if we were about to go to war with Iran.

 

Do ponder that, in light of the current administration?s preventing Ben Rhodes from spewing other damaging truths to the American voters, who they apparently feel can?t handle the truth.

 

spike

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160517/a5efa978/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Tue May 17 20:28:20 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 13:28:20 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
Message-ID: <CACB7g242azWAqvsPGCuZB4TzvozzbPK-x1fzkCGhjbaMFpcRRw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 17, 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 Dan TheBookMan
>
>>?If it were likely that part US Navy's fleet might be impounded in
foreign ports,
>> I'm still trying to figure out why this would be a bad outcome.
Regards, Dan
>
> Ja, this already happened, on 12 Jan 2016: Iran seized two US Navy
vessels and
> crews.

That was in the context of those vessels traveling in Iranian waters
uninvited, no?

> Nothing bad came of it, depending on how you interpret Ben Rhodes?
startling
> admission last week that the US government tried to keep it a secret, but
those
> damn yakkity news agencies couldn?t keep it under wraps even for a couple
hours.
>
> Instead the newsers chose to stab the administration by blabbing that
info just
> before the president?s State of the Union address, which is why no one
actually
> saw or heard that speech in real time.

I never watch SOTU in real time.

> We were tuned to the station covering that story on the hostages (FoxNews
> (Surprise!  (not.))) wondering if we were about to go to war with Iran.
>
> Do ponder that, in light of the current administration?s preventing Ben
Rhodes from
> spewing other damaging truths to the American voters, who they apparently
feel
> can?t handle the truth.

The context of Anders comment was that of after national debt repudiation.
I was joking in response -- mainly because I see the US Navy as an arm of
imperialism, especially when it's in foreign ports. In other words, having
its ships impounded means they can do less mayhem.

Now, that said, the case Anders cites is quite different. The Argentinian
ship seized... Well, it was an Argentinian naval ship, and basically a
training sailing vessel -- not, say, a battle cruiser. That's a big
difference in my mind.

Anyhow, I didn't see anything in the Iran thing. I mean it looked to me
just like what would have happened had Iranian vessels had engine trouble
and drifted into US waters. (And let's be clear, the vessels here was
CB90-class fast assault craft -- not a battle cruiser. And nothing bad came
of it. Cooler heads prevailed, but, yes, the news media and too many people
like to see things escalate.)

What do you think would be likely to happen if the US national debt were
repudiated? What are likely good and bad outcomes? Do you think John's sort
of meltdown scenario is likely?

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/20160517/64be5aca/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Tue May 17 20:39:51 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 16:39:51 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <01b601d1b071$fe5aeda0$fb10c8e0$@att.net>
References: <CE3D4CA8-795B-428A-972B-D366FEA22020@gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3JSRkOCAz+au4pf7F8g=4beFdnyc+=t14GKCHUyVTmBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <308CCF17-DAFD-4D2E-A8E6-C9B813A4906E@gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv1E5jic-j6EatULgpQCT9PwidUm-axDLtN5GHa2ciVeiw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFht2fVPtWmAgu+htvWTg0E2Vq3=Y_S+gR=HFFYXN7PCTw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0Nr9aGDYbGFhH9hF28T97dN1jq1FU+mnBwm_LGXdq4aw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgBwPd+wqq3PWX=4gG0zMxK9iTuSCrxtmMJRXoJoAtrig@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3cof55h0D=LKnHzE6HZXm4UhdUHdW_KEu6NA3VYc94BQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <001801d1af18$f948aaa0$ebd9ffe0$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv2PcvPbm6s-AXwdL5sW7dB-KFJ9SrFWXGRUWtphdJS-pA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00b901d1af9a$56adcc30$04096490$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1GBCCefk2EDivGWg81VXCwez9qkyKELi84jJBXXcgJFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2deYihutXsmMRp1NfXEd_Xj6AWaw68swMo-SuUZv0G87A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0d+ijQ4Zaz+dg4+uQ-U2Z9X+qp2T_8UOtJD-hgi7HuWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <01b601d1b071$fe5aeda0$fb10c8e0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv24TgBsA7SzLeEUZA+g8F6Ydwkr=D30CB1Z-DP0aO+BAw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 3:26 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:


> >
>> ?>?
>> ?the very organization that insists it *IS* the government's business to
>> know what you own!...
>
>
> ?> ?
> On the contrary sir, the IRS has no legitimate right to know what you
> own.


?It may not be legitimate but they demand to know more than that.?

?> ?
> They may tax only what you earn.


?They also tax interest, dividends, rents and capital gains, and if you pay
state county or city taxes on what you own it would be to your advantage to
tell the IRS about it.    ?


?> ?
> We know that Nixon had his enemies list (and that Hilliary Milhous Clinton
> has hers
>
>
?
And
?of course ?
Donald Trump has no enemies,
?
Donald loves everybody and everybody loves Donald.

?> ?
> California, which is now a one-party state.
>
>
?So is Texas, although it's a different party.  ?


? John K Clark?




>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160517/c9bc0153/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Tue May 17 20:58:58 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 13:58:58 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CACB7g242azWAqvsPGCuZB4TzvozzbPK-x1fzkCGhjbaMFpcRRw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACB7g242azWAqvsPGCuZB4TzvozzbPK-x1fzkCGhjbaMFpcRRw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <031001d1b07e$ef19ac20$cd4d0460$@att.net>

 

 

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

Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 1:28 PM

To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>

Subject: Re: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt

 

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 12:57 PM, spike <mailto:spike66 at att.net> wrote:

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

> 

 

>>? Ja, this already happened, on 12 Jan 2016: Iran seized two US Navy vessels and crews. 

>?That was in the context of those vessels traveling in Iranian waters uninvited, no?

 

Invited?  We have no legitimate official diplomatic relations with Iran, the country which attacked our embassy.  We don?t know where those sailors were located when they were captured.  The sailors are not being allowed to testify.  I heard one skipper has been canned.

 

>I never watch SOTU in real time?

 

Nor do I, even later.  I read the transcripts.  The last one I could stand to endure in real time was Ronald Reagan.

 

>?what would have happened had Iranian vessels had engine trouble and drifted into US waters?

 

Engine trouble, hmmm.  Dan the BookMan, what kind of engines do you envision those Navy boats as having?  Hint:  Diesel fuel is much easier to transport and much more forgiving than gasoline.  Furthermore, any Diesel motor hit with a terrific EMP would not even notice: they have gravity fed fuel with a hand pump backup, standard aspiration with turbos, etc.  That engine has no need for electronics, and would survive any electrical pulse which would take out any gasoline engine.  

 

Were the boats lost?  Did their compasses point the wrong way?  Did the Iranians have GPS jammers?  And did the sailors have no alternate multi-frequency backup navigation while sailing hostile waters?  And did two vessels have engine trouble simultaneously?

 

That engine-trouble flim-flam was a cover story and a contemptuous one at that, more transparent than the yoga routines, the internet video and that echo-chamber business.  Our own government is so dismissive of its citizens as to not even bother attempting a believable cover story.

 

 

>?What do you think would be likely to happen if the US national debt were repudiated? What are likely good and bad outcomes? Do you think John's sort of meltdown scenario is likely?  Dan

 

Defaulting on the national debt is a bad thing.  I am surprised at how many think we have any choice in the matter however.  A former presidential candidate pointed out that current government policy would eventually lead to default, but not by choice.  That candidate was H. Ross Perot, in 1992.  In retrospect, his comments on government spending were right on the money.  Al Gore repeated some of it in 2000, but proposed a solution which likely would not have worked.  Now, we pretend to be surprised as we see the Federal government debt double in one administration, in peace time.  

 

What a shock!

 

I see default as coming eventually (15-ish yrs) but not by choice.  I also see it as a soft default: Social Security pensioners will continue to get raises, but a fraction of a percent a year, as real inflation is perhaps 10 times that raise.  Medicare will pretend to pay, Medicare doctors will pretend to treat.  All Federal level subsidies of O-care will dwindle to nothing, not by choice, but because the Fed cannot pay.  This will be bad.  We will not choose this path willingly.  This path was chosen for us, by us, previously.

 

spike 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160517/bc2a3e30/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Tue May 17 23:18:05 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 19:18:05 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CACB7g242azWAqvsPGCuZB4TzvozzbPK-x1fzkCGhjbaMFpcRRw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACB7g242azWAqvsPGCuZB4TzvozzbPK-x1fzkCGhjbaMFpcRRw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFindYTXkLmY2Uyx8JjWtQQq7TYz_NQiZ0tr9QXV00Yx+Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> What do you think would be likely to happen if the US national debt were
> repudiated? What are likely good and bad outcomes? Do you think John's sort
> of meltdown scenario is likely?
>
>
### The most prominent outcome in my mind would be the US Govt losing the
ability to continue mortgaging our future to feed today's parasites. This
would not be bad.

I could imagine the following: Patriots are, miraculously, elected to high
offices in sufficient numbers to effect a repudiation of the national debt.
Rather than trying to suck life out of the flesh of our nation to maintain
the cancerous growth in Washington, they would rather let the monstrosity
wither. They would refuse to increase taxes to cover the expenses, they
would slash the budget by 80% and let it go down in (figurative) flames.
Repudiating government debt would be like pouring salt all over the
(figurative) ruins - a long lasting lesson to creditors that lending to an
illegitimate government is not just morally wrong but also a sucker's bet.

Vote Trump! Screw the debt!

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160517/0b49f54c/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Tue May 17 23:31:39 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 16:31:39 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFindYTXkLmY2Uyx8JjWtQQq7TYz_NQiZ0tr9QXV00Yx+Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACB7g242azWAqvsPGCuZB4TzvozzbPK-x1fzkCGhjbaMFpcRRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFindYTXkLmY2Uyx8JjWtQQq7TYz_NQiZ0tr9QXV00Yx+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <86CD3892-714A-4077-AB89-92E27C2A5CCB@gmail.com>

On May 17, 2016, at 4:18 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> What do you think would be likely to happen if the US national debt were repudiated? What are likely good and bad outcomes? Do you think John's sort of meltdown scenario is likely?
> 
> ### The most prominent outcome in my mind would be the US Govt losing the ability to continue mortgaging our future to feed today's parasites. This would not be bad.

I think they would simply lose the ability to borrow for a time, but shift over to relying on taxation, inflation, and direct confiscation to cover some of the shortfall. Some of these other means have restraints. If you tax or directly confiscate too much, the tax base tends to get riled up. If inflation gets too high, you risk strong cycle behavior and other distortions.

> I could imagine the following: Patriots are, miraculously, elected to high offices in sufficient numbers to effect a repudiation of the national debt.

Patriots? Please define. Do you mean nationalists? I doubt folks that despise and fear foreigners mind duping them into financing national debt. So such types would naturally have an incentive to be against national debt repudiation.

> Rather than trying to suck life out of the flesh of our nation to maintain the cancerous growth in Washington, they would rather let the monstrosity wither. They would refuse to increase taxes to cover the expenses, they would slash the budget by 80% and let it go down in (figurative) flames. Repudiating government debt would be like pouring salt all over the (figurative) ruins - a long lasting lesson to creditors that lending to an illegitimate government is not just morally wrong but also a sucker's bet.  

Doubtful. Nationalists usually want a big powerful state that caters to their whims -- their cultural, military, and economic agenda. Thus, my guess is they wouldn't want to really curb the central government's power or scope. They simply want it run by and for them.

> Vote Trump! Screw the debt!

If Trump were to do this, it would not be by intention.

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/20160517/72f21691/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Tue May 17 23:52:52 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 18:52:52 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <031001d1b07e$ef19ac20$cd4d0460$@att.net>
References: <CACB7g242azWAqvsPGCuZB4TzvozzbPK-x1fzkCGhjbaMFpcRRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <031001d1b07e$ef19ac20$cd4d0460$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEaHZAewBtNCJpD0NUcm1igM78QdGBwtRwTvJkMvHyYnfA@mail.gmail.com>

I see default as coming eventually (15-ish yrs) but not by choice.  I also
see it as a soft default: Social Security pensioners will continue to get
raises, but a fraction of a percent a year, as real inflation is perhaps 10
times that raise.  Medicare will pretend to pay, Medicare doctors will
pretend to treat.  All Federal level subsidies of O-care will dwindle to
nothing, not by choice, but because the Fed cannot pay.  This will be bad.
We will not choose this path willingly.  This path was chosen for us, by
us, previously.



spike
And what are WE doing about it?  Kicking the can down the road once again,
as usual?

What SHOULD we be doing about it?  Trim the military?

bill w

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 3:58 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On
> Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan
>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 1:28 PM
>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 12:57 PM, spike <mailto:spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
> > From: extropy-chat [mailto:mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]
> On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan
>
> >
>
>
>
> >>? Ja, this already happened, on 12 Jan 2016: Iran seized two US Navy
> vessels and crews.
>
> >?That was in the context of those vessels traveling in Iranian waters
> uninvited, no?
>
>
>
> Invited?  We have no legitimate official diplomatic relations with Iran,
> the country which attacked our embassy.  We don?t know where those sailors
> were located when they were captured.  The sailors are not being allowed to
> testify.  I heard one skipper has been canned.
>
>
>
> >I never watch SOTU in real time?
>
>
>
> Nor do I, even later.  I read the transcripts.  The last one I could stand
> to endure in real time was Ronald Reagan.
>
>
>
> >?what would have happened had Iranian vessels had engine trouble and
> drifted into US waters?
>
>
>
> Engine trouble, hmmm.  Dan the BookMan, what kind of engines do you
> envision those Navy boats as having?  Hint:  Diesel fuel is much easier to
> transport and much more forgiving than gasoline.  Furthermore, any Diesel
> motor hit with a terrific EMP would not even notice: they have gravity fed
> fuel with a hand pump backup, standard aspiration with turbos, etc.  That
> engine has no need for electronics, and would survive any electrical pulse
> which would take out any gasoline engine.
>
>
>
> Were the boats lost?  Did their compasses point the wrong way?  Did the
> Iranians have GPS jammers?  And did the sailors have no alternate
> multi-frequency backup navigation while sailing hostile waters?  And did
> two vessels have engine trouble simultaneously?
>
>
>
> That engine-trouble flim-flam was a cover story and a contemptuous one at
> that, more transparent than the yoga routines, the internet video and that
> echo-chamber business.  Our own government is so dismissive of its citizens
> as to not even bother attempting a believable cover story.
>
>
>
>
>
> >?What do you think would be likely to happen if the US national debt were
> repudiated? What are likely good and bad outcomes? Do you think John's sort
> of meltdown scenario is likely?  Dan
>
>
>
> Defaulting on the national debt is a bad thing.  I am surprised at how
> many think we have any choice in the matter however.  A former presidential
> candidate pointed out that current government policy would eventually lead
> to default, but not by choice.  That candidate was H. Ross Perot, in 1992.
> In retrospect, his comments on government spending were right on the
> money.  Al Gore repeated some of it in 2000, but proposed a solution which
> likely would not have worked.  Now, we pretend to be surprised as we see
> the Federal government debt double in one administration, in peace time.
>
>
>
> What a shock!
>
>
>
> I see default as coming eventually (15-ish yrs) but not by choice.  I also
> see it as a soft default: Social Security pensioners will continue to get
> raises, but a fraction of a percent a year, as real inflation is perhaps 10
> times that raise.  Medicare will pretend to pay, Medicare doctors will
> pretend to treat.  All Federal level subsidies of O-care will dwindle to
> nothing, not by choice, but because the Fed cannot pay.  This will be bad.
> We will not choose this path willingly.  This path was chosen for us, by
> us, previously.
>
>
>
> 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/20160517/379ea700/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Tue May 17 23:54:06 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 16:54:06 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <86CD3892-714A-4077-AB89-92E27C2A5CCB@gmail.com>
References: <CACB7g242azWAqvsPGCuZB4TzvozzbPK-x1fzkCGhjbaMFpcRRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFindYTXkLmY2Uyx8JjWtQQq7TYz_NQiZ0tr9QXV00Yx+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <86CD3892-714A-4077-AB89-92E27C2A5CCB@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <039b01d1b097$66797080$336c5180$@att.net>

 

 

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



 

>?I think they would simply lose the ability to borrow for a time, but shift over to relying on taxation, inflation, and direct confiscation to cover some of the shortfall?Dan

 

 

 

Dan, the problem with that notion is that the first two are legal, the third is not.

 

My notion is that as fewer lenders come offering, then taxes increase, but the Feds learned that Reagan was right: increased taxes do not necessarily increase revenue.  It might.  But it might not be nearly enough.  Inflation can be arranged, but the Fed might be reluctant to use it: pensioners suffer terribly.  The third is illegal.  So? the Fed finds it has a choice: raises taxes, not enough revenue.  Raise inflation, create much unhappiness.  Confiscate directly: kick off a civil war.

 

My best guess of what will happen is more of a soft default: they will still give Social Security people their checks, but they won?t amount to much.  We will find that H. Ross in 1992 and A. Gore in 2000 were telling the truth.  They will cut waaaay back on military spending.  They will end all subsidies to O-care, and it is clear enough that it will not and cannot self-sustain (surprise not.)

 

My main difference from most points of view is that we have any choice.  I think we do not at this point.

 

spike

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160517/dc150c53/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Wed May 18 00:08:45 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:08:45 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEaHZAewBtNCJpD0NUcm1igM78QdGBwtRwTvJkMvHyYnfA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACB7g242azWAqvsPGCuZB4TzvozzbPK-x1fzkCGhjbaMFpcRRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <031001d1b07e$ef19ac20$cd4d0460$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEaHZAewBtNCJpD0NUcm1igM78QdGBwtRwTvJkMvHyYnfA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <03a201d1b099$721e7aa0$565b6fe0$@att.net>

 

 

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

Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 4:53 PM

To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>

Subject: Re: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt

 

>>?I see default as coming eventually (15-ish yrs) but not by choice?This will be bad.  We will not choose this path willingly.  This path was chosen for us, by us, previously.

 

spike

>?And what are WE doing about it?  Kicking the can down the road once again, as usual?

 

I fear so sir.

 

 

>?What SHOULD we be doing about it?  Trim the military?  bill w

 

 

That would be a good start: cut it waaaay back.  Close bases.  Retire some of our military might.  That will hurt, but it will happen anyway.  We can do it now by choice, or? probably end up selling a lot of those fireworks to the highest bidder.

 

Second step: create a new constitutional amendment that requires the Fed to balance its budget year to year, as states must do.  

 

This too has its consequences.  The federal budget is then dependent on the previous year?s tax revenue.  So? a Federal employee does not know how much she will make.  It will make it difficult to borrow to the hilt if one does not know what payments one can make.  It might be less than this year.  This week?s paycheck might be less than last week.

 

Before you read further, why does the previous comment sound so weird to us?  Think about it.  Understanding why that concept is so hard to imagine tells us a lot about us.

 

This week?s paycheck might be more, but not a lot more: in surplus years, the overall salaries cannot rise more than say 4%.  But they can fall 20% in one year, if the economy sucks.  It will then take several years to return to the previous level.  If they argue we cannot attract good people, I point out we are apparently failing to attract good people now.  The prominent ones I see are not good people.  Lois Lerner is not good people.

 

If Federal government workers have a variable paycheck, would not they feel a little more sympathy for the businesswoman?

 

spike

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160517/be0c568a/attachment.html>

From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Wed May 18 00:41:31 2016
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 17:41:31 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Drake Equation Musings
Message-ID: <CAPiwVB7L8JoSuhAgOq=D8C+9wf4GBp5u_vtEcZvc5SoyFuUUmw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 10:09 AM,  Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

snip

> If intelligence often turns into black boxes, then p is small. But note
> that you need many orders of magnitude to weaken the update a lot: since
> x can be arbitrarily large, even if you think black box civilizations
> are super-likely the lack of observed civilizations in the vicinity
> should move your views about the possible upper range of densities a
> fair bit. Arguing p=0 is a very radical knowledge claim, and equivalent
> to positing the most audacious law of sociology ever (true for every
> individual, society and species!)

We have intelligence and physics interacting here.  I suspect that
there is a universal characteristic of intelligence, that is of you
are smart enough to impact the look of the universe, then you have the
desire to be smarter.  One of the ways to get smarter is to think
faster.  If this is the case, then we run into the physics limits,
which I suspect keeps the aliens home just due to the insane expansion
of space you get with moderate (million to one) speedup.

> [ Some of you will by now wonder why I do not say we should expect an
> uncertainty of p running over loads of orders of magnitude, like the
> life probability does in our paper. The reason is that there is a
> curious asymmetry between reasons intelligent life may not emerge and
> reasons intelligent life may be quiet. The first group is largely
> conjunctive: "intelligence will happen if X and Y and Z and W and...
> happens" - if one of the conditions in the chain is missing, there is no
> intelligence. Explanations for silence have the form "X or Y or Z or W
> or ...". If one of them is wrong, nothing happens to the outcome. But
> their probabilities need to sum to nearly exactly 1, and if one of them
> actually has less probability than needed then the entire explanation
> breaks. ]

If Aliens do stay home, confined to their system rather than their
planet, what might we be able to see?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KIC_8462852

http://www.ted.com/talks/tabetha_boyajian_the_most_mysterious_star_in_the_universe#

One of the things that are hard to understand is the lack of IR from
all the intercepted light from that star.  But as Tabetha put it, they
may be directionally radiating heat away from our line of sight.
Anyone looking into the James Web telescope would not see IR.

The long term, 100 year, dimming is also also consistent with aliens.
One of the things mentioned in the talk is a new mission to stare at a
million stars for this kind of dimming.

I would modify the title of her talk to be "the most mysterious star
in the universe so far."

Keith


From johnkclark at gmail.com  Wed May 18 01:00:51 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 21:00:51 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <01d801d1b074$57cdb910$07692b30$@att.net>
References: <CAJPayv29hVUEPhaeaHYGm9_MuGJ-ptixka-UdopVzvBZrP8pPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY-magA4qLA5J+kd3mQQgNf1xK4Bn6f3zbAVoeyU9Vc3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEbVf2-bqAdyRoNN8xuXgjHj-E1PFzJVXvFKC14DgZANdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3tT636qp6qkVVDD02nAWnmgBCX1XH3b3en_Sws3y6pDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2fkK1JHpeWdS7n6G7MK74y_HUmS9q_jQJQAy4mZv8pigQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2VB4r7m5CiyQ+WMOrM91LHHeZfkaLXjWL4GXAMpj=eZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <010101d1b05b$0fdfe920$2f9fbb60$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv2qjN7_7CoiPYP3=pYviuQ=QSdYDNLNQodKcXO_-354TA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01d801d1b074$57cdb910$07692b30$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv1tcu3DpSDX1qeZA1xhT1TJ74pMpspYqT98aeNUyY3yaA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 3:43 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

?>
>> ?>?
>> ?, they told us the money came from Canadian ?Frank Giustra and Mexican
>> Carlos Slim?
>
>
> ?> ?
> John, I know they told us where the money came from.  My contention is
> that we still don?t know where the money came from.
>
> ?I don't get it.?


> ?> ?
> That Canadian charity donated huge amounts to the Clinton Foundation,
> which means they have shady connections,
> ?
>
> ?I don't get it.?

?Why does that mean they have shady connections??

?
> ?which means they donated money into a ?charity? which has no legitimate
reason to call itself a charity that I can see.

I don't get it, ?Clinton has ?
?put the tax return and ?an outside audit of the entire charity on the
internet for all the world to see. What more can she do?

>
>> ?>?
>> ?And that Canadian charity has spent 30 million dollars on aids research
>> by the way?
>
> ?>?
>  Indeed, good for them.  Now, all the money that this Canadian charity
> ?donated? to the Clinton Foundation could have been used to do AIDS
> research and perhaps actual charity, instead of supporting this mysterious
> untraceable yoga.  Is Carlos Slim and Frank Giustra aware and are they OK
> with this?  Why?  Are you?  Why?
>
> I don't get what "this" means so I can not answer, in fact there is a lot
I don't get. It seems
?
clear
?
that the
?
majority of Etropians
?
favor Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton and I don't get it.I'm not kidding
?
I really don't get it.
?
At one time the
?
vast
?
majority of Extropians were libertarians
?,
is that no longer the case? Clinton is not nearly as libertarian as I'd
like but she's far more libertarian than
?
Trump.

Libertarians are in favor of freedom of speech but Trump wants the law
changed so that if a journalist says he only has 250 million dollars or a
stand up comedian says he's a orangutan they will be punished. Clinton
likes freedom of speech and does not want the law changed.

Libertarians are in favor of free trade and so is Clinton, but Trump want
to slap huge tariffs on imports and start trade wars with just
about everybody.

Libertarians are in favor of encryption but Donald Trump wants people to
boycott Apple because
?Apple?
 refuse
?s?
to put a backdoor into all their products so the NSA can get in whenever
they want. Hillary Clinton wants no such boycott.

Libertarians are in favor of reproductive rights but Donald Trump thinks
women should be punished for having abortions. Hillary Clinton thinks its
the women who should
?make the decision on
have
?ing?
a abortion not government
politicians.

Libertarians are in favor of economic responsibility but Donald Trump
thinks it might be a good idea to break the promise to repay the national
debt. Hillary Clinton thinks the idea is absolutely insane and so do I.

Libertarians are in favor of human rights but Donald Trump thinks
waterboarding is not nearly brutal enough and vows to inflict torture that
is "a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding" and will happily do so even
if no useful information is obtained from it because "they deserve it". Hillary
Clinton is appalled at such inhumanity, and so is the head of the CIA, and
so am I.

Donald Trump says as president he would order the US military to kill the
children of suspected terrorists. Hillary Clinton says she would never give
such an order and all the top generals say the they would flat out refuse
to obey such a
?n?
order from their commander in chief, and I would too.

At one time Extropians were interested in science, is that no longer the
case?

Donald Trump is helping to spread the unscientific and lethal meme that
vaccinations cause autism. Hillary Clinton is not spreading that deadly
meme.

At one time Extropians were interested in the future, is that no longer the
case?

With Donald Trump encouraging Saudi Arabia and a bunch of other countries
to make Nuclear Weapons, and with reckless talk of using Nuclear Bombs in
Europe and annihilating ISIS "very very quickly" we may not have a future.
These are existential threats
? but all Extropians want to talk about is a trivial security violation on ?
Hillary Clinton
?'s E-mail server.

I mean it, I honestly don't get it.?

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160517/adaf9ca8/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Wed May 18 01:50:51 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 21:50:51 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFindYTXkLmY2Uyx8JjWtQQq7TYz_NQiZ0tr9QXV00Yx+Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACB7g242azWAqvsPGCuZB4TzvozzbPK-x1fzkCGhjbaMFpcRRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFindYTXkLmY2Uyx8JjWtQQq7TYz_NQiZ0tr9QXV00Yx+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv254K4aAWnSVNdgzPfOPuZdc8M3xrpi3J=fEoDo6s-rqQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 17, 2016  Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:

?>>?
>> What do you think would be likely to happen if the US national debt were
>> repudiated? What are likely good and bad outcomes? Do you think John's sort
>> of meltdown scenario is likely?
>>
>>
> ?> ?
> ### The most prominent outcome in my mind would be the US Govt losing the
> ability to continue mortgaging our future to feed today's parasites. This
> would not be bad.I could imagine the following: Patriots are, miraculously,
> elected to high offices in sufficient numbers to effect a repudiation of
> the national debt. Rather than trying to suck life out of the flesh of our
> nation to maintain the cancerous growth in Washington, they would rather
> let the monstrosity wither. They would refuse to increase taxes to cover
> the expenses, they would slash the budget by 80%
>

?Budget? Taxes? What are on earth you talking about? You've refused to pay
the debt, US government treasury bonds are now worthless so money no longer
exists and there is nothing to tax. Well OK maybe you could reduce the cans
of beans or number of dead squirrels or whatever is used to replace money
by 80% in the Mad Max world that would follow such a economic catastrophe,
but  there would be no patriots elected to high offices because there would
be no high offices, or low offices, or government, or civilization or much
of anything that makes life worth living.    ?

> ?> ?
> Vote Trump! Screw the debt!
>

?Yep, t
hat and
?"T
hree cheers for torture
?!"?
and
?"N
uclear weapons for everybody
?!"?
pretty
?much ?
sums up the Trump philosophy. And that is why Donald Trump is a madman. But
never mind
?that ?
the
?man?
?
 with the launch codes is unhinged
? during the worst economic crises in a thousand years?
, lets talk about what's really important, Hillary's
? E-mail?
server
?.?

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160517/89a6887d/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Wed May 18 01:37:53 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 18:37:53 -0700
Subject: [ExI] who did i just endorse?
Message-ID: <03f501d1b0a5$e5dca4b0$b195ee10$@att.net>

 

A lighthearted note for you guys after all the heaviness.

 

Note for our European friends: we have a candidate still running against Mrs. Clinton in a quixotic hopeless quest, for he is actually running against his own party, as is Mr. Trump.  He cannot win of course, but he seems a likeable sort, and one need not be ashamed of oneself for supporting him.  His campaign slogan is Feel the Bern (since his name is Bernie.)

 

Today I was shopping in Costco as is my wont.  Or one of them, being a multi-wont sort.  After checking out I got in line for a slice of their pizza, which is bland-ish but with sufficient spices, such as those little packages of crushed red peppers, you can get it on its feet.  You don?t get too carried away with the stuff, being really hot, but one package on a slice is tolerable and tasty.

 

So, the young lady behind the counter gave me my slice and put a package of crushed red peppers on the counter with the question: Would you like peppers sir?

 

I responded ?Oh yes, I love to feel the burn!?  She lit up.  She reached under the counter, grabbed a handful of those red pepper packages, took my wrist and pressed about 20 of these packages in my hand.  I laughed and thanked her, and walked away still laughing (as is another of my wonts.)

 

Then it hit me.  I think I just endorsed? a commie.

 

D^8{    Oh dear.

 

Oh well, at least he?s an honest one.

 

{8^D

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160517/4962327f/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Wed May 18 02:05:31 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 19:05:31 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv254K4aAWnSVNdgzPfOPuZdc8M3xrpi3J=fEoDo6s-rqQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACB7g242azWAqvsPGCuZB4TzvozzbPK-x1fzkCGhjbaMFpcRRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFindYTXkLmY2Uyx8JjWtQQq7TYz_NQiZ0tr9QXV00Yx+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv254K4aAWnSVNdgzPfOPuZdc8M3xrpi3J=fEoDo6s-rqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACB7g25XKZsR1_TYQVE+J1-CXD_LshVgAMwB3uRsCzpBvZwdzQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 6:50 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2016  Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> What do you think would be likely to happen if the US national debt were
>>> repudiated? What are likely good and bad outcomes? Do you think John's
>>> sort of meltdown scenario is likely?
>>>
>> ### The most prominent outcome in my mind would be the US Govt losing
> the ability to continue mortgaging our future to feed today's parasites.
This
> would not be bad.I could imagine the following: Patriots are,
miraculously,
> elected to high offices in sufficient numbers to effect a repudiation of
the
> national debt. Rather than trying to suck life out of the flesh of our
nation to
> maintain the cancerous growth in Washington, they would rather let the
> monstrosity wither. They would refuse to increase taxes to cover the
> expenses, they would slash the budget by 80%
>
> Budget? Taxes? What are on earth you talking about? You've refused to pay
> the debt, US government treasury bonds are now worthless so money no
> longer exists and there is nothing to tax. Well OK maybe you could reduce
> the cans of beans or number of dead squirrels or whatever is used to
replace
> money by 80% in the Mad Max world that would follow such a economic
> catastrophe, but  there would be no patriots elected to high offices
because
> there would be no high offices, or low offices, or government, or
civilization or
> much of anything that makes life worth living.

What do you think the odds are of your horror scenario not coming about?

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/20160517/ce65581c/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Wed May 18 02:20:38 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 19:20:38 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <039b01d1b097$66797080$336c5180$@att.net>
References: <CACB7g242azWAqvsPGCuZB4TzvozzbPK-x1fzkCGhjbaMFpcRRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFindYTXkLmY2Uyx8JjWtQQq7TYz_NQiZ0tr9QXV00Yx+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <86CD3892-714A-4077-AB89-92E27C2A5CCB@gmail.com>
 <039b01d1b097$66797080$336c5180$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CACB7g26_RCzReDDsOLcu6hJi2LVFJhcO+a1D0WPUW39_Nry82g@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 4:54 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On
Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan
>>?I think they would simply lose the ability to borrow for a time,
>> but shift over to relying on taxation, inflation, and direct
>> confiscation to cover some of the shortfall?Dan
>
> Dan, the problem with that notion is that the first two are legal, the
third is not.

Since the law can be changed, why does this matter? Since the government
legislature and courts determine what's legal, why would this matter? My
guess is direct confiscation wouldn't be done on a wide scale, since the
push back would be much more even than higher taxes.

> My notion is that as fewer lenders come offering, then taxes increase,
> but the Feds learned that Reagan was right: increased taxes do not
> necessarily increase revenue.  It might.  But it might not be nearly
enough.

Things learned are often forgotten. The lesson of the 1960s should've been
that inflation didn't work, especially by the late 1970s. Economist Roger
Garrison believes that governments, especially the US national one, tend to
shift between taxes, inflation, and borrowing -- though almost always
having a mix of the three. One, though, tends to be more favored than the
other time at any one time. Then it falls out of favor and one of the
others then falls back in favor. For instance, since debt is starting to
cast a long shadow be prepared to hear some people saying taxes or
inflation are the way out. (Debt repudiation, of course, is a way out of
debt too, though, as we're discussing, it has its risks and costs -- even
if your don't buy the Mad Max end game John worries about.:)

> Inflation can be arranged, but the Fed might be reluctant to use it:
pensioners
> suffer terribly.

One can argue that's already happened, time and again, and that we've
experienced it in recent years. Or am I the only one noticing prices rising
in many different areas (not all, but inflation tends not to raise all
prices equally or at the same time).

> The third is illegal.

See above. By the way, one means of direct confiscation now practices is
eminent domain, though that's unlikely to be used for widespread revenue
enhancement.

> So? the Fed finds it has a choice: raises taxes, not enough revenue.
Raise
> inflation, create much unhappiness.  Confiscate directly: kick off a
civil war.

Well, let's look at this another way. You believe those would be the
outcomes. Do you believe policymakers would think the same way you do? Have
they thought your way in the past?

> My best guess of what will happen is more of a soft default: they will
still give
> Social Security people their checks, but they won?t amount to much.  We
will
> find that H. Ross in 1992 and A. Gore in 2000 were telling the truth.
They will
> cut waaaay back on military spending.  They will end all subsidies to
O-care,
> and it is clear enough that it will not and cannot self-sustain (surprise
not.)

Are you saying not really a soft debt repudiation, but rather just lowering
the budget? After all, we're talking about lenders who bought US debt --
not people who were promised benefits, right?

> My main difference from most points of view is that we have any choice.
I think we do not at this point.

To be honest, if you mean we here, we don't have much input anyhow. But if
you mean the entire nation, well, you might be right in terms that public
spending is unsustainable as is -- or so it would appear. Of course, on a
moral responsibility note, the debt doesn't belong to or was not created by
us, but by the ruling class. That the ruling class created debts doesn't
mean anyone else is morally obligated to pay them -- any more than, say,
you going to the track on borrowed money means everywhere else here owes
your bookie when you lose. Right?

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/20160517/0f837f61/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Wed May 18 02:22:10 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 19:22:10 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv1tcu3DpSDX1qeZA1xhT1TJ74pMpspYqT98aeNUyY3yaA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv29hVUEPhaeaHYGm9_MuGJ-ptixka-UdopVzvBZrP8pPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY-magA4qLA5J+kd3mQQgNf1xK4Bn6f3zbAVoeyU9Vc3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEbVf2-bqAdyRoNN8xuXgjHj-E1PFzJVXvFKC14DgZANdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3tT636qp6qkVVDD02nAWnmgBCX1XH3b3en_Sws3y6pDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2fkK1JHpeWdS7n6G7MK74y_HUmS9q_jQJQAy4mZv8pigQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2VB4r7m5CiyQ+WMOrM91LHHeZfkaLXjWL4GXAMpj=eZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <010101d1b05b$0fdfe920$2f9fbb60$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv2qjN7_7CoiPYP3=pYviuQ=QSdYDNLNQodKcXO_-354TA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01d801d1b074$57cdb910$07692b30$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1tcu3DpSDX1qeZA1xhT1TJ74pMpspYqT98aeNUyY3yaA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <043101d1b0ac$15f36070$41da2150$@att.net>

 

 

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

 

?>>? ?That Canadian charity donated huge amounts to the Clinton Foundation, which means they have shady connections,

? 

?>?I don't get it.?  Why does that mean they have shady connections??

 

John: because both Clintons are shady characters.  Both lie.  Any charity which donates to them is suspect.

 

?

>?I don't get it, ?Clinton has ?

?put the tax return and ?an outside audit of the entire charity on the internet for all the world to see?

 

The world cannot see who funneled money through that Canadian charity.  Canadian charities are not required to reveal all.  So they were a perfect vehicle for the perfect crime.

 

>?What more can she do?

 

Show us the yoga routines.  We don?t care about the tax returns; we already know the shady stuff wouldn?t be found there, just as we knew the evidence in Nixon?s case was in that missing 18 minutes.  The email was all intentionally and carefully deleted while under subpoena.  But all is not lost.  She can probably buy copies of everything from a hacker, then show it to us.  She has the funds, in the Clinton family charity.

 

But she won?t.  That stuff will probably leak eventually, but Mrs. Clinton won?t be the one to leak it.  We don?t know who is going to do that, or how to verify if it is genuine.  That in itself is one hell of a note.

 

 

>>?? Carlos Slim and Frank Giustra aware and are they OK with this?  Why?  Are you?  Why?

 

>?I don't get what "this" means so I can not answer, in fact there is a lot I don't get?

 

This means giving money that could have gone into AIDS research instead disappearing into the Clinton Family ?charity? which is under their control, doing who knows what, but we do know it is not charity.  The Clintons don?t do charity.  They use that money for political gain.

 

 

>?It seems clear that the majority of Etropians favor Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton and I don't get it?

 

Nah, Gary Johnson most of them.  He?s a good guy.  

 

We Yank ExI-ers are in the same unfortunate position as our own countrymen however.  If we took either of the major candidates and put only that candidate alone on the ballot with two boxes, YES and NO, it is conceivable that in either case it would be a close race with no guarantees the YES would win.  We could elect NO for president, which would be better than either of these two.  I would rather risk four years of vulnerability to nuclear first strike than either of these.  

 

These two are the worst choices in American history, absolute worst.

 

 

 

? >?At one time the vast majority of Extropians were libertarians is that no longer the case? 

 

Go Gary!  Libertarian party convention in less than two weeks!

 

 

>?Clinton is not nearly as libertarian as I'd like but she's far more libertarian than Trump?

 

John that isn?t at all clear to me.

 

>?Libertarians are in favor of freedom of speech but Trump wants the law changed so that if a journalist?

 

A filmmaker is a journalist in a sense.  Mrs. Clinton had one jailed in order to lend support to a cover story that was so silly it was laughable.  It ruined his career: not being jailed, that would have helped his career.  It ruined his career because it called so much attention to a movie that was so stupid, poorly made and boring it was difficult even to view the advertising trailer.  (Go ahead, attempt to view it; it?s still out there, and hasn?t improved a bit.)  Mrs. Clinton blamed this video, which was so boring, even the ayatollahs couldn?t stay awake through it and had never heard of the silly thing until she called attention to it.

 

This and the rest of your examples are exactly why presidents don?t make law.  Congress makes law.  If those parties disagree, nothing changes, which is how the system is intentionally designed.  You get some crazy goof or some criminal (which will probably happen soon) and the likely outcome is a no-change.  Well then, OK, if we must.

 

In fact, given a sufficiently dire choice, I can even see electing an out-of-the-closet commie.  He or she would be far enough left of center, congress would never send him anything to veto.  So nothing changes.  Is that so bad?  Is a no-change for four years so bad really?

 

Trump could launch a nuclear war unilaterally, but I don?t think that would happen.  I don?t even think Hilliary Clinton would launch the nukes.  But she could launch cruise missiles with conventional warheads, if someone is threatening to leak her yoga.  I don?t think Trump would do that either: those things are expensive.  Bill Clinton did, firing 750 million dollars worth of them at nothing.

 

John you have somehow convinced yourself that Mrs. Clinton is honest and that the security leak is trivial.  I do not follow that reasoning at all.  Treason is never trivial.  Note that Scooter Libby was nearly charged for treason when a reporter said ?I heard yakkity yak works at the CIA.?  He replied, ?Yeah I heard that too.?  Mrs. Clinton knew she wasn?t allowed to do her State Department business on her personal server: she asked as was told not just no, but hell no.  She did it anyway, requiring her aids to routinely commit felonies.  Do you think the FBI won?t be able to find out who sent those and how the hell they got them across the gap?  That last part has really had me going for almost a year now: whodunit and how was it done?

 

Compare to Mrs. Clinton?s revealing TS to Scooter?s uttering ?Yeah I heard that too?, Clinton?s storing TS on an unsecured server, making a flash drive copy and giving it to her attorney who had no clearance, all of which is definitely treason, not some trivial little oops on an absent minded Friday afternoon.  Then carefully erasing the evidence which was under subpoena, which is obstruction of justice.  Then instructing her attorney to not answer the obvious question ?How was the determination made for which messages should be erased??  Then telling us it was all yoga, wedding plans and love notes to Bill, which is arrogant as hell, insulting and obviously as false as the laughable internet video story.  Had the erased email been only that, she wouldn?t have gone to all the trouble, refused a subpoena, made it look like what it looks like to get rid of those 30,000 yoga routines.  She knew it would look Nixonian, far worse than his erased 18 minutes of audio.  This is 30,000 suspicious emails, vs 18 minutes of audio.

 

 

>?I mean it, I honestly don't get it.?

 

 John K Clark

 

I mean it too John, I get it.  I honestly do get it.  Plenty of us do.

 

spike

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160517/5e3c25c3/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Wed May 18 02:47:00 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 22:47:00 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <86CD3892-714A-4077-AB89-92E27C2A5CCB@gmail.com>
References: <CACB7g242azWAqvsPGCuZB4TzvozzbPK-x1fzkCGhjbaMFpcRRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFindYTXkLmY2Uyx8JjWtQQq7TYz_NQiZ0tr9QXV00Yx+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <86CD3892-714A-4077-AB89-92E27C2A5CCB@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFiZB=xgYggzC+taPenLSRKeszoNMazQ2PV=r=iQiqUtCg@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.co
<danust2012 at gmail.com>m


Patriots? Please define.
>

### Reasonable people who would like this country to flourish long-term.



> Do you mean nationalists?
>


### No, I mean reasonable people, not idiots.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160517/88c84535/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Wed May 18 02:47:33 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 19:47:33 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <031001d1b07e$ef19ac20$cd4d0460$@att.net>
References: <CACB7g242azWAqvsPGCuZB4TzvozzbPK-x1fzkCGhjbaMFpcRRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <031001d1b07e$ef19ac20$cd4d0460$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CACB7g26+zuTJbdm9mCXT2_p-DJmrRikRSKGALfhxOLycWz0TXA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 1:58 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>>>? Ja, this already happened, on 12 Jan 2016: Iran seized two US Navy
vessels and crews.
>
>>?That was in the context of those vessels traveling in Iranian waters
uninvited, no?
>
> Invited? We have no legitimate official diplomatic relations with Iran,
the country
> which attacked our embassy.

That's not really the point, but if you want to go there, it's not "our
embassy," but the US embassy that was attacked. There's also a backstory
there, one having to do with the 1953 coup and how the British embassy was
involved in an earlier coup attempt and then the US embassy was involved in
a successful one. Some argue that that played a big role in some Iranians
not seeing embassies as sacrosanct.

> We don?t know where those sailors were located when they were captured.
The
> sailors are not being allowed to testify.  I heard one skipper has been
canned.

All right. That's not the story I've read in the news. So we have a basic
disagreement on what are the facts of the matter. Do you agree that the US
Navy boats entered Iranian waters and that, whatever happened, no US
sailors died?

> >I never watch SOTU in real time?
>
> Nor do I, even later.  I read the transcripts.  The last one I could
stand to endure
> in real time was Ronald Reagan.

Why him? See:

https://mises.org/library/reagan-fraud-%E2%80%94-and-after

>>?what would have happened had Iranian vessels had engine trouble and
drifted
>> into US waters?
>
> Engine trouble, hmmm.  Dan the BookMan, what kind of engines do you
envision
> those Navy boats as having?  Hint:  Diesel fuel is much easier to
transport and
> much more forgiving than gasoline.  Furthermore, any Diesel motor hit
with a
> terrific EMP would not even notice: they have gravity fed fuel with a
hand pump
> backup, standard aspiration with turbos, etc.  That engine has no need for
> electronics, and would survive any electrical pulse which would take out
any
> gasoline engine.

So you believe that the report of mechanical issues was fabricated? What's
your basis for believing this?

> Were the boats lost?  Did their compasses point the wrong way?  Did the
Iranians
> have GPS jammers?  And did the sailors have no alternate multi-frequency
backup
> navigation while sailing hostile waters?

It's starting to sound like you believe the Iranian navy has weapons and
technology well in advance of the West and of the US in particular. What's
the evidence for this?

> And did two vessels have engine trouble simultaneously?

Wasn't the official story that one broke down and the other stayed with it?

> That engine-trouble flim-flam was a cover story and a contemptuous one at
that,
> more transparent than the yoga routines, the internet video and that
echo-chamber
> business.  Our own government is so dismissive of its citizens as to not
even
> bother attempting a believable cover story.

Okay, if you put it that way, it's possible and governments, especially the
US one, do routinely lie. But the way to examine this is to ask questions
like: What's the base rate of mechanical problems for these boats? Yes,
diesel engines might be very reliable, but not only do they break down, but
other things can go wrong with a patrol boat. We'd have to look at these
probabilities and then see if this incident was wildly improbable.

>>?What do you think would be likely to happen if the US national debt were
>> repudiated? What are likely good and bad outcomes? Do you think John's
>> sort of meltdown scenario is likely?
>
> Defaulting on the national debt is a bad thing.

Why is it bad?

> I am surprised at how many think we have any choice in the matter however.
> A former presidential candidate pointed out that current government policy
> would eventually lead to default, but not by choice.  That candidate was
H.
> Ross Perot, in 1992.  In retrospect, his comments on government spending
> were right on the money.  Al Gore repeated some of it in 2000, but
proposed
> a solution which likely would not have worked.  Now, we pretend to be
> surprised as we see the Federal government debt double in one
administration,
> in peace time.
>
> What a shock!

Since those in charge of spending really have little incentive to not
spend, it's hardly surprising. It's also been noted before. And the recent
run up is really no different than the last several decades of profligacy,
save that now foreign debt is a big source of financing.

> I see default as coming eventually (15-ish yrs) but not by choice.  I
also see
> it as a soft default: Social Security pensioners will continue to get
raises,
> but a fraction of a percent a year, as real inflation is perhaps 10 times
that
> raise.  Medicare will pretend to pay, Medicare doctors will pretend to
treat.
> All Federal level subsidies of O-care will dwindle to nothing, not by
choice,
> but because the Fed cannot pay.  This will be bad.  We will not choose
this
> path willingly.  This path was chosen for us, by us, previously.

That's not really a default. The creditors might still be getting paid
under that scenario. A default to me means the debt won't be paid, that the
creditors simply get a deadweight loss. Let me try a scenario with you.
Let's say I borrow $1 million from you and I promise, say, a thousand
people here that I will give them gifts of $10,000 each and I have no other
money and I'm not earning interest or anything. I start handing out the
gifts, but then I notice just how bad I was at math. After a hundred people
get their gift of cash from me, there will be nothing left. I could try to
borrow more, of course, because I love to play Santa Claus and all that,
but I find I can't get anymore because others have done the math. I still
owe you $1 million plus whatever interest is due. Me defaulting here would
be what? Not giving the other 900 people their gifts of cash? To me, it
would be me not paying you back. Then I've defaulted on the loan. That's
what folks mean when they're talking about default -- not cutting the gifts
or spending.

(Maybe calling it a soft default makes it seem different here. To me, a
soft default might be something like partially defaulting on the creditors
-- maybe restructuring the debt or, say, telling them there's no way to pay
the interest or even canceling part of the debt. With default, anyway, my
question is always going to be: What happens to the creditors? And don't
take this is a moral claim. It's a semantic one. It can be argued on moral
grounds that those loaning to any state really don't have much of a just
claim -- just like loaning money to a mobster doesn't entail one to a just
claim to be repaid tout court.)

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/20160517/468457b5/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Wed May 18 02:50:14 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 22:50:14 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEaHZAewBtNCJpD0NUcm1igM78QdGBwtRwTvJkMvHyYnfA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACB7g242azWAqvsPGCuZB4TzvozzbPK-x1fzkCGhjbaMFpcRRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <031001d1b07e$ef19ac20$cd4d0460$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEaHZAewBtNCJpD0NUcm1igM78QdGBwtRwTvJkMvHyYnfA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFhFz5a-QfzeMznjjh0L=X3TNj0kpdTJm1twdKvfLuOo3Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 7:52 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> What SHOULD we be doing about it?  Trim the military?
>
> ### End Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, fire 90% of US gov't
employees, abolish 90% of Federal agencies (most of all the EPA). Trimming
the military is more of an afterthought, it's small change.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160517/fcfaf662/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Wed May 18 02:53:20 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 22:53:20 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv254K4aAWnSVNdgzPfOPuZdc8M3xrpi3J=fEoDo6s-rqQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACB7g242azWAqvsPGCuZB4TzvozzbPK-x1fzkCGhjbaMFpcRRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFindYTXkLmY2Uyx8JjWtQQq7TYz_NQiZ0tr9QXV00Yx+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv254K4aAWnSVNdgzPfOPuZdc8M3xrpi3J=fEoDo6s-rqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFjPQUOkHXM0vZEWFX7LetVkYh5OmNg3Z43WmYS69Xa_wg@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 9:50 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> ?Budget? Taxes? What are on earth you talking about? You've refused to pay
> the debt, US government treasury bonds are now worthless so money no longer
> exists and there is nothing to tax.
>

### Gold exists.

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

> Well OK maybe you could reduce the cans of beans or number of dead
> squirrels or whatever is used to replace money by 80% in the Mad Max world
> that would follow such a economic catastrophe, but  there would be no
> patriots elected to high offices because there would be no high offices, or
> low offices, or government, or civilization or much of anything that makes
> life worth living.
>

### The problem with sky-is-falling rhetoric is that after a paragraph or
so eyes tend to glaze over.
 -----------------

>
> ?Yep, t
> hat and
> ?"T
> hree cheers for torture
> ?!"?
> and
> ?"N
> uclear weapons for everybody
> ?!"?
> pretty
> ?much ?
> sums up the Trump philosophy. And that is why Donald Trump is a madman.
>

### Yeah, yeah, sure.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160517/74f13ddc/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Wed May 18 02:58:03 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 19:58:03 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFiZB=xgYggzC+taPenLSRKeszoNMazQ2PV=r=iQiqUtCg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACB7g242azWAqvsPGCuZB4TzvozzbPK-x1fzkCGhjbaMFpcRRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFindYTXkLmY2Uyx8JjWtQQq7TYz_NQiZ0tr9QXV00Yx+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <86CD3892-714A-4077-AB89-92E27C2A5CCB@gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFiZB=xgYggzC+taPenLSRKeszoNMazQ2PV=r=iQiqUtCg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACB7g24GjoUP+qrSSB1B9Z1YZnsCw9ZMLar7q0ZiTZLCdHmHmQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com
>> Patriots? Please define.
>
>
> ### Reasonable people who would like this country to flourish long-term.

IMO reasonable people should want the world or universe to flourish -- not
merely whatever country they find themselves in at the time.

>> Do you mean nationalists?
>
> ### No, I mean reasonable people, not idiots.

I would eschew the term patriot. It is just a euphemism for nationalist,
especially meaning nationalists people are supposed to like.

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/20160517/a6712e6a/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Wed May 18 03:08:25 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 23:08:25 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CACB7g24GjoUP+qrSSB1B9Z1YZnsCw9ZMLar7q0ZiTZLCdHmHmQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACB7g242azWAqvsPGCuZB4TzvozzbPK-x1fzkCGhjbaMFpcRRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFindYTXkLmY2Uyx8JjWtQQq7TYz_NQiZ0tr9QXV00Yx+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <86CD3892-714A-4077-AB89-92E27C2A5CCB@gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFiZB=xgYggzC+taPenLSRKeszoNMazQ2PV=r=iQiqUtCg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACB7g24GjoUP+qrSSB1B9Z1YZnsCw9ZMLar7q0ZiTZLCdHmHmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFguNPRZeeML4a1tvdwUMFxOB63Rgn8WRzQdr9Ewk4ogZQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
> rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com
> >> Patriots? Please define.
> >
> >
> > ### Reasonable people who would like this country to flourish long-term.
>
> IMO reasonable people should want the world or universe to flourish -- not
> merely whatever country they find themselves in at the time.
>

### Well, yeah, but it's much easier to make your own country flourish
first, and in fact you pretty much have to make it flourish if you ever
want to have the resources you need to fix the universe.
 ----------------

>
> >> Do you mean nationalists?
> >
> > ### No, I mean reasonable people, not idiots.
>
> I would eschew the term patriot. It is just a euphemism for nationalist,
> especially meaning nationalists people are supposed to like.
>

### I think it's sad that manipulative hateful leftoids managed to make
this once powerful word seem tawdry.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160517/3d9d413a/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Wed May 18 04:06:18 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 21:06:18 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CACB7g26+zuTJbdm9mCXT2_p-DJmrRikRSKGALfhxOLycWz0TXA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACB7g242azWAqvsPGCuZB4TzvozzbPK-x1fzkCGhjbaMFpcRRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <031001d1b07e$ef19ac20$cd4d0460$@att.net>
 <CACB7g26+zuTJbdm9mCXT2_p-DJmrRikRSKGALfhxOLycWz0TXA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <04ab01d1b0ba$a219cae0$e64d60a0$@att.net>

 

 

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

 

 

 

>>? We don?t know where those sailors were located when they were captured.  The

> sailors are not being allowed to testify.  I heard one skipper has been canned.

 

>?All right. That's not the story I've read in the news. So we have a basic disagreement on what are the facts of the matter. Do you agree that the US Navy boats entered Iranian waters and that, whatever happened, no US sailors died?

 

Ja to both.  

 

When you say US Navy boats entered Iranian waters, this would include having been intercepted in international waters by Iranian gunboats by Iranian skippers who knew the American boat crews had orders to not fire if taken in international waters.

 

Then we can go to what I consider the most likely scenario: the American boats were close to Iranian waters.  The Iranian skippers took liberties with the boundaries, took them at gunpoint in international waters, ordered the Americans to shut off their (perfectly healthy) engines, waited for them to drift into Iranian waters, then took them prisoner.

 

I do not buy the engine trouble story: military equipment like a Diesel engine would be designed for reliability, since sailors hang their lives on them.  Had one boat had engine trouble, the other one would have towed it, or even pushed it in the rather bizarre scenario that sailors had no rope between them.  There was no hurry, they could have tied their shirts together to create a makeshift tow rope and hauled the dead boat out away from the borderline between Iranian waters.

 

So why give us that engine-trouble story?  To make it look like our fault or an accident?  Why didn?t they just say the American skippers (both of them) were playing chicken with that line?  Why are not they allowing the sailors to tell what happened?  Does not this look too much like our unwillingness to let the US employees of the Libyan embassy tell their story?  Note that the only ones who have talked about the Benghazi attack are those who were security contractors, over whom the government has no control.

 

Is there anyone left in government who still does not understand why no one believes them?

 

>?So you believe that the report of mechanical issues was fabricated? 

 

I do sir.

 

>?What's your basis for believing this?

 

Had it been so, the other boat would have towed it.  I think both boats were taken in international waters. 

 

The Iranians knew Barack wanted to be the peace president, at any and all cost, even while under direct attack.  The world saw how he reacted to the Benghazi attack: he went about apologizing for something we did not do and over which we had no control.  So the Iranians decided they wanted some of that too.  Now other countries will follow suit, one after another, probably with pretty similar results.

> Were the boats lost?  Did their compasses point the wrong way?  Did the Iranians

> have GPS jammers?  And did the sailors have no alternate multi-frequency backup

> navigation while sailing hostile waters?

 

>?It's starting to sound like you believe the Iranian navy has weapons and technology well in advance of the West and of the US in particular. What's the evidence for this? 

 

No, the questions are asked as a no to all.  The boats were not lost.  USNavy boats don?t get lost.  The Iranians have no tech magic.  They went right out in international waters and took the American boats with plain old guns, just like we have used since forever.  The Iranians knew the Americans were under orders to not fire first.  The Americans did not know the Iranians would not fire.  When ordered to power down and step away from their guns, the American skippers complied.  The American president celebrated their safe return, not a single shot fired, no casualties, hooray!  Meanwhile, Iran prepares their nuclear missiles, which will be aimed at Israel.

 

 

>> And did two vessels have engine trouble simultaneously?

 

>?Wasn't the official story that one broke down and the other stayed with it?

See anything wrong with that story?

 

>> Defaulting on the national debt is a bad thing. 

>?Why is it bad?

 

Because elderly pensioners don?t get enough to live on, and their doctors don?t get paid enough to treat them.  Both outcomes are bad.

 

>?That's not really a default. The creditors might still be getting paid under that scenario. A default to me means the debt won't be paid?

 

Ja, that is why I call it a soft default.  The Social Security people adjust payments according to inflation, and that number can be calculated creatively.  Hell I have enjoyed deflation for years: all the stuff I really care about owning has gotten steadily cheaper since forever.  I am a geek, so my stuff is electronics.  So? why do not we calculate inflation based on that?  Why on food?  That isn?t a really major fraction of my expenditures.  Inflation depends on what you buy.  I don?t really care much what gold costs; I am not buying it.  Don?t need it.  I am not buying a house, not buying a car.  For now I don?t care what that stuff costs.

 

But the elderly pensioners do care what rent costs and what food costs and what medical care costs: they buy that stuff.

 

So? I foresee a scenario where lenders realize it is crazy to keep loaning to the US.  Then the Federal government effectively reduces payments to pensioners by offering unrealistic inflation numbers, reduces payments to Medicare, hands back most social safety net stuff to the states, reduces the military, then the budget balances once again.

 

This might not be called a soft-default: it is still paying debts.  Just not as much as pensioners thought they would get.  Plenty of Yanks never save for retirement, assuming they will live on SS.  But when they arrive, they are shocked at how little money it is.  If you already own your house outright, don?t need medical care and are a light eater, it can be done.  But it really isn?t much now.  It can only go down from here.

 

spike

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160517/1b22ab4c/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Wed May 18 05:01:10 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 22:01:10 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <043101d1b0ac$15f36070$41da2150$@att.net>
References: <CAJPayv29hVUEPhaeaHYGm9_MuGJ-ptixka-UdopVzvBZrP8pPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY-magA4qLA5J+kd3mQQgNf1xK4Bn6f3zbAVoeyU9Vc3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEbVf2-bqAdyRoNN8xuXgjHj-E1PFzJVXvFKC14DgZANdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3tT636qp6qkVVDD02nAWnmgBCX1XH3b3en_Sws3y6pDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2fkK1JHpeWdS7n6G7MK74y_HUmS9q_jQJQAy4mZv8pigQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2VB4r7m5CiyQ+WMOrM91LHHeZfkaLXjWL4GXAMpj=eZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <010101d1b05b$0fdfe920$2f9fbb60$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv2qjN7_7CoiPYP3=pYviuQ=QSdYDNLNQodKcXO_-354TA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01d801d1b074$57cdb910$07692b30$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1tcu3DpSDX1qeZA1xhT1TJ74pMpspYqT98aeNUyY3yaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <043101d1b0ac$15f36070$41da2150$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNR1ioFe3BtY0wjz4SwJ79x+2DEpxNOMnnrhm3WtuXggYg@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 7:22 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
> John: because both Clintons are shady characters.  Both lie.  Any charity
> which donates to them is suspect.
>

Neither of those actually follow.

Given the amount of lying that happens all the time on Capitol Hill, one
would have to lie about stuff far larger than either of them have to be
"shady".

Given the corruption that anyone has, if you look deep enough, merely
assisting someone with something does not automatically make for
whole-hearted support, nor does it tar the donor with the level of
suspicion the recipient has.  One can support the Clinton Foundation's work
in what it claims to be doing, without intending to lend support to any
other facet of the Clintons' work.  (And in this particular election, even
if the charity was trying to end-run to get Clinton elected, "stop the GOP"
was sufficient and honest motive even before Trump clinched the nomination.)


> This means giving money that could have gone into AIDS research instead
> disappearing into the Clinton Family ?charity? which is under their
> control, doing who knows what, but we do know it is not charity.  The
> Clintons don?t do charity.  They use that money for political gain.
>

You're going to need some actual evidence here.  It is plain fact that the
Clinton Foundation calls itself a charity and has passed at least cursory
reviews to confirm that it is in fact doing some charity work, therefore
those in charge - the Clintons - do in fact "do" charity.

It is possible to do charity and simultaneously use that for political gain
("Look, look, aren't I a good philanthropist who you'd trust to be your
President?"), but then, all charity is ultimately done for some reward -
even just the psychic reward of doing good.  If that didn't exist, we would
be sufficiently biologically motivated against doing charity that the
concept would barely exist.


> John you have somehow convinced yourself that Mrs. Clinton is honest and
> that the security leak is trivial.  I do not follow that reasoning at all.
> Treason is never trivial.
>

You have argued that Mrs. Clinton is a felon, and when I challenged you on
that, you eventually came to see why she is apparently not (whatever the
consequences for her staff).  I've yet to see your case for why she is a
traitor, and I wonder if inspection of said case will have a similar result.


> Compare to Mrs. Clinton?s revealing TS to Scooter?s uttering ?Yeah I heard
> that too?, Clinton?s storing TS on an unsecured server, making a flash
> drive copy and giving it to her attorney who had no clearance, all of which
> is definitely treason
>

If this is your case, it makes no sense.  Each of those things you listed
may be a breach of law & security (emphasis: "may"; the FBI's determining
if they are), but treason requires actively betraying one's country.
Criminal activity alone does not cut it.  In fact, it is possible to commit
treason without committing any crime at all other than treason itself
(which is why treason is itself a crime).

In other words, if she is a traitor, to whom was she betraying the US to?
Everyone directly and intentionally aided by each of those steps (whatever
the unintended consequences) would seem to be part of the US, and not an
enemy of the country.  Absent some specific enemy of the US that she was
working with, there is no treason there.  (Unintentionally slipping up and
helping an enemy is not "treason", otherwise every member of the military
who has made a mistake during combat - whether or not they survived said
mistake - would be a traitor.)

(Note that being opposed to the current administration, or seeking election
so as to replace said current administration, is not opposition to the
country.  Otherwise, much of the GOP would be traitors by definition, and
the Democrats would have been during the 2004 presidential run.  Many
single-party country governments refuse to learn this distinction, which
refusal happens to keep their current administration in power.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160517/cbb80384/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Wed May 18 05:23:33 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 22:23:33 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFguNPRZeeML4a1tvdwUMFxOB63Rgn8WRzQdr9Ewk4ogZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACB7g242azWAqvsPGCuZB4TzvozzbPK-x1fzkCGhjbaMFpcRRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFindYTXkLmY2Uyx8JjWtQQq7TYz_NQiZ0tr9QXV00Yx+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <86CD3892-714A-4077-AB89-92E27C2A5CCB@gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFiZB=xgYggzC+taPenLSRKeszoNMazQ2PV=r=iQiqUtCg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACB7g24GjoUP+qrSSB1B9Z1YZnsCw9ZMLar7q0ZiTZLCdHmHmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFguNPRZeeML4a1tvdwUMFxOB63Rgn8WRzQdr9Ewk4ogZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACB7g25tB5_ueTW_B_vScrb0YS3QgjtKXeHfTwe_fTKdBBWBJA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:08 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Patriots? Please define.
>>>
>>> ### Reasonable people who would like this country to flourish long-term.
>>
>> IMO reasonable people should want the world or universe to flourish --
not
>> merely whatever country they find themselves in at the time.
>
>
> ### Well, yeah, but it's much easier to make your own country flourish
first,
> and in fact you pretty much have to make it flourish if you ever want to
have
> the resources you need to fix the universe.

Not at all. One can work in smaller communities. To believe, for instance,
in the US example, that somehow 230 plus million people is a magic number
seems arbitrary, an accident of history. Also, an immediate way to improve
everyone's lives would be simple to open the borders -- allow free
migration across the borders. Then the boost in productivity would, by most
estimates be a more than doubling of the world's standard of living.

>>>> Do you mean nationalists?
>>>
>>> ### No, I mean reasonable people, not idiots.
>>
>> I would eschew the term patriot. It is just a euphemism for nationalist,
>> especially meaning nationalists people are supposed to like.
>
> ### I think it's sad that manipulative hateful leftoids managed to make
this
> once powerful word seem tawdry.

Why believe that? The term has a long history of being used to mean
nationalists. The derivation and use of the word was just in that fashion.
This is hardly a perversion of its meaning just because of who's in the
White House now or because of so called "culture wars" during our life
times.

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/20160517/08e70255/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Wed May 18 06:37:45 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 23:37:45 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNR1ioFe3BtY0wjz4SwJ79x+2DEpxNOMnnrhm3WtuXggYg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv29hVUEPhaeaHYGm9_MuGJ-ptixka-UdopVzvBZrP8pPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY-magA4qLA5J+kd3mQQgNf1xK4Bn6f3zbAVoeyU9Vc3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEbVf2-bqAdyRoNN8xuXgjHj-E1PFzJVXvFKC14DgZANdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3tT636qp6qkVVDD02nAWnmgBCX1XH3b3en_Sws3y6pDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2fkK1JHpeWdS7n6G7MK74y_HUmS9q_jQJQAy4mZv8pigQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2VB4r7m5CiyQ+WMOrM91LHHeZfkaLXjWL4GXAMpj=eZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <010101d1b05b$0fdfe920$2f9fbb60$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv2qjN7_7CoiPYP3=pYviuQ=QSdYDNLNQodKcXO_-354TA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01d801d1b074$57cdb910$07692b30$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1tcu3DpSDX1qeZA1xhT1TJ74pMpspYqT98aeNUyY3yaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <043101d1b0ac$15f36070$41da2150$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNR1ioFe3BtY0wjz4SwJ79x+2DEpxNOMnnrhm3WtuXggYg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <04e301d1b0cf$ca183d00$5e48b700$@att.net>

 

 

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

 

 

>?You have argued that Mrs. Clinton is a felon, and when I challenged you on that, you eventually came to see why she is apparently not (whatever the consequences for her staff)?

 

 

Adrian, the public domain comment instructing Jake Sullivan: 

 

?If they can?t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.?

 

refers to a document which exists on a secure server.  She suggested, requested, ordered, or otherwise compelled a subordinate to get that information or document to her unsecured server.  But she had no legal means of receiving that electronic communication or any classified electronic communication.  She was instructing Sullivan to remove, alter, change or otherwise misrepresent the classification markings on a document, which is illegal as all hell.  

 

Sullivan had a secure account, so he checked off the boxes every day, which acknowledged it is a felony under the laws controlling treason, to do exactly what Mrs. Clinton was referring to in that sentence.  Mrs. Clinton was ordering or requesting a subordinate to commit a felony with that one sentence.  How did the whole evidence-destruction team miss that?  She should let them all rot in prison for incompetence.  Had they just erased that one sentence, then she perhaps could be elected president and pardon the lot of them.  If ours is a nation of law, she will need to join them over one sentence, the one missed piece of evidence which survive the deletion team.

 

It has been said that Hilliary Clinton had the authority to declassify documents.  In theory she did, however she could not have done this, for to do so would require logging on to her secure server where the document exists and following the procedure (it requires passwords and codes, not just saying I declare this document unclassified.)  She could not follow that procedure without logging on, and she couldn?t log on, for even she did know her passwords (doubtful) and did know how to do the procedure (doubtful) had she logged on, she would check off the boxes, which acknowledged she was committing crimes every day with that personal server.

 

>? I've yet to see your case for why she is a traitor, and I wonder if inspection of said case will have a similar result?

 

Mishandling classified information is controlled under the body of law which deals with treason.  In the above case, she was instructing Sullivan to commit treason by passing classified information to an unauthorized location (her unsecured server.)  This he could not do.  It was not because he was unwilling to commit a crime for her.  He made it clear it was physically impossible for him to carry out what she had requested.  Otherwise he would have done so.  My best guess is that he meant the talking points contained at least one photograph.  I have no idea how something like that could be ported across besides sneaking a camera into the SCIF, but doing that means doing time if you are caught.  If he had been caught and then it came out that he was doing it to pass it to Mrs. Clinton, both would be serving time.

 

 

>?If this is your case, it makes no sense.  Each of those things you listed may be a breach of law & security (emphasis: "may"; the FBI's determining if they are), but treason requires actively betraying one's country?

 

Ja.  Intentionally mishandling classified information, as in the Sullivan case, is intentionally mishandling information, which is actively betraying one?s country.

 

 

>?In other words, if she is a traitor, to whom was she betraying the US to?

 

We don?t know all of it yet.  But we know that Mrs. Clinton made a copy of the contents of her server after her staff helped wipe the evidence, and gave it to her attorney.  He was not cleared.  She knew at the time it contained TS, for she had already been told so by the organizations which had classified it to start with and determined that they had not declassified it (so the State Department could not have declassified it even if they had wanted to (no agency can declassify a document another agency classified (they wouldn?t have the necessary access codes to do that even if they tried.)))

 

 

>?Everyone directly and intentionally aided by each of those steps (whatever the unintended consequences) would seem to be part of the US, and not an enemy of the country?

 

Ja, OK I see why we are talking past each other.

 

In the case of classified information, it does not need to be an identified enemy of the country, only an unauthorized person.  Jeffery Sterling is serving time right now for passing classified info to New York Times reporter James Risen.  When he was caught and the Feds demanded all the email he had passed, he deleted exactly one yoga routine.  Busted!  He probably would have served time anyway for leaking the info.  But the attempted cover up, it was soooo game over man.  Furthermore, Sterling is not Mrs. Clinton.  Equal, but not as equal as Mrs. Clinton.

 

>? Absent some specific enemy of the US that she was working with, there is no treason there?

 

James Risen has not been identified as an enemy of the state; only a reporter who is not in the echo-chamber.

 

This whole case is so downright bizarre, had it been fiction it would be too implausible to even be entertaining fantasy.  A Secretary of State had no legal means of sending or receiving classified information.  Absurd!  Everything any Secretary of State does is at least sensitive, perhaps even including the actual literal yoga, if there is any of that at all.  A Secretary of State must be able to communicate to do her job.

 

So what really happened here?  My theory is that Mrs. Clinton just disregarded the entire body of law which governed the office she was occupying and the job she was assigned but apparently not performing.  She must have somehow convinced herself that law doesn?t apply to her.  She was wrong.  It does.  Had she just handed over the server with everything on there so we could verify that there was no illegal activity, this would have all gone away.  Had Nixon not erased those 18 minutes of audio, he would have skated as well, then could have pardoned his staff who did serve time.

 

On 4 May 2015, former president uttered the comment ?There?s one set of rules for us, and another set for everybody else.?  We know.  How well we know.  We are working to fix that Bill.  Your wife is working to keep it broken.  The double standard at play here is so glaring I need dark sunglasses.

 

spike

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160517/c8dbb4e4/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Wed May 18 10:44:33 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 03:44:33 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <04e301d1b0cf$ca183d00$5e48b700$@att.net>
References: <CAJPayv29hVUEPhaeaHYGm9_MuGJ-ptixka-UdopVzvBZrP8pPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY-magA4qLA5J+kd3mQQgNf1xK4Bn6f3zbAVoeyU9Vc3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEbVf2-bqAdyRoNN8xuXgjHj-E1PFzJVXvFKC14DgZANdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3tT636qp6qkVVDD02nAWnmgBCX1XH3b3en_Sws3y6pDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2fkK1JHpeWdS7n6G7MK74y_HUmS9q_jQJQAy4mZv8pigQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2VB4r7m5CiyQ+WMOrM91LHHeZfkaLXjWL4GXAMpj=eZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <010101d1b05b$0fdfe920$2f9fbb60$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv2qjN7_7CoiPYP3=pYviuQ=QSdYDNLNQodKcXO_-354TA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01d801d1b074$57cdb910$07692b30$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1tcu3DpSDX1qeZA1xhT1TJ74pMpspYqT98aeNUyY3yaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <043101d1b0ac$15f36070$41da2150$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNR1ioFe3BtY0wjz4SwJ79x+2DEpxNOMnnrhm3WtuXggYg@mail.gmail.com>
 <04e301d1b0cf$ca183d00$5e48b700$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNQG+JFkFiUGex5o2iKHgw8bNqFf9SZf9Nisb-+Bg=6YMQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:37 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On
> Behalf Of Adrian Tymes
> >? I've yet to see your case for why she is a traitor, and I wonder if
> inspection of said case will have a similar result?
>
> Mishandling classified information is controlled under the body of law
> which deals with treason.
>
Said body of law deals with a bunch of other crimes too.  Doesn't make all
crimes the same.

Treason is defined both in the U.S. Constitution and in the U.S. Code.
Classified information is only mentioned in the latter.

>From U.S. Constitution Article III Section 3: "Treason against the United
States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to
their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

>From 18 U.S. Code ? 2381 (titled "Treason"): "Whoever, owing allegiance to
the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies,
giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is
guilty of treason"

Both of these seem to require an actual enemy to have been intentionally
assisted, or levying war against the US.  Neither one seems to have
happened in this case.


> >?If this is your case, it makes no sense.  Each of those things you
> listed may be a breach of law & security (emphasis: "may"; the FBI's
> determining if they are), but treason requires actively betraying one's
> country?
>
> Ja.  Intentionally mishandling classified information, as in the Sullivan
> case, is intentionally mishandling information, which is actively betraying
> one?s country.
>
To whom?  For that to be active betrayal would require some third party,
opposed to said country, to benefit as planned by the betrayer.

> In the case of classified information, it does not need to be an
> identified enemy of the country, only an unauthorized person.
>

To fit the legal definition of treason, it does need to be an enemy.


> Jeffery Sterling is serving time right now for passing classified info to
> New York Times reporter James Risen.
>

The charge in his case was "violating the Espionage Act", not "treason".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160518/dab84abc/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Wed May 18 12:01:04 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 08:01:04 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CACB7g25tB5_ueTW_B_vScrb0YS3QgjtKXeHfTwe_fTKdBBWBJA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACB7g242azWAqvsPGCuZB4TzvozzbPK-x1fzkCGhjbaMFpcRRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFindYTXkLmY2Uyx8JjWtQQq7TYz_NQiZ0tr9QXV00Yx+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <86CD3892-714A-4077-AB89-92E27C2A5CCB@gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFiZB=xgYggzC+taPenLSRKeszoNMazQ2PV=r=iQiqUtCg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACB7g24GjoUP+qrSSB1B9Z1YZnsCw9ZMLar7q0ZiTZLCdHmHmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFguNPRZeeML4a1tvdwUMFxOB63Rgn8WRzQdr9Ewk4ogZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACB7g25tB5_ueTW_B_vScrb0YS3QgjtKXeHfTwe_fTKdBBWBJA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFhepha5t=syPqjZv01fZ_rFbZvqTrhLLWA88TDmBGUyHA@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> >
> > ### Well, yeah, but it's much easier to make your own country flourish
> first,
> > and in fact you pretty much have to make it flourish if you ever want to
> have
> > the resources you need to fix the universe.
>
> Not at all. One can work in smaller communities. To believe, for instance,
> in the US example, that somehow 230 plus million people is a magic number
> seems arbitrary, an accident of history. Also, an immediate way to improve
> everyone's lives would be simple to open the borders -- allow free
> migration across the borders. Then the boost in productivity would, by most
> estimates be a more than doubling of the world's standard of living.
>

### Yes, by all means, you do need to make your country great, because in
sick countries smaller communities are devoured by their neighbors.

Open immigration of low-IQ and hostile people would dramatically lower our
standard of living. Also, proximity + diversity = war.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160518/85ef7a8b/attachment.html>

From sparge at gmail.com  Wed May 18 12:23:24 2016
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 08:23:24 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <039b01d1b097$66797080$336c5180$@att.net>
References: <CACB7g242azWAqvsPGCuZB4TzvozzbPK-x1fzkCGhjbaMFpcRRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFindYTXkLmY2Uyx8JjWtQQq7TYz_NQiZ0tr9QXV00Yx+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <86CD3892-714A-4077-AB89-92E27C2A5CCB@gmail.com>
 <039b01d1b097$66797080$336c5180$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAM5aL2f59qmyuMG24HUfDPRDKdxXBLuZtLMex+5S2kcKfAvotA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 7:54 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> Dan, the problem with that notion is that the first two are legal, the
> third is not.


Sure it is. Asset forfeiture is big business these days and could easily be
expanded.

-Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160518/d3ed2f75/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Wed May 18 13:17:59 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 06:17:59 -0700
Subject: [ExI] snowden paradox: was:  RE:  Sanders, Clinton and Trump
Message-ID: <005801d1b107$b3b84360$1b28ca20$@att.net>

 

 

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

 

>?From 18 U.S. Code ? 2381 (titled "Treason"): "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason"  ?Both of these seem to require an actual enemy to have been intentionally assisted, or levying war against the US.  Neither one seems to have happened in this case?The charge in his case was "violating the Espionage Act", not "treason".

 

OK so we are arguing over meanings of words, but here is where it goes from here.  We know that street cops are not judges, but often act as if they are.  We have a case here where I think the FBI has plenty of evidence to do what cops are hired to do, but they might act as an on-the-spot judge and do nothing.  I recognize there is a possibility.  My guess is that they will act as a cop and recommend indictment, then nothing more will happen.  John Clark has courageously bet 200 bucks against ten that the FBI will act as a judge and decide no harm no foul no indictment close the case.  We shall see.

If they do that, then I agree Mrs. Clinton probably will get elected, as plenty of the electorate will STILL be unaware of the email business, or assume it was all a conspiracy.  Then? we don?t know what happens if the yoga starts to leak after the election.  Stay tuned.

On a related brighter note, Adrian we were struggling over what constitutes an enemy of the state.  Back in the old days it was pretty straightforward.  That would be the guy in the three-cornered hat launching Minnie balls in your direction.  Now, warfare is mostly firing information.  So we have a case where an insider (Ben Rhodes) tells the New York Times the government lied to us, makes a habit of it, does it intentionally, is justified in doing it, uses the feeble-minded press as willing accomplices as so forth.  Now it is unclear which are enemies of the state and which are heroes.  

Both Rhodes and the NYT are in the Snowden paradox: some will assign each to either category, or both, or neither.  Are Jedi mind tricks being used on the press now, with the email scandal?  Who is doing it?  Who are the simpleton Imperial Storm Troopers currently in the echo-chamber?  Have we any reporters not in the echo-chamber, and if not, do they count as reporters?  Or are they to be assigned as enemies of the state?  If so, does it constitute treason to give them stories?

spike

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160518/185aed90/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Wed May 18 15:44:22 2016
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 16:44:22 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Robot cars can do drifting now
Message-ID: <CAL_armiiOkkmC=sKXNmbGzODaLSinSdCoyQ+nK8G7U=Um8pEVw@mail.gmail.com>

Autonomous Mini Rally Car Teaches Itself to Powerslide
By Evan Ackerman Posted 18 May 2016

<http://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-think/transportation/self-driving/autonomous-mini-rally-car-teaches-itself-to-powerslide>

Quotes:
The real magic here is the algorithm that manages AutoRally?s steering
and throttle. Rather than hierarchically splitting control and
planning into two separate problems, Georgia Tech's algorithm combines
them by integrating vehicle dynamics in real-time. Generally, this is
a very computationally intensive approach, but AutoRally can calculate
an optimized trajectory from the weighted average of 2,560 different
trajectory possibilities, all simulated in parallel on to the monster
onboard GPU. Each of these trajectories represents the oncoming 2.5
seconds of vehicle motion, and AutoRally recomputes this entire
optimization process 60 times every second.
--------------

The video is six minutes long and shows some crashes during testing
after the five minute mark.

This should make robot racing cars produce much more human-like driving.
(Though not as many crashes as humans!).  :)


BillK



From atymes at gmail.com  Wed May 18 15:47:52 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 08:47:52 -0700
Subject: [ExI] snowden paradox: was: RE: Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <005801d1b107$b3b84360$1b28ca20$@att.net>
References: <005801d1b107$b3b84360$1b28ca20$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNSFQYqyuZZipGM53yBdC+Or4k_2Meh7=O74Zdrkbzdfqg@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 6:17 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> Have we any reporters not in the echo-chamber, and if not, do they count
> as reporters?  Or are they to be assigned as enemies of the state?  If so,
> does it constitute treason to give them stories?
>
That sort of thing is part of Trump's (and Sanders') appeal: voters see
that this kind of game is being played, are pretty sure that an insider
like Clinton will continue doing so, and want it stopped.  However, most of
them might not be able to put it in exact words like this...not that it
matters, since they think no candidate other than the Democrat or
Republican one stands a chance, and cast their votes accordingly making
that a self-fulfilling prophecy.

That said, reporters not in the echo chamber are not "enemies of the
state".  Certain parts of the US government have tried that approach, and
gotten their hands slapped by the courts.  For example, Chelsea Manning was
charged with "communicating with the enemy" when he leaked stuff to
WikiLeaks.  He was acquitted, apparently in part because the judge refused
to apply an "enemy of the state" label to Julian Assange just because he
was leaking information to the public, no matter how classified or
sensitive.

This further muddles the public's anger: declaring these people enemies
isn't successful when it was tried, but that it was even attempted riles
the public.  Some never heard that the attempt failed, so they wind up
thinking it happened and is naturally expanding to other groups - and see
it eventually extending to whatever subgroup that individual prole is a
member of.

A mass education program, giving most of the public accurate facts as to
what actually happened (and more importantly, didn't happen) on this and
several other high-profile cases over the past few years, would likely
result in interesting changes to how the public votes.  Unfortunately, too
many of those in Congress fear (probably correctly, in most cases) that
such changes would include no longer voting for them.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160518/30f5c36c/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Wed May 18 16:01:35 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 09:01:35 -0700
Subject: [ExI] snowden paradox: was: RE: Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNSFQYqyuZZipGM53yBdC+Or4k_2Meh7=O74Zdrkbzdfqg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <005801d1b107$b3b84360$1b28ca20$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNSFQYqyuZZipGM53yBdC+Or4k_2Meh7=O74Zdrkbzdfqg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <001901d1b11e$8e66ebe0$ab34c3a0$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 8:48 AM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] snowden paradox: was: RE: Sanders, Clinton and Trump

 

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 6:17 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net> > wrote:

Have we any reporters not in the echo-chamber, and if not, do they count as reporters?  Or are they to be assigned as enemies of the state?  If so, does it constitute treason to give them stories?

That sort of thing is part of Trump's (and Sanders') appeal...A mass education program, giving most of the public accurate facts as to what actually happened (and more importantly, didn't happen) on this and several other high-profile cases over the past few years, would likely result in interesting changes to how the public votes.  Unfortunately, too many of those in Congress fear (probably correctly, in most cases) that such changes would include no longer voting for them.  Adrian

 

Adrian, well done sir: an evenhanded steady informative post on a difficult topic.

Regarding that echo chamber business, neither Trump nor Sanders will be able to fix that, nor do I think either of them will try.  Trump is a grandstanding opportunist, so he will see the potential and use it.  Likewise Clinton.  Oh this is bad news, such bad news is this.

spike

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160518/917d7c58/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Wed May 18 17:13:27 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 13:13:27 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFhFz5a-QfzeMznjjh0L=X3TNj0kpdTJm1twdKvfLuOo3Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACB7g242azWAqvsPGCuZB4TzvozzbPK-x1fzkCGhjbaMFpcRRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <031001d1b07e$ef19ac20$cd4d0460$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEaHZAewBtNCJpD0NUcm1igM78QdGBwtRwTvJkMvHyYnfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhFz5a-QfzeMznjjh0L=X3TNj0kpdTJm1twdKvfLuOo3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv1cFLTzUKUe2Gc+uWb9O9ACfkyONpLM_w8F85LcwYr2tw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 10:50 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:

?> ?
>> What SHOULD we be doing about it?  Trim the military?
>>
>> ?> ?
> ### End Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,
>

?And what instrument would you use to contain the civil war that would
erupt as soon as you did that?  A Browning M2 Machine Gun or do you prefer
cluster bombs?


> ?> ?
> fire 90% of US gov't employees, abolish 90% of Federal agencies
>

?Not 90% but 100% of Federal agencies would be abolished ?and there would
be no need to fire 90% of US gov't employees because 100% of them would
quit because you have no money to pay them because you've renounced the
debt so money no longer exists. You never answered the question about
trimming the military but there is no need to, you can't pay them either so
they'll just take their equipment and go their own way. I imagine that
sailors on Nuclear Submarines would make damn good pirates.

?> ?
> Gold exists.


?So you want human wealth to be strictly tied to the amount of Element 79
that is in the crust of this planet, so you want China to be the richest
country in the world, and you want Australia to be the second richest, and
you want Russia to be the third richest.  ?

>> Yep, that [Vote Trump! Screw the debt!] and "Three cheers for
>> torture!" and "Nuclear weapons for everybody!" pretty much sums up the
>> Trump philosophy. And that is why Donald Trump is a madman.
>
>
> > ### Yeah, yeah, sure.


And it is sure, I didn't just make it up, Donald Trump clearly has a soft
spot for all three of these imbecilic and downright evil ideas. You intend
to vote for a man who wants to torture people not only to get information
but for the sheer joy he gets out of torturing them, he wants to torture
them even if they have no information to give.  And I am not the slightest
bit embarrassed to put the label "evil" on that idea.

Trump?s political success is a textbook example of the triumph of style
over substance even among people who like to think of themselves as logical
and scientific; it doesn?t matter if his facts are dead wrong or his ideas
imbecilic or even suicidal as long as they?re said loud enough and with
enough conviction. When Donald puts on his smug Mussolini face what
Extropian can resist his Alpha Male charms even if he wants to kick over
the table, trash civilization, and restart from square one with Og the
Caveman? Well I know of one Extropian that can resist and isn't mesmerized
by Trump. I wonder if there are two.

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160518/2ad24f7f/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Wed May 18 14:49:08 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 16:49:08 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CACB7g24DcS04UgCshdM=FSfA-5K6yhwMh1VDFi5S9TQuHPAT4g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACB7g24DcS04UgCshdM=FSfA-5K6yhwMh1VDFi5S9TQuHPAT4g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <78723dab-3031-4d9e-1c38-dfea7da4caaf@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-16 07:32, Dan TheBookMan wrote:
>  What actions can we take? Anders brought up, for raising the 
> likelihood of nuclear war, moving to Tasmania. Is there a Tasmania for 
> something like world economic collapse?

The reason for Tasmania in the case of nuclear war is that it is (1) far 
away from any primary target, (2) the bad effects in nuclear winter 
scenarios look like they are attenuated down there, (3) looks like it is 
self-sufficient enough to have a good chance.

The economic counterpart would be an economy (1) not directly involved 
in the triggering damage (Chinese banking, Greek government debt, US 
national debt default...), (2) not strongly linked to the systemic risk, 
and (3) able to run when the rest of the world is a mess.

The tricky thing is that if you want to be a part of the efficient, 
globalized market you will have to give up on (2). There is a premium to 
be paid for independence.

Looking at the world bank data and running a correlation on the GDP 
growth, the most decoupled (correlation -0.51 with the world economy) 
is... Afghanistan. Second place, -0.29: Libanon. Followed by Sudan, 
Haiti and Myanmar. Lovely places.

But in a global economic meltdown I suspect they would be robust since 
their miserableness makes losses smaller and local resiliency more 
likely. Still, much depends on if they have dependencies not covered by 
this.



From anders at aleph.se  Wed May 18 12:05:58 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 14:05:58 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Drake Equation Musings
In-Reply-To: <CAPiwVB7L8JoSuhAgOq=D8C+9wf4GBp5u_vtEcZvc5SoyFuUUmw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB7L8JoSuhAgOq=D8C+9wf4GBp5u_vtEcZvc5SoyFuUUmw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <429dbd80-b366-e70b-7f19-e719cd1e2098@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-18 02:41, Keith Henson wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 10:09 AM,  Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:
>> If intelligence often turns into black boxes, then p is small. But note
>> that you need many orders of magnitude to weaken the update a lot: since
>> x can be arbitrarily large, even if you think black box civilizations
>> are super-likely the lack of observed civilizations in the vicinity
>> should move your views about the possible upper range of densities a
>> fair bit. Arguing p=0 is a very radical knowledge claim, and equivalent
>> to positing the most audacious law of sociology ever (true for every
>> individual, society and species!)
> We have intelligence and physics interacting here.  I suspect that
> there is a universal characteristic of intelligence, that is of you
> are smart enough to impact the look of the universe, then you have the
> desire to be smarter.  One of the ways to get smarter is to think
> faster.  If this is the case, then we run into the physics limits,
> which I suspect keeps the aliens home just due to the insane expansion
> of space you get with moderate (million to one) speedup.

Sure. But convergent instrumental goals do not imply strong dominance of 
an option. Having offspring survive is clearly good for evolutionary 
fitness but there are plenty of gay or otherwise nonreproducing 
individual animals. Sexual reproduction seems to be very advantageous 
for multicellular life, yet there are lineages that have lost it. If 
most civilizations go blackbox, it just corresponds to a smaller 
fraction of communicable civs (or members of them).

Keith, are you seriously arguing that 100%, not 99.99999%, civilizations 
(and 100%, not 99.99999%, of all their members) will go blackbox?




From foozler83 at gmail.com  Wed May 18 17:42:28 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:42:28 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <78723dab-3031-4d9e-1c38-dfea7da4caaf@aleph.se>
References: <CACB7g24DcS04UgCshdM=FSfA-5K6yhwMh1VDFi5S9TQuHPAT4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <78723dab-3031-4d9e-1c38-dfea7da4caaf@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEYMLGPtThbGvgOHEX2kMbEeQt+9ffEo823XXkjt8t1wmg@mail.gmail.com>

Trump?s political success is a textbook example of the triumph of style
over substance even among people who like to think of themselves as logical
and scientific; it doesn?t matter if his facts are dead wrong or his ideas
imbecilic or even suicidal as long as they?re said loud enough and with
enough conviction. When Donald puts on his smug Mussolini face what
Extropian can resist his Alpha Male charms even if he wants to kick over
the table, trash civilization, and restart from square one with Og the
Caveman? Well I know of one Extropian that can resist and isn't mesmerized
by Trump. I wonder if there are two.

 John K Clark

The reason you don't see any comments from me is that I am with you all the
way.  You have said nothing that I disagree with and the ways you have
phrased it.  If anything you are too soft on Trump.  I don't get it
either.  My area is personality - persona means 'mask'.  What's behind
Trump's mask?  Nothing.
No substance, just style.  The more outrageous the better, it seems.
Rabble rouser.

bill w

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> On 2016-05-16 07:32, Dan TheBookMan wrote:
>
>>  What actions can we take? Anders brought up, for raising the likelihood
>> of nuclear war, moving to Tasmania. Is there a Tasmania for something like
>> world economic collapse?
>>
>
> The reason for Tasmania in the case of nuclear war is that it is (1) far
> away from any primary target, (2) the bad effects in nuclear winter
> scenarios look like they are attenuated down there, (3) looks like it is
> self-sufficient enough to have a good chance.
>
> The economic counterpart would be an economy (1) not directly involved in
> the triggering damage (Chinese banking, Greek government debt, US national
> debt default...), (2) not strongly linked to the systemic risk, and (3)
> able to run when the rest of the world is a mess.
>
> The tricky thing is that if you want to be a part of the efficient,
> globalized market you will have to give up on (2). There is a premium to be
> paid for independence.
>
> Looking at the world bank data and running a correlation on the GDP
> growth, the most decoupled (correlation -0.51 with the world economy) is...
> Afghanistan. Second place, -0.29: Libanon. Followed by Sudan, Haiti and
> Myanmar. Lovely places.
>
> But in a global economic meltdown I suspect they would be robust since
> their miserableness makes losses smaller and local resiliency more likely.
> Still, much depends on if they have dependencies not covered by 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/20160518/0343c401/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Wed May 18 17:45:51 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:45:51 -0500
Subject: [ExI] snowden paradox: was: RE: Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <001901d1b11e$8e66ebe0$ab34c3a0$@att.net>
References: <005801d1b107$b3b84360$1b28ca20$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNSFQYqyuZZipGM53yBdC+Or4k_2Meh7=O74Zdrkbzdfqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <001901d1b11e$8e66ebe0$ab34c3a0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZVSeR=t4FhNsZx_9KgVdrBg60e34OfzdS=3KC_kFE0iA@mail.gmail.com>

 He was acquitted, apparently in part because the judge refused to apply an
"enemy of the state" label to Julian Assange just because he was leaking
information to the public, no matter how classified or sensitive.

I am not getting a sense of what the majority of this group believes.  Is
Snowden a traitor or a hero?

bill w

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:01 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Adrian Tymes
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 18, 2016 8:48 AM
> *To:* ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] snowden paradox: was: RE: Sanders, Clinton and Trump
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 6:17 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
> Have we any reporters not in the echo-chamber, and if not, do they count
> as reporters?  Or are they to be assigned as enemies of the state?  If so,
> does it constitute treason to give them stories?
>
> That sort of thing is part of Trump's (and Sanders') appeal...A mass
> education program, giving most of the public accurate facts as to what
> actually happened (and more importantly, didn't happen) on this and several
> other high-profile cases over the past few years, would likely result in
> interesting changes to how the public votes.  Unfortunately, too many of
> those in Congress fear (probably correctly, in most cases) that such
> changes would include no longer voting for them.  Adrian
>
>
>
> Adrian, well done sir: an evenhanded steady informative post on a
> difficult topic.
>
> Regarding that echo chamber business, neither Trump nor Sanders will be
> able to fix that, nor do I think either of them will try.  Trump is a
> grandstanding opportunist, so he will see the potential and use it.
> Likewise Clinton.  Oh this is bad news, such bad news is this.
>
> 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/20160518/8fb1cd77/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Wed May 18 17:50:36 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 12:50:36 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Robot cars can do drifting now
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armiiOkkmC=sKXNmbGzODaLSinSdCoyQ+nK8G7U=Um8pEVw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armiiOkkmC=sKXNmbGzODaLSinSdCoyQ+nK8G7U=Um8pEVw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZG8dP68vvwbSPZ4o9FzAEiKiDyCLRb4ZJXjJKoAFLZQA@mail.gmail.com>

This should make robot racing cars produce much more human-like driving.
(Though not as many crashes as humans!).  :)
BillK

Are you aware that many of the crashes in auto racing are intentional?
Some are paybacks for the last lap or the last race or whatever.  They
often try to crash another car without crashing theirs and sometimes fail
and crash a whole bunch of them, including their own.  Sure, it's cutting
off their noses to spite their faces.  I didn't say that they were smart,
or trying to appeal to smart people.

Will robot cars hold grudges?  bill w

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:44 AM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> Autonomous Mini Rally Car Teaches Itself to Powerslide
> By Evan Ackerman Posted 18 May 2016
>
> <
> http://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-think/transportation/self-driving/autonomous-mini-rally-car-teaches-itself-to-powerslide
> >
>
> Quotes:
> The real magic here is the algorithm that manages AutoRally?s steering
> and throttle. Rather than hierarchically splitting control and
> planning into two separate problems, Georgia Tech's algorithm combines
> them by integrating vehicle dynamics in real-time. Generally, this is
> a very computationally intensive approach, but AutoRally can calculate
> an optimized trajectory from the weighted average of 2,560 different
> trajectory possibilities, all simulated in parallel on to the monster
> onboard GPU. Each of these trajectories represents the oncoming 2.5
> seconds of vehicle motion, and AutoRally recomputes this entire
> optimization process 60 times every second.
> --------------
>
> The video is six minutes long and shows some crashes during testing
> after the five minute mark.
>
> This should make robot racing cars produce much more human-like driving.
> (Though not as many crashes as humans!).  :)
>
>
> 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/20160518/c9cedf5f/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Wed May 18 18:09:43 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 11:09:43 -0700
Subject: [ExI] snowden paradox: was: RE: Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEZVSeR=t4FhNsZx_9KgVdrBg60e34OfzdS=3KC_kFE0iA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <005801d1b107$b3b84360$1b28ca20$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNSFQYqyuZZipGM53yBdC+Or4k_2Meh7=O74Zdrkbzdfqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <001901d1b11e$8e66ebe0$ab34c3a0$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEZVSeR=t4FhNsZx_9KgVdrBg60e34OfzdS=3KC_kFE0iA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNSQAACVZDgKUn7LbDZL-aHniPpF6qyTqA776KoEmuojtQ@mail.gmail.com>

On May 18, 2016 10:47 AM, "William Flynn Wallace" <foozler83 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> I am not getting a sense of what the majority of this group believes.  Is
Snowden a traitor or a hero?

If he was exactly one of those two things...well, the judge's ruling means
he's innocent of treason (no matter what other criminal charges apply),
so...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160518/68bd8d99/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Wed May 18 18:13:55 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 11:13:55 -0700
Subject: [ExI] snowden paradox: was: RE: Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <001901d1b11e$8e66ebe0$ab34c3a0$@att.net>
References: <005801d1b107$b3b84360$1b28ca20$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNSFQYqyuZZipGM53yBdC+Or4k_2Meh7=O74Zdrkbzdfqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <001901d1b11e$8e66ebe0$ab34c3a0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNSOBjSL9SkN-JuuhTeoeWBFhwaje-GonDsWST3THxuJ0g@mail.gmail.com>

On May 18, 2016 9:15 AM, "spike" <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> Adrian, well done sir: an evenhanded steady informative post on a
difficult topic.

Thanks.  I try.

> Regarding that echo chamber business, neither Trump nor Sanders will be
able to fix that, nor do I think either of them will try.

Agreed.  But way too many people think they would try, and that fixing is
simple (there is a clearly identified set of bad actions, so stop doing
them and don't coddle anyone in the administration who persists in doing
them...except, the set extends beyond the specific ones done so far, and
clearly defining potential ones can get murky).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160518/8b7286a8/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Wed May 18 18:10:24 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 11:10:24 -0700
Subject: [ExI] snowden paradox: was: RE: Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEZVSeR=t4FhNsZx_9KgVdrBg60e34OfzdS=3KC_kFE0iA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <005801d1b107$b3b84360$1b28ca20$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNSFQYqyuZZipGM53yBdC+Or4k_2Meh7=O74Zdrkbzdfqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <001901d1b11e$8e66ebe0$ab34c3a0$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEZVSeR=t4FhNsZx_9KgVdrBg60e34OfzdS=3KC_kFE0iA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00ee01d1b130$8cfc8140$a6f583c0$@att.net>

 

 

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



 

>?I am not getting a sense of what the majority of this group believes.  Is Snowden a traitor or a hero?

 

bill w

 

 

 

Depends on how you view cell phones.  My view is that anything you do outside your own home is visible, so it is legitimate for anyone who sees you to see you.  And record what you do out there.  Inside your own home, not.  Outside, you are spraying informative photons everywhere.  Observers, nosy neighbors, local constables, anyone who can see you: they are not so much intercepting those photons as you are hurling photons at their eyes.  Or their cameras.

 

Ja?

 

Inside your own home, if they put some kind of device in there, that is illegitimate.  Fourth amendment stuff, illegal for governments to do, violating your security in your letters, etc.  Do review the wording and note this is not a permission, it is a right, and governments do not have permission to violate a right.  Text:

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things.

 

OK, so what is a cell phone?  If it is used inside your home, you are spraying photons thru the walls of your home so would that be analogous to actually being outdoors?  Or is it analogous to a really leaky land line?  The constables need a warrant to tap a land line, and those are hard to get.  Do they and should then need a warrant to intercept the photons you willing hurl at them with that cell?  

 

I personally don?t have a dog in this fight, being as I will allow them to listen to my discussions, but I am a special case: I am the most boring person in the world, the counterpart to that guy on TV who is the most interesting.  I was at a party, some yahoo said I know you!  You are that guy, the most boring person in the world!  Several others heard, and became interested, which meant I was no longer the most boring person.  They lost interest then, went off to find the new most boring person in the world, but when that happened, I again became the most boring, so they will never find that other guy.

 

But I digress.  I don?t care if the constables intercept my phone conversations, but being the most boring person, they would use the discussions as a lullaby.  They could weaponized them, use them to cause the bad guys to die of boredom, a snooze-cannon more powerful than that internet video that enraged the entire middle east and started wars, etc.

 

If Snowden signed to protect secrets, then blabbed something the government may do legitimately, then he is a traitor.  If he blabbed something they were doing which was unconstitutional, un-fourth-amendment, then he is a hero.

 

So? are cell phones radios?  If so, then interception is fair game.  Or are they leaky land lines?  If so, interception without a warrant is unconstitutional and violates our right to privacy.

 

Do educate me for I retired my spam bucket land line years ago.  For many years, I have had no physical way to send or receive sensitive information in protected mode, which is no problem for really boring people, but for those of you who have exciting lives (and you know who you are) well, do educate me please.

 

Over to you BillW.

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160518/85584d8f/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Wed May 18 18:26:14 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 11:26:14 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Robot cars can do drifting now
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEZG8dP68vvwbSPZ4o9FzAEiKiDyCLRb4ZJXjJKoAFLZQA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armiiOkkmC=sKXNmbGzODaLSinSdCoyQ+nK8G7U=Um8pEVw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZG8dP68vvwbSPZ4o9FzAEiKiDyCLRb4ZJXjJKoAFLZQA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <012d01d1b132$c3558d20$4a00a760$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 10:51 AM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] Robot cars can do drifting now

 

This should make robot racing cars produce much more human-like driving.
(Though not as many crashes as humans!).  :)
BillK

 

Are you aware that many of the crashes in auto racing are intentional?  Some are paybacks for the last lap or the last race or whatever.  They often try to crash another car without crashing theirs and sometimes fail and crash a whole bunch of them, including their own.  Sure, it's cutting off their noses to spite their faces.  I didn't say that they were smart, or trying to appeal to smart people.

 

Will robot cars hold grudges?  bill w

 

 

 

I heard a reliable rumor this morning.  The Google cars are often seen whirring around the area.  Now they have sufficient data to show these things do work, we have the technology to build a self-driver.  The market for these is obvious: kids, elderly and drunks.  Those groups, will pay bigtime, but in the current configuration, the person behind the wheel in a self-driver must be licensed.  They don?t go into detail about the driver needing to be awake, sober, any of that, just licensed, for if it crashes, whoever is behind the wheel is responsible.

 

Clearly that is a market limiter.

 

As I understand it, the California legislators are willing to allow removal of the steering wheel, and release of liability of the occupants of the vehicle (assuming there are any) under the condition that some deep pockets somewhere is ready to take responsibility.

 

The rumor is that Google is ready to remove that steering wheel and sign up for the liability.  This changes everything, for now the driver need not be licensed, need not even be human (send your dog to the vet or the groomer alone, (or deliver packages (or copulate in the back while the car drives, that sorta thing.)))  Oh what a market opens up.

 

Nowthen? what if? people try to crash into it intentionally?  Right now they have a pretty good algorithm for staying out of trouble (rumor holds that it is better than humans at crash avoidance.)  But what if two unemployed Uberers work together?  They find one either unoccupied, or perhaps with the passengers fucking in the back seat, get on either side and slightly behind the GoogleBot, then simultaneously on cue sandwich the thing, then claim it swerved, hit the one, the careened into the other, but they will let it go for a mere six digits, etc.

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160518/a9ffba94/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Wed May 18 18:38:06 2016
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 19:38:06 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Robot cars can do drifting now
In-Reply-To: <012d01d1b132$c3558d20$4a00a760$@att.net>
References: <CAL_armiiOkkmC=sKXNmbGzODaLSinSdCoyQ+nK8G7U=Um8pEVw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZG8dP68vvwbSPZ4o9FzAEiKiDyCLRb4ZJXjJKoAFLZQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <012d01d1b132$c3558d20$4a00a760$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAL_armi3ggvatJPS6hV53mOLn3m7MEjo_55vm2DFzLuQh6OHzQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 18 May 2016 at 19:26, spike  wrote:
<snip>
> Nowthen? what if? people try to crash into it intentionally?  Right now they
> have a pretty good algorithm for staying out of trouble (rumor holds that it
> is better than humans at crash avoidance.)  But what if two unemployed
> Uberers work together?  They find one either unoccupied, or perhaps with the
> passengers fucking in the back seat, get on either side and slightly behind
> the GoogleBot, then simultaneously on cue sandwich the thing, then claim it
> swerved, hit the one, the careened into the other, but they will let it go
> for a mere six digits, etc.
>

Won't work. The google car is recording everything that happens. It is
needed to analyse any accidents so they can improve the software. They
would know the car was attacked.

BillK



From spike66 at att.net  Wed May 18 20:49:24 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 13:49:24 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Robot cars can do drifting now
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armi3ggvatJPS6hV53mOLn3m7MEjo_55vm2DFzLuQh6OHzQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armiiOkkmC=sKXNmbGzODaLSinSdCoyQ+nK8G7U=Um8pEVw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZG8dP68vvwbSPZ4o9FzAEiKiDyCLRb4ZJXjJKoAFLZQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <012d01d1b132$c3558d20$4a00a760$@att.net>
 <CAL_armi3ggvatJPS6hV53mOLn3m7MEjo_55vm2DFzLuQh6OHzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <019b01d1b146$c340b580$49c22080$@att.net>


>... On Behalf Of BillK
Subject: Re: [ExI] Robot cars can do drifting now

On 18 May 2016 at 19:26, spike  wrote:
<snip>
> ...
>>... get on either side and slightly behind the GoogleBot, then 
> simultaneously on cue sandwich the thing, then claim it swerved, hit 
> the one, the careened into the other, but they will let it go for a mere six digits, etc.
>

>...Won't work. The google car is recording everything that happens. It is needed to analyse any accidents so they can improve the software. They would know the car was attacked.

BillK

_______________________________________________


Ja, they (Google) would know.  That they (Google) can convince a civil court jury is an open question.  I think Google would win that one.  

It occurred to me that the one scenario is unlikely.  If the unemployed Uberers sandwiched a copulating couple, it might be interpreted by the jury as reckless endangerment of life, or conspiring to commit serious bodily harm, etc.  Likely the peers and judge would sympathize with the amorous Google car couple. 

Conclusion: conspiring Google-crashing jury-surfers may eschew fucking passengers. 

Now that I think it over, this might even be the only time in the history of the internet that those particular ten common words have ever appeared together in the same sentence regardless of word order, even though it is grammatically correct and means exactly what it says.

However, if the conspirators spot and attack an unoccupied Google car, then they might somehow convince a jury that Google somehow faked the video.  Or they present it as one of those he-said-it-said situations, two witnesses to none.  Or the civil court could do the classic Robin Hood jury effect, and Google is the rich to be robbed.

spike   




From danust2012 at gmail.com  Wed May 18 22:26:21 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 15:26:21 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Open migration/was Re:  Repudiating the national debt
Message-ID: <27628F5D-A080-45DB-B701-18A1A3961B64@gmail.com>

On May 18, 2016, at 5:01 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > ### Well, yeah, but it's much easier to make your own country flourish first,
>> > and in fact you pretty much have to make it flourish if you ever want to have
>> > the resources you need to fix the universe.
>> 
>> Not at all. One can work in smaller communities. To believe, for instance, in the US example, that somehow 230 plus million people is a magic number seems arbitrary, an accident of history. Also, an immediate way to improve everyone's lives would be simple to open the borders -- allow free migration across the borders. Then the boost in productivity would, by most estimates be a more than doubling of the world's standard of living.
> 
> ### Yes, by all means, you do need to make your country great, because in sick countries smaller communities are devoured by their neighbors.

I'm not sure what that means. 

> Open immigration of low-IQ and hostile people would dramatically lower our standard of living. Also, proximity + diversity = war.

Note that you added hostile. Are most people hostile? Are most immigrants? Isn't it note that anti-foreign bias can be a driver here -- by being hostile to newcomers?

Also, low-IQ folks would also be much more productive in the West than in their native lands. The typical hypothetical of the <fill in the blank> moving to a Western city and becoming a cab driver and increasing their real income a ten-fold might hint at this. The actual numbers seem to show it's the case.

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/20160518/b5b4ac24/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Wed May 18 22:30:26 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 15:30:26 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Direct confiscation for funding/was Re: Repudiating the
	national debt
In-Reply-To: <CAM5aL2f59qmyuMG24HUfDPRDKdxXBLuZtLMex+5S2kcKfAvotA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACB7g242azWAqvsPGCuZB4TzvozzbPK-x1fzkCGhjbaMFpcRRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFindYTXkLmY2Uyx8JjWtQQq7TYz_NQiZ0tr9QXV00Yx+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <86CD3892-714A-4077-AB89-92E27C2A5CCB@gmail.com>
 <039b01d1b097$66797080$336c5180$@att.net>
 <CAM5aL2f59qmyuMG24HUfDPRDKdxXBLuZtLMex+5S2kcKfAvotA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <08105C00-1395-42DE-800E-739746457DAF@gmail.com>

On May 18, 2016, at 5:23 AM, Dave Sill <sparge at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 7:54 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>> Dan, the problem with that notion is that the first two are legal, the third is not.
> 
> Sure it is. Asset forfeiture is big business these days and could easily be expanded.

It is a form of direct confiscation, though I'm not sure how well it could be used for routine funding -- as a replacement for taxation, inflation, and borrowing. (One can point to, of course, how traffic fines are used for routine funding -- little different than how bandits controlling a chokepoint rely on shaking down travelers to fund their organization.)

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/20160518/907b0760/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Wed May 18 22:41:42 2016
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 23:41:42 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Direct confiscation for funding/was Re: Repudiating the
 national debt
In-Reply-To: <08105C00-1395-42DE-800E-739746457DAF@gmail.com>
References: <CACB7g242azWAqvsPGCuZB4TzvozzbPK-x1fzkCGhjbaMFpcRRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFindYTXkLmY2Uyx8JjWtQQq7TYz_NQiZ0tr9QXV00Yx+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <86CD3892-714A-4077-AB89-92E27C2A5CCB@gmail.com>
 <039b01d1b097$66797080$336c5180$@att.net>
 <CAM5aL2f59qmyuMG24HUfDPRDKdxXBLuZtLMex+5S2kcKfAvotA@mail.gmail.com>
 <08105C00-1395-42DE-800E-739746457DAF@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAL_armhU-gh1bOgZQkR+pdEFdg3faD-2qEAwp342voOJ9q46Ow@mail.gmail.com>

On 18 May 2016 at 23:30, Dan TheBookMan  wrote:
> It is a form of direct confiscation, though I'm not sure how well it could
> be used for routine funding -- as a replacement for taxation, inflation, and
> borrowing. (One can point to, of course, how traffic fines are used for
> routine funding -- little different than how bandits controlling a
> chokepoint rely on shaking down travelers to fund their organization.)
>
>

Also, there is now negative interest rates which are becoming popular
with some central banks.
In effect a form of wealth taxation.

BillK


From danust2012 at gmail.com  Wed May 18 22:55:51 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 15:55:51 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Direct confiscation for funding
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armhU-gh1bOgZQkR+pdEFdg3faD-2qEAwp342voOJ9q46Ow@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACB7g242azWAqvsPGCuZB4TzvozzbPK-x1fzkCGhjbaMFpcRRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFindYTXkLmY2Uyx8JjWtQQq7TYz_NQiZ0tr9QXV00Yx+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <86CD3892-714A-4077-AB89-92E27C2A5CCB@gmail.com>
 <039b01d1b097$66797080$336c5180$@att.net>
 <CAM5aL2f59qmyuMG24HUfDPRDKdxXBLuZtLMex+5S2kcKfAvotA@mail.gmail.com>
 <08105C00-1395-42DE-800E-739746457DAF@gmail.com>
 <CAL_armhU-gh1bOgZQkR+pdEFdg3faD-2qEAwp342voOJ9q46Ow@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <32AE8694-2C86-4B2A-95F9-E4A671E6573F@gmail.com>

On May 18, 2016, at 3:41 PM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 18 May 2016 at 23:30, Dan TheBookMan  wrote:
>> It is a form of direct confiscation, though I'm not sure how well it could
>> be used for routine funding -- as a replacement for taxation, inflation, and
>> borrowing. (One can point to, of course, how traffic fines are used for
>> routine funding -- little different than how bandits controlling a
>> chokepoint rely on shaking down travelers to fund their organization.)
> 
> Also, there is now negative interest rates which are becoming popular
> with some central banks.
> In effect a form of wealth taxation.

When I used 'direct confiscation,' I meant more taking stuff to be used -- rather than and instead of taking money. What I was thinking of is how soldiers in wartime can simply take the harvest to feed the army -- without compensation. This is different from taxation in that it's not taking money to then buy stuff (or labor) for operations. Of course, it's a loose distinction, though the effects are different. Direct confiscation usually leads to very different behavior than taxation or other means of funding, such as a more severe and quicker breakdown of production and trade. If you expect an army to take your stores of food, you might hide them or not take in the harvest or even flee the area with the harvest. Some of this is much harder to do, so the expectation of confiscation can lead to a quicker breakdown.  Of course, confiscation is used very selectively and rarely, so we don't often see this.

Whether national debt repudiation would lead to more of it is another matter. I brought it up to be complete rather than because I thought it was more likely. 

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/20160518/8c59dd6c/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Wed May 18 23:23:31 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 18:23:31 -0500
Subject: [ExI] snowden paradox: was: RE: Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <00ee01d1b130$8cfc8140$a6f583c0$@att.net>
References: <005801d1b107$b3b84360$1b28ca20$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNSFQYqyuZZipGM53yBdC+Or4k_2Meh7=O74Zdrkbzdfqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <001901d1b11e$8e66ebe0$ab34c3a0$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEZVSeR=t4FhNsZx_9KgVdrBg60e34OfzdS=3KC_kFE0iA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00ee01d1b130$8cfc8140$a6f583c0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEb_YUioHf7ybButZPThakLaGQg1hBP0q-Dpyx1zUA9xmA@mail.gmail.com>

If Snowden signed to protect secrets, then blabbed something the government
may do legitimately, then he is a traitor.  If he blabbed something they
were doing which was unconstitutional, un-fourth-amendment, then he is a
hero.  spike


Also to Adrian - what if he is both?  Violated the law and blew the whistle
on gov misgoings?  I don't know what the judge said, but I assume did not
clear him of all wrongdoings.  Or the gov would not still be after him.  Si?


Since you can't cancel bad doings with good, then he is an outlaw at the
very least, though personally I am glad he did it.  If the only
'traitorous' thing he did was to publicize the legal gov things but those
things are those which the public should be aware of so they can get
Congress to change them (that is, the public would think it should be
illegal for the gov to do those), then I'd let him go free even if he did
violate his oath, assuming that no defense type secrets got out with the
rest.  (I should take that sentence out the back and shoot it.)

If he is helping the Russians, then all bets are off and he is a big time
traitor.  I assume we don't know that is true.  If the gov knows that they
aren't telling, right?

bill w

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 1:10 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On
> Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace
>
>
>
> >?I am not getting a sense of what the majority of this group believes.
> Is Snowden a traitor or a hero?
>
>
>
> bill w
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Depends on how you view cell phones.  My view is that anything you do
> outside your own home is visible, so it is legitimate for anyone who sees
> you to see you.  And record what you do out there.  Inside your own home,
> not.  Outside, you are spraying informative photons everywhere.  Observers,
> nosy neighbors, local constables, anyone who can see you: they are not so
> much intercepting those photons as you are hurling photons at their eyes.
> Or their cameras.
>
>
>
> Ja?
>
>
>
> Inside your own home, if they put some kind of device in there, that is
> illegitimate.  Fourth amendment stuff, illegal for governments to do,
> violating your security in your letters, etc.  Do review the wording and
> note this is not a permission, it is a right, and governments do not have
> permission to violate a right.  Text:
>
>
>
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
> effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
> and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
> affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
> persons or things.
>
>
>
> OK, so what is a cell phone?  If it is used inside your home, you are
> spraying photons thru the walls of your home so would that be analogous to
> actually being outdoors?  Or is it analogous to a really leaky land line?
> The constables need a warrant to tap a land line, and those are hard to
> get.  Do they and should then need a warrant to intercept the photons you
> willing hurl at them with that cell?
>
>
>
> I personally don?t have a dog in this fight, being as I will allow them to
> listen to my discussions, but I am a special case: I am the most boring
> person in the world, the counterpart to that guy on TV who is the most
> interesting.  I was at a party, some yahoo said I know you!  You are that
> guy, the most boring person in the world!  Several others heard, and became
> interested, which meant I was no longer the most boring person.  They lost
> interest then, went off to find the new most boring person in the world,
> but when that happened, I again became the most boring, so they will never
> find that other guy.
>
>
>
> But I digress.  I don?t care if the constables intercept my phone
> conversations, but being the most boring person, they would use the
> discussions as a lullaby.  They could weaponized them, use them to cause
> the bad guys to die of boredom, a snooze-cannon more powerful than that
> internet video that enraged the entire middle east and started wars, etc.
>
>
>
> If Snowden signed to protect secrets, then blabbed something the
> government may do legitimately, then he is a traitor.  If he blabbed
> something they were doing which was unconstitutional, un-fourth-amendment,
> then he is a hero.
>
>
>
> So? are cell phones radios?  If so, then interception is fair game.  Or
> are they leaky land lines?  If so, interception without a warrant is
> unconstitutional and violates our right to privacy.
>
>
>
> Do educate me for I retired my spam bucket land line years ago.  For many
> years, I have had no physical way to send or receive sensitive information
> in protected mode, which is no problem for really boring people, but for
> those of you who have exciting lives (and you know who you are) well, do
> educate me please.
>
>
>
> Over to you BillW.
>
>
>
> 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/20160518/ea78debf/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Thu May 19 00:26:52 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 20:26:52 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <043101d1b0ac$15f36070$41da2150$@att.net>
References: <CAJPayv29hVUEPhaeaHYGm9_MuGJ-ptixka-UdopVzvBZrP8pPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY-magA4qLA5J+kd3mQQgNf1xK4Bn6f3zbAVoeyU9Vc3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEbVf2-bqAdyRoNN8xuXgjHj-E1PFzJVXvFKC14DgZANdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3tT636qp6qkVVDD02nAWnmgBCX1XH3b3en_Sws3y6pDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2fkK1JHpeWdS7n6G7MK74y_HUmS9q_jQJQAy4mZv8pigQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2VB4r7m5CiyQ+WMOrM91LHHeZfkaLXjWL4GXAMpj=eZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <010101d1b05b$0fdfe920$2f9fbb60$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv2qjN7_7CoiPYP3=pYviuQ=QSdYDNLNQodKcXO_-354TA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01d801d1b074$57cdb910$07692b30$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1tcu3DpSDX1qeZA1xhT1TJ74pMpspYqT98aeNUyY3yaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <043101d1b0ac$15f36070$41da2150$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv3SOL1J81Tp1BuXsuQhVsrSrCm76pLeyNsVhxhY=RrahQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 17, 2016  spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

?> ?both Clintons are shady characters.  Both lie.  Any charity which
> donates to them is suspect.


?The ?
Bill Gates
? Foundation donated to the Clinton charity and ?Warren Buffett thought so
much of Gates Foundation that he gave it almost all his money. Are Gates
and Buffett shady suspect characters too?


> ?>  ?
> Gary Johnson
> ?[...] ?
>   He?s a good guy.
>

?I'm sure he is, but he has no chance of obtaining the nuclear launch codes
anytime in the next 4 years. You can rage against the unfairness of the
world all you want but the fact remains that either Donald Trump or
?Hillary Clinton will get the keys to a Trident Nuclear Submarine and your
4 year survival prospects will change depending on
?which one gets them?
.

 I can only speak for myself but when I evaluate 2 presidential candidates
the first question I ask myself is't which one is more honest or even which
one is more libertarian, it's is one of them significantly more likely to
?
kill me
?
than the other
?
,
?
and
? ?
if
?
one of them is then that pretty much settles the matter as far as I'm
??
concerned
?
and
?
l vote for the other.

> ?A?
>  filmmaker is a journalist in a sense.  Mrs. Clinton had one jailed
>
>
?
He was a filmmaker and he was jailed but it sure doesn't sou
?n?
d like a free speech issue to me.
? ?
In 2010
?
filmmaker
?
Nakoula Nakoula
?
 pleaded guilty of bank fraud and using social security numbers stolen from
the internet to open fake accounts and withdraw money from ATMs . After 21
month
?s?
in prison he was release on probation. Two of the terms of his probation
were that he not use the internet and not use a phony name. Very soon after
that he posted his
?
crappy
?
movie on the internet using the phony name "Sam Bacile". His probation was
revoked and he went back to prison for using a fake name and lying to his
probation officer
? about it.? And there is no evidence
Mrs. Clinton had anything to do with any of it.

?Contrast that with the Trump incident. Comedian Bill Marr called Donald
Trump a orange orangutan. Donald Trump sued Bill Marr for libel. Donald
Trump? presented evidence in court proving that he was not a orange
orangutan, nevertheless Trump lost the case. Trump wants the law changed so
next time somebody calls him a orange orangutan he'll win. I guess I should
get all my Donald Trump insults out of my system now, if I do it a year
from now Trump's thugs could drag me away.

?> ?
> in order to lend support to a cover story that was so silly it was
> laughable.


?
The idea that a fourth rate movie with a zero budget that virtually nobody
had even seen could turn a group of
?
pious
?
Muslims into into a mob of homicidal maniacs
?
would have been laughable if a newspaper cartoon hadn't turned
?
turn
?
ed
?
a group of
?
pious
?
Muslims into into a mob of
?
homicidal maniacs
?
just a few years before.


?> ?
This and the rest of your examples are exactly why presidents don?t make
law.

?But presidents enforce laws, and propose laws, and veto laws. ?


?> ?
> John you have somehow convinced yourself that Mrs. Clinton is honest


?At this point I no longer care if she's honest. Maybe Clinton is the
reincarnation ?
?of Al Capone, I don't care, I'd still vote for her over Trump. If you dig
up Richard Nixon I'd vote for him over Trump; Nixon was a crook no doubt
about it, but he wasn't insane. And many of Nixon's ideas were stupid but
they were stupid within normal parameters, but Trump is ?paranormally
stupid. You'd have to go as far back as 1968
and George Wallace
? to find a more anti-exreopian ?presidential candidate, and even Wallace
wasn't crazy enough to renounce the debt.

>?I mean it, I honestly don't get it.?
>
> ?> ?
> I mean it too John, I get it.  I honestly do get it.  Plenty of us do.
>
> ?Then please please explain it to me because I'm really confused about
what the hell is going on around here. Are Extropians no longer interested
in free markets and free trade?
Are Extropians no longer interested in
? encryption? ?
Are Extropians no longer interested in
? reproductive rights? ?
Are Extropians no longer interested in
? science.
Is any sane person happy about the prospect of a nuclear armed ?
Saudi Arabia
??


And Spike, I just ?don't believe you would torture somebody for information
if you knew they didn't have any information, but Trump would. I don't get
it.

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160518/dc272a3b/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Thu May 19 00:31:55 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 20:31:55 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEYMLGPtThbGvgOHEX2kMbEeQt+9ffEo823XXkjt8t1wmg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACB7g24DcS04UgCshdM=FSfA-5K6yhwMh1VDFi5S9TQuHPAT4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <78723dab-3031-4d9e-1c38-dfea7da4caaf@aleph.se>
 <CAO+xQEYMLGPtThbGvgOHEX2kMbEeQt+9ffEo823XXkjt8t1wmg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv2DO1_NYaRYYjB2RnUijVWc=mzxVGQ2rk2xdiMAmUqXtQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 18, 2016  William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:

?> ?
> The reason you don't see any comments from me is that I am with you all
> the way.  You have said nothing that I disagree with and the ways you have
> phrased it.  If anything you are too soft on Trump.  I don't get it
> either.  My area is personality - persona means 'mask'.  What's behind
> Trump's mask?  Nothing.
> No substance, just style.  The more outrageous the better, it seems.
> Rabble rouser.
>

?Thanks Bill, I was starting to think everybody was crazy but me.

 John K Clark?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160518/d87e49bd/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Thu May 19 00:28:26 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 17:28:26 -0700
Subject: [ExI] snowden paradox: was: RE: Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEb_YUioHf7ybButZPThakLaGQg1hBP0q-Dpyx1zUA9xmA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <005801d1b107$b3b84360$1b28ca20$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNSFQYqyuZZipGM53yBdC+Or4k_2Meh7=O74Zdrkbzdfqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <001901d1b11e$8e66ebe0$ab34c3a0$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEZVSeR=t4FhNsZx_9KgVdrBg60e34OfzdS=3KC_kFE0iA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00ee01d1b130$8cfc8140$a6f583c0$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEb_YUioHf7ybButZPThakLaGQg1hBP0q-Dpyx1zUA9xmA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <023d01d1b165$5cdf8220$169e8660$@att.net>

 

 

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

 

Also to Adrian - what if he is both?  Violated the law and blew the whistle on gov misgoings?  I don't know what the judge said, but I assume did not clear him of all wrongdoings.  Or the gov would not still be after him.  Si?...

bill w

 

 

 

Since we are on the subject of paradoxes, I will comment on John Clark?s admirable comment on why he has his own doubts about Hillary Clinton, and why I cannot support either of the current leaders.

 

It is paradoxical to me that John cited Clinton?s vote to invade Iraq in 2003 of all things.  That is a puzzling thing, for Mrs. Clinton was one of a few senators cleared to view all the evidence we had.  The president cleared a subset of senators (and how the heck they figured she was clearable is another mystery (but let us leave that for the moment)) ones that were defense specialists, or were on committees, and showed them all the evidence.  The heads of some European states saw this too.  The Brits showed what they knew.

 

They were well aware of the risk that Iraqi leader Saddam and Iranian leaders and other parties were willing and eager to use the European armies and especially American military muscle to crush their enemies.  It was not as simple as Iraq vs Iran either, for there were subgroups in those countries with their own agendas, the apocalyptic religious types, the parties within the countries, oh it must have been crazy difficult to figure out who was doing what.  They knew there was the risk of parties with unknown motives intentionally trying to fake evidence for nukes.  They knew there was a risk of invasion and finding nothing.  Bush knew if he ordered an invasion and found nothing, his legacy was ruined, as did Tony Blair (both were right on that part.)

 

So these heads of state, some of our senators were cleared to see everything.  They all knew the risks.  The cleared senators, Bush, Blair and several other heads of state said go.  France, Germany and the commies said no. 

 

OK turns out it was a bluff.  Saddam?s deathbed testimony included several interviews with his American interrogator, with whom he became friendly, knowing the US was going to hand him over to the Iraqis, and he was dead.  The interrogator asked him why he would attempt such a dangerous game as to intentionally make the US think he was developing nukes.  Saddam revealed his strategy was to convince the US that he already had them, so that they would not invade, and would convince Iran it was unwise.  Again his American interrogator asked was not this a very risky strategy.  Saddam agreed that it was, but anything he could have done was a risky strategy.  With this, he made the now-famous comment Americans don?t understand.  The entire Arab world is a dangerous neighborhood.

 

In any case, the cleared senators, Bush, Blair and the others, looking at the same evidence weighed the risk and chose go.  Bernie Sanders could not be cleared to see that evidence.  Most of the senators could not, but were influenced by those who were cleared.  So, in we go.  Bluff.  Bush ruined.  Blair ruined.  But they knew the risk.  Clinton: well, I would have to give her a pass on that one.  She was looking at the same evidence the others saw and came to the same conclusion.  

 

This is not to say I approve of Clinton in general, for reasons I have so egregiously over-posted already.

 

That being said, I cannot support Trump either.  It isn?t because of all the crazy comments, the shooting from the hip, all that.  We know that is showmanship.  He has a plausible explanation.  He ran in 2000.  Did you know of it?  Neither did I.  Nor anyone else I asked.  He was presidential.  No one even noticed him.  Businessmen are adaptable sorts.  They see something that didn?t work at all, was a huge waste of effort.  So? he tried the opposite: make crazy clowny comments on purpose, with the strategy of later coming back and saning all the silliness.  When asked about the grand wall, he can say ?OK, the real message is this: ours is a nation of law.  If we have a state (California in particular) pulling rank on the Federal government on immigration, California becomes the defacto Federal government.  Ours is a nation of law.?

 

If he did that, most people will realize why he did the crazy act during the primary.  The Republican party had become so crazy, no sane approach would have worked.  No sane approach did work: note the candidates eliminated first.  Those were the sane ones.

 

OK then.  I still cannot support Trump, because of that eminent domain business.  I know it is technically legal.  But in my mind it is a poster-child example of government overreach.  That should soooo be illegal.  Trump used the law.  I cannot cotton to that.  Clinton disregarded the law governing the office she occupied for nearly four years.  Disregarding law is government overreach too: it is even more dangerous than exploring the limits of power, which is what eminent domain really is: the ragged edge of law, way out there where honorable wielders of power should not tread.  That whole self-pardon notion is another one: ja we see that it is legally feasible.  But we see that it is a path to totalitarianism, which is the path I fear we are charging down with either of these.  I don?t fear so much they will launch a nuclear war.  I would estimate 1% risk for either, which is a stunning thing in itself.  But my fear of sliding into a totalitarian dictatorship is extremely high for both of these distasteful characters.

 

My ideal scenario is if both parties would agree to parachute in someone else, pretty much anyone else, and agree to nominate this other person if the other party agrees to do likewise.  My first choice would be Peter Thiel, but I already know he is not eligible, being born in Germany.  My second choice would be Sal Khan.  Sal Khan vs Condi Rice, something like that.  Then I could vote for one of them.  Of those two I would vote for Sal.

 

spike

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160518/66251e5c/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Thu May 19 00:48:00 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 17:48:00 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv3SOL1J81Tp1BuXsuQhVsrSrCm76pLeyNsVhxhY=RrahQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv29hVUEPhaeaHYGm9_MuGJ-ptixka-UdopVzvBZrP8pPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY-magA4qLA5J+kd3mQQgNf1xK4Bn6f3zbAVoeyU9Vc3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEbVf2-bqAdyRoNN8xuXgjHj-E1PFzJVXvFKC14DgZANdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3tT636qp6qkVVDD02nAWnmgBCX1XH3b3en_Sws3y6pDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2fkK1JHpeWdS7n6G7MK74y_HUmS9q_jQJQAy4mZv8pigQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2VB4r7m5CiyQ+WMOrM91LHHeZfkaLXjWL4GXAMpj=eZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <010101d1b05b$0fdfe920$2f9fbb60$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv2qjN7_7CoiPYP3=pYviuQ=QSdYDNLNQodKcXO_-354TA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01d801d1b074$57cdb910$07692b30$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1tcu3DpSDX1qeZA1xhT1TJ74pMpspYqT98aeNUyY3yaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <043101d1b0ac$15f36070$41da2150$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3SOL1J81Tp1BuXsuQhVsrSrCm76pLeyNsVhxhY=RrahQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <025601d1b168$1898d780$49ca8680$@att.net>

 

 

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

 

 

>?And Spike, I just ?don't believe you would torture somebody for information if you knew they didn't have any information, but Trump would. I don't get it.  John K Clark

 

 

John much of this subject matter I wrote up a few minutes ago and sent before I read your commentary, but I will add a comment on this last part.

 

A few weeks ago, Trump made a comment on torture.  He was asked what would happen if his top generals just said no.  He went on a fantasy about how his top generals would do as he ordered because of the compelling magnetism of his charming personality, I forgot the exact absurd reasoning.

 

When I heard that, I thought back on every high-ish military guy I have known, and knew Trump was wrong, completely wrong on that.  I have worked with enough of those guys to confidently generalization about top military brass and the military in general.  If you describe the military and the top brass, it would be that it is a law and order world run with law and order leaders.  When we hear of crazy exceptions, like the Tailhook scandal and General Petraeus? appalling treachery, it is a real shock.  Military brass seldom do things like this.  Picture Colin Powell as an example: highly disciplined, straight up guy.  He would make a fine president.  All the military brass I have personally known are like this.

 

When Trump made his comments, I immediately knew he was wrong.  If he issued illegal orders as president, his top commanders would refuse and surrender their swords.  None of those I know would carry out illegal orders, none.  Torture is an illegal order.  Trump will not serially fire the top management of the military: he would need real leadership to run that show and handle all those fireworks, the kind the other military men respect and follow.  He has not the option to YOU?RE FIRED more than three or four.  Otherwise he has even bigger problems on his hands.

 

I now ask myself: did Trump learn from that?  I hope he did.  The office of president is not a dictator, not a king, not a lawmaker.  Policy maker.  Influential of course.  But carefully and intentionally bounded.  I don?t trust either of the current leaders with that much power, and not grabbing up as much power as legally possible, which is way too much.

 

spike

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160518/a2af1dfc/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Thu May 19 01:12:44 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 18:12:44 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <025601d1b168$1898d780$49ca8680$@att.net>
References: <CAJPayv29hVUEPhaeaHYGm9_MuGJ-ptixka-UdopVzvBZrP8pPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY-magA4qLA5J+kd3mQQgNf1xK4Bn6f3zbAVoeyU9Vc3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEbVf2-bqAdyRoNN8xuXgjHj-E1PFzJVXvFKC14DgZANdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3tT636qp6qkVVDD02nAWnmgBCX1XH3b3en_Sws3y6pDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2fkK1JHpeWdS7n6G7MK74y_HUmS9q_jQJQAy4mZv8pigQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2VB4r7m5CiyQ+WMOrM91LHHeZfkaLXjWL4GXAMpj=eZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <010101d1b05b$0fdfe920$2f9fbb60$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv2qjN7_7CoiPYP3=pYviuQ=QSdYDNLNQodKcXO_-354TA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01d801d1b074$57cdb910$07692b30$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1tcu3DpSDX1qeZA1xhT1TJ74pMpspYqT98aeNUyY3yaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <043101d1b0ac$15f36070$41da2150$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3SOL1J81Tp1BuXsuQhVsrSrCm76pLeyNsVhxhY=RrahQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <025601d1b168$1898d780$49ca8680$@att.net>
Message-ID: <001e01d1b16b$8d0e80d0$a72b8270$@att.net>

 

 

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



 

>?  I don?t trust either of the current leaders with that much power, and not grabbing up as much power as legally possible, which is way too much.  Spike

 

 

Yesterday?s primary results I found encouraging.  We saw Trump win 2/3 of the vote in a closed primary, running completely unopposed.  Has that ever happened?  Imagine it, a third of his own party just said no when he had NO ONE running against him.  In Oregon the same day, we saw Hilliary Clinton LOSE to a guy we already know cannot win, even if he wins.  Think about it.  These two are so unpopular, they can scarcely win majority support when running completely or functionally unopposed in closed primaries.  The voters are as appalled at this choice as we are.

 

This might be the one and only chance for the Libertarians.  This once, just this once.

 

Never give up hope.

 

spike

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160518/26ed9ecb/attachment.html>

From brent.allsop at canonizer.com  Thu May 19 02:59:00 2016
From: brent.allsop at canonizer.com (Brent Allsop)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 20:59:00 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Worthy kickstarter campaign for block chain based voting
	system.
Message-ID: <4e8b9955-d8ef-d419-72e8-37b1ae1397a4@canonizer.com>



Just a shout out for this worthy voting system.  I get so tired of our
current voting systems.


https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/adamkalebernest/e2e-verifiable-blockchain-voting-software-follow-m?ref=nav_search 



I've made a pledge.

Thanks


Brent Allsop



From danust2012 at gmail.com  Thu May 19 05:13:25 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 22:13:25 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv3SOL1J81Tp1BuXsuQhVsrSrCm76pLeyNsVhxhY=RrahQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv29hVUEPhaeaHYGm9_MuGJ-ptixka-UdopVzvBZrP8pPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY-magA4qLA5J+kd3mQQgNf1xK4Bn6f3zbAVoeyU9Vc3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEbVf2-bqAdyRoNN8xuXgjHj-E1PFzJVXvFKC14DgZANdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3tT636qp6qkVVDD02nAWnmgBCX1XH3b3en_Sws3y6pDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2fkK1JHpeWdS7n6G7MK74y_HUmS9q_jQJQAy4mZv8pigQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2VB4r7m5CiyQ+WMOrM91LHHeZfkaLXjWL4GXAMpj=eZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <010101d1b05b$0fdfe920$2f9fbb60$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv2qjN7_7CoiPYP3=pYviuQ=QSdYDNLNQodKcXO_-354TA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01d801d1b074$57cdb910$07692b30$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1tcu3DpSDX1qeZA1xhT1TJ74pMpspYqT98aeNUyY3yaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <043101d1b0ac$15f36070$41da2150$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3SOL1J81Tp1BuXsuQhVsrSrCm76pLeyNsVhxhY=RrahQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACB7g26ZU_WZWvLKsjrBP0zWWXiBRqBoiWdDnj3cmNQ+A_3=Pg@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 5:26 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
> Contrast that with the Trump incident. Comedian Bill Marr called
> Donald Trump a orange orangutan. Donald Trump sued Bill Marr
> for libel. Donald Trump presented evidence in court proving that
> he was not a orange orangutan, nevertheless Trump lost the case.

Do you mean to say that the court found that Donald Trump is indeed an
orange orangutan?

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/20160518/28c1ddcb/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Thu May 19 05:24:18 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 01:24:18 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Drake Equation Musings
In-Reply-To: <573AF5EE.1080304@aleph.se>
References: <CAL_armiT=A=jFACmt5zRX=+Y_jEUFYjo5dCFtk9aaME++KmDFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <57383BFE.9080200@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armhGLGQgsDqMXG+L_Zwm3vWnE63MTu4WYP5QXozWmCW+2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <5738CF6F.9050407@aleph.se>
 <CAAc1gFgzx0phW3D7-tO3tzZMVz_6skABBME9m95D3zR9S8_5Ug@mail.gmail.com>
 <573ADBE8.4000801@aleph.se>
 <CAAc1gFg3ReM2a-agDSiUo=8xUngcUfDU9uZKjyj-hbVFAvaoYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <573AF5EE.1080304@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFiyAkq2G4vhV7pPE-hAPpnTvrp3Db5nEB-EwKaGnt=LCQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 6:43 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> On 2016-05-17 11:01, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 4:52 AM, Anders Sandberg < <anders at aleph.se>
> anders at aleph.se> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-05-16 04:16, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>>
>>
>> Is the technogenesis likelihood of 10e-15 per solar mass a reasonable
>> estimate?
>>
>>
>> Our view is that is a reasonable estimate.
>>
>
> ### Woohoo! We're the Old Ones!
>
> Where can I read your article?
>
>
> Happy to send it to you when it is presentable. Still rather messy, but we
> will hopefully soon finish it and send it to PNAS.
>

### Are you mentioning there the Shiva-explanation for the empty skies? I
mean the possibility that the physics of our part of the multiverse is such
that technogenesis leads early-on and with a significant probability to the
discovery of a simple method to trigger a false vacuum decay, thus erasing
the civilization and its universe, along with any civilizations that
managed not to become the destroyers of worlds.

The observable world seems to be consistent with such an explanation. The
probabilities surrounding the Shiva explanation are the opposite of the
black-box explanation - it takes only one in any number of budding
civilizations to trigger a superluminal erasure of a universe, before any
of the million civs ever get to see light from their neighbors.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160519/5880303b/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Thu May 19 05:39:31 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 01:39:31 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Open migration/was Re: Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <27628F5D-A080-45DB-B701-18A1A3961B64@gmail.com>
References: <27628F5D-A080-45DB-B701-18A1A3961B64@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFjbydVNX3U6Kt5G1BCAGDXrH1EbiU8bP1L4TXTH=qFKCw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> ### Yes, by all means, you do need to make your country great, because in
> sick countries smaller communities are devoured by their neighbors.
>
>
> I'm not sure what that means.
>

### The Congo is a sick country. The Bantus rape and pillage the Pygmies,
the Pygmies kill Bantus. Constant violence, every tribe against every other
tribe, is the norm there. There is no place for anarchocapitalists there.

You want to keep your country great - free, orderly, high-trust, safe,
healthy.
 -----------------

> Open immigration of low-IQ and hostile people would dramatically lower our
> standard of living. Also, proximity + diversity = war.
>
>
> Note that you added hostile. Are most people hostile? Are most immigrants?
> Isn't it note that anti-foreign bias can be a driver here -- by being
> hostile to newcomers?
>

### Unassimilable immigrants often enough become hostile to the locals. The
world today is built on the bones of people displaced and destroyed by
hostile newcomers.

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


> Also, low-IQ folks would also be much more productive in the West than in
> their native lands. The typical hypothetical of the <fill in the blank>
> moving to a Western city and becoming a cab driver and increasing their
> real income a ten-fold might hint at this. The actual numbers seem to show
> it's the case.
>
> ### Read Garrett's "Hive Mind". The IQ-70 immigrant will increase her
income tenfold but her children will lower average IQ of the society,
eventually bringing it down to the original expected value of the IQ-70
people.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160519/b239ce56/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Thu May 19 05:44:32 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 01:44:32 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv1cFLTzUKUe2Gc+uWb9O9ACfkyONpLM_w8F85LcwYr2tw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACB7g242azWAqvsPGCuZB4TzvozzbPK-x1fzkCGhjbaMFpcRRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <031001d1b07e$ef19ac20$cd4d0460$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEaHZAewBtNCJpD0NUcm1igM78QdGBwtRwTvJkMvHyYnfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFhFz5a-QfzeMznjjh0L=X3TNj0kpdTJm1twdKvfLuOo3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv1cFLTzUKUe2Gc+uWb9O9ACfkyONpLM_w8F85LcwYr2tw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFhCy0EZ0pjEhdaweO+qfjYnsR+U4DqOViKKYJ0O9YBqVw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 1:13 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 10:50 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
> rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ?> ?
>>> What SHOULD we be doing about it?  Trim the military?
>>>
>>> ?> ?
>> ### End Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,
>>
>
> ?And what instrument would you use to contain the civil war that would
> erupt as soon as you did that?  A Browning M2 Machine Gun or do you prefer
> cluster bombs?
>

### I think that AI-controlled drones with self-guided bullets would be
pretty efficient.

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

>
> ?> ?
>> Gold exists.
>
>
> ?So you want human wealth to be strictly tied to the amount of Element 79
> that is in the crust of this planet, so you want China to be the richest
> country in the world, and you want Australia to be the second richest, and
> you want Russia to be the third richest.
>

### Whatever :)

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160519/0e487c65/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Thu May 19 05:46:53 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 01:46:53 -0400
Subject: [ExI] snowden paradox: was: RE: Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEZVSeR=t4FhNsZx_9KgVdrBg60e34OfzdS=3KC_kFE0iA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <005801d1b107$b3b84360$1b28ca20$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNSFQYqyuZZipGM53yBdC+Or4k_2Meh7=O74Zdrkbzdfqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <001901d1b11e$8e66ebe0$ab34c3a0$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEZVSeR=t4FhNsZx_9KgVdrBg60e34OfzdS=3KC_kFE0iA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFjDHcmA7EMEtsrTaBbv=mba0fw_JWOp15ExRg2KpJucBA@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 1:45 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
wrote:

>  He was acquitted, apparently in part because the judge refused to apply
> an "enemy of the state" label to Julian Assange just because he was leaking
> information to the public, no matter how classified or sensitive.
>
> I am not getting a sense of what the majority of this group believes.  Is
> Snowden a traitor or a hero?
>
>
### Hero!!!

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160519/b39037f6/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Thu May 19 05:54:05 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 01:54:05 -0400
Subject: [ExI] snowden paradox: was: RE: Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <005801d1b107$b3b84360$1b28ca20$@att.net>
References: <005801d1b107$b3b84360$1b28ca20$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFjVG_L7M3vsVv9Ujmnx0M_XEQ9O3PU-hOq95v+AxrjuYw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 9:17 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Adrian Tymes
> *?*
>
>
>
> >?From 18 U.S. Code ? 2381 (titled "Treason"): "Whoever, owing allegiance
> to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies,
> giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is
> guilty of treason"  ?Both of these seem to require an actual enemy to have
> been intentionally assisted, or levying war against the US.  Neither one
> seems to have happened in this case?The charge in his case was "violating
> the Espionage Act", not "treason".
>
>
>
> OK so we are arguing over meanings of words, but here is where it goes
> from here.
>

### Whether Clinton is a traitor because of the email scandal, I don't
know, I'll leave it to you to figure out.

But I am sure that she and Obama committed treason against our nation in
Benghazi. Both knew the truth but contributed to the victory of our enemies
and caused, through multiple premeditated decisions, the death of brave
Americans. All that as a side-effect of personal political calculus, a
personal propaganda exercise.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160519/ef694cd7/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Wed May 18 08:58:09 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 10:58:09 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Drake Equation Musings
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armgJ8hCQdOHQ4OMG3GFoea4kbOxiCK95u8CTqNfGs4yw8Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB7To3vNouN=cfJjF4hJtto5q4-7xTjOBaP1QJ5pOVJ73A@mail.gmail.com>
 <573AD95A.3030900@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armisyJOCL3aUCfrFYSBPHJZfSuxiocukE0-AwzBB18_dtA@mail.gmail.com>
 <573AF985.1070307@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armgJ8hCQdOHQ4OMG3GFoea4kbOxiCK95u8CTqNfGs4yw8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1971e8f7-06a6-e055-f728-c76a67c3115c@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-17 20:02, BillK wrote:
> On 17 May 2016 at 11:59, Anders Sandberg wrote:
>> Remember the Carter argument: the probability of life emerging may be very
>> low, and there could be secondary low-probability steps between it and
>> intelligence. So most planets never get it, and among those that get it the
>> secondary steps never happen. The planets with observers on them will be the
>> ones that have the unlikely combination of getting all the steps, and if the
>> natural rate of them happening is slow, we should expect them to be about
>> equidistant across the time interval the planet is habitable. So early life
>> is not evidence of easy life unless there is no reason to think there are
>> any hard steps. However, we do have some evidence for hard steps (e.g. at
>> least one transition in genetic coding, which is something we know tends to
>> be stable over 10^80 cell divisions).
>>
>> In short, observer selection bias makes data from Earth suspect in updating
>> our probabilities.
>>
>> Note that your idea is nicely testable: if we do find life on Mars, Europa
>> or Ceres, then we have reason to think life is indeed common and not a great
>> filter. That is bad news for our future, though: while the probability of
>> intelligence evolving factor decreases the most given this, the expected
>> lifespan of civilization decreases second most.
>>
> You seem to be depending on the 'Rare Earth' claim to validate
> ignoring the evidence of life everywhere on Earth, even extremophiles
> which live in environments that would destroy most earth life. I doubt
> whether it is valid to use observer selection bias to ignore evidence
> unless you first refute the arguments against the 'Rare Earth'
> hypothesis.
Huh? How do you impute that assumption in my text, and how do you get 
that paragraph to work logically?

I am not using a rare earth argument. Maybe I was oversimplifying my 
explanation of the Carter argument ( https://www.jstor.org/stable/37419 
): it allows for life being super-easy too. Extremophiles does not prove 
life is everywhere, since they merely show that once you have life, then 
it can spread into available niches.

Think of it like this: what evidence would present itself to you in a 
universe where life was very easy, or one where it was very rare? In 
both cases you would see a planet with a biosphere compatible with you. 
You would find life adapted to a broad range of conditions. You would 
see life showing up early (either because it was simply likely, or 
because observers require a few rare steps). None of these observations 
give you any information allowing you to choose between the two universes.

Now, if you had evidence that there wasn't lots of aliens around, that 
would favor the later conclusion - as well as the "life is easy, 
intelligence hard" and "intelligence doesn't last" conclusions (plus 
"weird" things like the zoo hypothesis). It weakens the "life is easy" 
conclusion a bit, but since the uncertainty of intelligence and future 
longevity parameters are big enough to soften the change in probabilities.

Panspermias may be possible, but just create correlated patches with 
high life probabilities:
http://aleph.se/andart2/space/the-drake-equation-and-correlations/


From spike66 at att.net  Thu May 19 13:29:59 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 06:29:59 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <CACB7g26ZU_WZWvLKsjrBP0zWWXiBRqBoiWdDnj3cmNQ+A_3=Pg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv29hVUEPhaeaHYGm9_MuGJ-ptixka-UdopVzvBZrP8pPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY-magA4qLA5J+kd3mQQgNf1xK4Bn6f3zbAVoeyU9Vc3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEbVf2-bqAdyRoNN8xuXgjHj-E1PFzJVXvFKC14DgZANdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3tT636qp6qkVVDD02nAWnmgBCX1XH3b3en_Sws3y6pDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2fkK1JHpeWdS7n6G7MK74y_HUmS9q_jQJQAy4mZv8pigQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2VB4r7m5CiyQ+WMOrM91LHHeZfkaLXjWL4GXAMpj=eZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <010101d1b05b$0fdfe920$2f9fbb60$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv2qjN7_7CoiPYP3=pYviuQ=QSdYDNLNQodKcXO_-354TA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01d801d1b074$57cdb910$07692b30$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1tcu3DpSDX1qeZA1xhT1TJ74pMpspYqT98aeNUyY3yaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <043101d1b0ac$15f36070$41da2150$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3SOL1J81Tp1BuXsuQhVsrSrCm76pLeyNsVhxhY=RrahQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACB7g26ZU_WZWvLKsjrBP0zWWXiBRqBoiWdDnj3cmNQ+A_3=Pg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00a301d1b1d2$8ae1d700$a0a58500$@att.net>

 

 

On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan
Subject: Re: [ExI] Sanders, Clinton and Trump

 

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 5:26 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com <mailto:johnkclark at gmail.com> > wrote:
>>? Contrast that with the Trump incident. Comedian Bill Marr called
> Donald Trump a orange orangutan. Donald Trump sued Bill Marr
> for libel. Donald Trump presented evidence in court proving that
> he was not a orange orangutan, nevertheless Trump lost the case.

>?Do you mean to say that the court found that Donald Trump is indeed an orange orangutan?  Regards, Dan

 

 

 

Close examination of the ?evidence? left questions in the minds of the jury and judge.  Simply producing actual DNA would have decided the case, but this Mr. Trump failed to do, and refuses still.  Eventually the case devolved into discussions of definition of the terms ?orange? and ?orangutan? with both party?s lawyers marveling at how remarkably similar those two words were given that they were not from the same Latin root.  The plaintiff?s case was dismissed for lack of evidence, demonstrating the inherent difficulty in proving a negative.  We still don?t know if he is or is not orange, but the other seems compelling enough to the casual observer.

 

Examination of the constitution reveals that there is no requirement that the president must be homo sapiens, however I still find it most tragic that the mighty nuclear-armed nation of the USA has now chosen down to two candidates and we still do not know for sure the biological species of either of them.

 

spike

 

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160519/c5da7b55/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Thu May 19 14:03:43 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 09:03:43 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Open migration/was Re: Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFjbydVNX3U6Kt5G1BCAGDXrH1EbiU8bP1L4TXTH=qFKCw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <27628F5D-A080-45DB-B701-18A1A3961B64@gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjbydVNX3U6Kt5G1BCAGDXrH1EbiU8bP1L4TXTH=qFKCw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEaQGFpiHoXjJAm0DcDBH25KcoM1qYMt7gaRwtQnh_nO0g@mail.gmail.com>

# Read Garrett's "Hive Mind". The IQ-70 immigrant will increase her income
tenfold but her children will lower average IQ of the society, eventually
bringing it down to the original expected value of the IQ-70 people.

Rafa?

?Do you know of any data on the IQs of immigrants?

bill w?

?


On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 12:39 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> ### Yes, by all means, you do need to make your country great, because in
>> sick countries smaller communities are devoured by their neighbors.
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure what that means.
>>
>
> ### The Congo is a sick country. The Bantus rape and pillage the Pygmies,
> the Pygmies kill Bantus. Constant violence, every tribe against every other
> tribe, is the norm there. There is no place for anarchocapitalists there.
>
> You want to keep your country great - free, orderly, high-trust, safe,
> healthy.
>  -----------------
>
>> Open immigration of low-IQ and hostile people would dramatically lower
>> our standard of living. Also, proximity + diversity = war.
>>
>>
>> Note that you added hostile. Are most people hostile? Are most
>> immigrants? Isn't it note that anti-foreign bias can be a driver here -- by
>> being hostile to newcomers?
>>
>
> ### Unassimilable immigrants often enough become hostile to the locals.
> The world today is built on the bones of people displaced and destroyed by
> hostile newcomers.
>
> ----------------------
>
>
>> Also, low-IQ folks would also be much more productive in the West than in
>> their native lands. The typical hypothetical of the <fill in the blank>
>> moving to a Western city and becoming a cab driver and increasing their
>> real income a ten-fold might hint at this. The actual numbers seem to show
>> it's the case.
>>
>> ### Read Garrett's "Hive Mind". The IQ-70 immigrant will increase her
> income tenfold but her children will lower average IQ of the society,
> eventually bringing it down to the original expected value of the IQ-70
> people.
>
> Rafa?
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160519/8204274b/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Thu May 19 14:44:27 2016
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 15:44:27 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <025601d1b168$1898d780$49ca8680$@att.net>
References: <CAJPayv29hVUEPhaeaHYGm9_MuGJ-ptixka-UdopVzvBZrP8pPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY-magA4qLA5J+kd3mQQgNf1xK4Bn6f3zbAVoeyU9Vc3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEbVf2-bqAdyRoNN8xuXgjHj-E1PFzJVXvFKC14DgZANdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3tT636qp6qkVVDD02nAWnmgBCX1XH3b3en_Sws3y6pDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2fkK1JHpeWdS7n6G7MK74y_HUmS9q_jQJQAy4mZv8pigQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2VB4r7m5CiyQ+WMOrM91LHHeZfkaLXjWL4GXAMpj=eZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <010101d1b05b$0fdfe920$2f9fbb60$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv2qjN7_7CoiPYP3=pYviuQ=QSdYDNLNQodKcXO_-354TA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01d801d1b074$57cdb910$07692b30$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1tcu3DpSDX1qeZA1xhT1TJ74pMpspYqT98aeNUyY3yaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <043101d1b0ac$15f36070$41da2150$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3SOL1J81Tp1BuXsuQhVsrSrCm76pLeyNsVhxhY=RrahQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <025601d1b168$1898d780$49ca8680$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAL_armiu=4w54pTNf087kOo588BA39VzuA5G5QOFS30d+bKUaA@mail.gmail.com>

On 19 May 2016 at 01:48, spike  wrote:
>
> A few weeks ago, Trump made a comment on torture.  He was asked what would
> happen if his top generals just said no.  He went on a fantasy about how his
> top generals would do as he ordered because of the compelling magnetism of
> his charming personality, I forgot the exact absurd reasoning.
>
<snip>
> When Trump made his comments, I immediately knew he was wrong.  If he issued
> illegal orders as president, his top commanders would refuse and surrender
> their swords.  None of those I know would carry out illegal orders, none.
> Torture is an illegal order.  Trump will not serially fire the top
> management of the military: he would need real leadership to run that show
> and handle all those fireworks, the kind the other military men respect and
> follow.  He has not the option to YOU?RE FIRED more than three or four.
> Otherwise he has even bigger problems on his hands.
>
> I now ask myself: did Trump learn from that?  I hope he did.  The office of
> president is not a dictator, not a king, not a lawmaker.  Policy maker.
> Influential of course.  But carefully and intentionally bounded.  I don?t
> trust either of the current leaders with that much power, and not grabbing
> up as much power as legally possible, which is way too much.
>


Wasn't it the CIA that did the torture?  Not the military.

In the heat of argument Trump was just saying that 'some organisation'
would follow his orders and do the torturing. (Redefining descriptions
and doing PR as necessary to excuse the procedures).

BillK



From danust2012 at gmail.com  Thu May 19 15:24:00 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 08:24:00 -0700
Subject: [ExI] How the electorate is irrational
Message-ID: <31EAEB98-7791-4731-AD9C-7F64180225CC@gmail.com>

http://www.economist.com/node/9340166

Not a new story, but covers Caplan's book on the irrationality of democracy.

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/20160519/9085c069/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Thu May 19 15:28:25 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 08:28:25 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Worthy kickstarter campaign for block chain based voting
	system.
In-Reply-To: <4e8b9955-d8ef-d419-72e8-37b1ae1397a4@canonizer.com>
References: <4e8b9955-d8ef-d419-72e8-37b1ae1397a4@canonizer.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNQm1fY1=k+_zcm-tTddgFnoXkvzX-Rn4j7bB4-UL+r+=Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at canonizer.com>
wrote:

> Just a shout out for this worthy voting system.  I get so tired of our
> current voting systems.
>
>
>
> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/adamkalebernest/e2e-verifiable-blockchain-voting-software-follow-m?ref=nav_search
>
>
> I've made a pledge.
>

Maybe you can explain: I take a look at this and I see a quick way to
confirm that a given voter ID's vote is counted the way that voter wanted.
However, to prevent people from making up voter IDs, there will almost
certainly be a database accessible to the government giving the names,
addresses, et cetera attached to each voter ID.  (For example, in
California for next month's primary election, at a minimum each ID would
need to be tagged with party preference and county - possibly city - to see
which things that ID is eligible to vote for.  And if someone moves, the
government would need to know which voter ID to move from one county to
which other county.)

This seems to mean it would become possible, perhaps easy, for anyone with
access to that database to find out who voted the "wrong" way.  For
example, around here the number of Trump voters is likely to be low enough
that persecuting a significant fraction of them - enough to intimidate most
of the rest - may be possible, and Trump is reviled enough that the
possibility of persecution might seem plausible to many if their votes
could be traced.  This would ruin the election's legitimacy before the
votes are even cast, with obvious problems given the observed character of
many of Trump's supporters.  (Not that I would like Trump to win, just that
an honest defeat is preferable.)

Worse, if I understand correctly, this verification could be done before
the election deadline on anyone who voted early, in time to persuade them
to change their vote.  I know of many cases where such persuasion would
usually begin by pointing a gun at the voter...or where the mere
possibility of such vote tracing, combined with a mass murder spree which
left prominent "voted for X" notes near the victims (large enough that the
press would see them), would be the preferred method. to discourage voting
for X.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160519/ed7565e3/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Thu May 19 16:28:17 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 12:28:17 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Open migration/was Re: Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEaQGFpiHoXjJAm0DcDBH25KcoM1qYMt7gaRwtQnh_nO0g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <27628F5D-A080-45DB-B701-18A1A3961B64@gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjbydVNX3U6Kt5G1BCAGDXrH1EbiU8bP1L4TXTH=qFKCw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEaQGFpiHoXjJAm0DcDBH25KcoM1qYMt7gaRwtQnh_nO0g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv2ov1kFG=TBN4s91XKquQn3Sk6FdqqsTvqOktGWFEZMug@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:03 AM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com
> wrote:

?
> ?> ?
> Do you know of any data on the IQs of immigrants?
>

?Well... we know that average ?immigrant is more likely to be anti-Trump
than the average Republican, so the average immigrant must have a higher IQ
than the average Republican.

? John K Clark?








>
> bill w?
>
> ?
>
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 12:39 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
> rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> ### Yes, by all means, you do need to make your country great, because
>>> in sick countries smaller communities are devoured by their neighbors.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what that means.
>>>
>>
>> ### The Congo is a sick country. The Bantus rape and pillage the Pygmies,
>> the Pygmies kill Bantus. Constant violence, every tribe against every other
>> tribe, is the norm there. There is no place for anarchocapitalists there.
>>
>> You want to keep your country great - free, orderly, high-trust, safe,
>> healthy.
>>  -----------------
>>
>>> Open immigration of low-IQ and hostile people would dramatically lower
>>> our standard of living. Also, proximity + diversity = war.
>>>
>>>
>>> Note that you added hostile. Are most people hostile? Are most
>>> immigrants? Isn't it note that anti-foreign bias can be a driver here -- by
>>> being hostile to newcomers?
>>>
>>
>> ### Unassimilable immigrants often enough become hostile to the locals.
>> The world today is built on the bones of people displaced and destroyed by
>> hostile newcomers.
>>
>> ----------------------
>>
>>
>>> Also, low-IQ folks would also be much more productive in the West than
>>> in their native lands. The typical hypothetical of the <fill in the blank>
>>> moving to a Western city and becoming a cab driver and increasing their
>>> real income a ten-fold might hint at this. The actual numbers seem to show
>>> it's the case.
>>>
>>> ### Read Garrett's "Hive Mind". The IQ-70 immigrant will increase her
>> income tenfold but her children will lower average IQ of the society,
>> eventually bringing it down to the original expected value of the IQ-70
>> people.
>>
>> Rafa?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160519/b0139648/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Thu May 19 16:22:10 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 09:22:10 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Worthy kickstarter campaign for block chain based
	voting	system.
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNQm1fY1=k+_zcm-tTddgFnoXkvzX-Rn4j7bB4-UL+r+=Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4e8b9955-d8ef-d419-72e8-37b1ae1397a4@canonizer.com>
 <CALAdGNQm1fY1=k+_zcm-tTddgFnoXkvzX-Rn4j7bB4-UL+r+=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <01a401d1b1ea$98ebf840$cac3e8c0$@att.net>

 

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at canonizer.com <mailto:brent.allsop at canonizer.com> > wrote:

Just a shout out for this worthy voting system.  I get so tired of our
current voting systems.


https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/adamkalebernest/e2e-verifiable-blockchain-voting-software-follow-m?ref=nav_search 


I've made a pledge.

 

 

 

 

Cool!

 

Brent, I applaud these kinds of efforts, and may even pledge, assuming I have any money left after I pay John Clark for my injudicious gambling habit.  I do confess I am beginning to have visions of a picture of Al Hamilton taking wings and flapping out my window and perching upon John?s.  I have no doubt he will frame that portrait, inviting curious visitors to inquire.  {8^D

 

The pollsters are warning of a replay of our American experience in the election of 2000.  That one was different and similar.  Similar in that the polls showed it nearly even.  Different in that in 2000 the voters couldn?t really decide which was better.  Now they can scarcely decide which is worse.  Then the two candidates were so similar their mothers struggled to distinguish them.  Now the candidates are so different the voters struggle to find someone else, anyone else.

 

But? we are once again being warned that this whole distasteful affair might well come down to one state: Florida.  You would have thought we would learn our lesson in 2000.  Did we?  No, we got dumber since then.

 

Florida is such a weird state.  I do say this from firsthand experience, having been a resident there from age 1 to 19 years.  I didn?t even realize how weird a state it is until I went to somewhere relatively sane: California.

 

Florida: their voting system is the oddest cobbled-together contraption you ever saw: paper ballots with punch-outs (that dimpled chad and hanging chad nonsense), some districts with voting machines which tally results in realtime, which are then broadcast on the news while the polls are still open, which of course impacts the results in a photo-finish race in a state which hangs over into the next time zone, which means the polls do not all close at the same time, and the western part of the state is a remarkably different shade than the rest, which means the candidate of that color will always surge in the last hour, making the outcome appear questionable even if perfectly legitimate.

 

After all that, they STILL have un-auditable machine voting there in places.  I know that campaign law is controlled at the state level, but this is enormous impact on the national level.  One would think they could find some way to make a law that unaccountable machine voting is illegal as all hell.  The stakes are too high now to have doubts in the minds of the voters, to have the government with vested interest in the outcome, telling the citizens who won, with no way for the citizens to verify or repudiate it.  This is madness.

 

I am not a conspiracy theorist, never have been.  But in the age of the internet, we have now before us examples of actual verifiable completely out-in-the-open conspiracies.  I define this term as a group of people working together to do something illegal, when every person in that group knows the acts are illegal, especially high ranking empowered people.  Cannot every person here think of recent verifiable examples?  I can.  Easily.

 

OK then, always the question comes back to this: why is it that we STILL have these unverifiable systems?  We know how much headache and disunity that caused before, yet we again walk right down that same path, with easily foreseeable consequences this time worse than before.  We often hear that Bush43 was selected president and was a catastrophe, citing the example of the epic-fail invasion of Iraq.  We then learn that the de-selected candidate also supported vocally that invasion, and made persuasive speeches to make it clear he would have done the same.  I cite the runaway spending of that administration, then find out his defeated competitor supported all that spending and more.

 

Currently we face the same questionable outcome, we face the very real possibility that we will repeat our collective mistake, again hanging our future on whatever the weird unaccountable Floridian election officials tell us is the outcome, but this time there is a very high risk whichever candidate wins will be worse than an epic fail, for worse.  

 

Yet on we go, trudging in lockstep like the defeated and dispirited gray people in that unforgettable 1984 Apple Macintosh superbowl ad, marching on, heads bowed, mouths agape and silent, meekly accepting the official dogma that third parties cannot win, can never win, surrendered to our unfortunate fate, lowly and powerless proles.

 

In the distance a sound is heard, an unfamiliar disturbance, disorderly, out of step with the drumbeat cadence of the broken and obedient chained masses.  These footsteps are quick, lively, approaching, free!  Perhaps there is hope!

 

Who is that girl with the hammer?  What is she doing?  Will she arrive in time?

 

spike

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160519/a5160bd4/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Thu May 19 14:23:11 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 16:23:11 +0200
Subject: [ExI] snowden paradox: was: RE: Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <00ee01d1b130$8cfc8140$a6f583c0$@att.net>
References: <005801d1b107$b3b84360$1b28ca20$@att.net>
 <CALAdGNSFQYqyuZZipGM53yBdC+Or4k_2Meh7=O74Zdrkbzdfqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <001901d1b11e$8e66ebe0$ab34c3a0$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEZVSeR=t4FhNsZx_9KgVdrBg60e34OfzdS=3KC_kFE0iA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00ee01d1b130$8cfc8140$a6f583c0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <4d3d4773-e00b-e605-e197-650dd8e83e92@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-18 20:10, spike wrote:
>
> Depends on how you view cell phones.  My view is that anything you do 
> outside your own home is visible, so it is legitimate for anyone who 
> sees you to see you.  And record what you do out there.  Inside your 
> own home, not.  Outside, you are spraying informative photons 
> everywhere.  Observers, nosy neighbors, local constables, anyone who 
> can see you: they are not so much intercepting those photons as you 
> are hurling photons at their eyes.  Or their cameras.
>
> Ja?
>
> Inside your own home, if they put some kind of device in there, that 
> is illegitimate. Fourth amendment stuff, illegal for governments to 
> do, violating your security in your letters, etc.  Do review the 
> wording and note this is not a permission, it is a right, and 
> governments do not have permission to violate a right.
>

One of the problems here is other governments. Your government has no 
right to intercept your private information without good reason... but 
that does not apply to my government: to them, you are a foreigner. And 
vice versa.

There is also the issue of government A asking (or "asking" without 
saying it) government B to look at a citizen of A, so that A can learn 
information it is not constitutionally allowed to look for but now got 
from an unrelated source. Legal, but against the spirit of the law and 
incidentally revealing information about the citizen to B.

One can argue that there is a universal human right to privacy. It is a 
moral right: it may or may not be encoded in law, but it should be. 
Human rights are iffy from a philosophical perspective; people disagree 
in what sense they exist. But it is not hard to see that many human 
activities are best done privately: if I am held responsible for 
half-baked ideas that I will later abandon (maybe I should break the 
law?) or idle curiosity (like googling for dangerous stuff) that will 
not lead anywhere, then we will both be deprived of choice and 
information as well as the freedom to come up with truly new things.

Still, the issue is not transparency/privacy but secrecy and 
accountability. If somebody uses you likeness or information in ways 
that are harmful to you, do you have a legal or moral recourse? A system 
giving tremendous power to some actors must also give them equally 
tremendous accountability - and if it has failed to do so, it needs to 
correct itself.





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160519/8dc8d175/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Thu May 19 16:47:26 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 09:47:26 -0700
Subject: [ExI] chain rule
Message-ID: <01ea01d1b1ee$20811bc0$61835340$@att.net>

 

That last post took it out of me, so now I will treat myself to a lighthearted story about an uplifting event from yesterday.  This post is not political, with one minor exception for which I ask your indulgence:

 

 

 

>... we know that average ?immigrant is more likely to be anti-Trump than the average Republican, so the average immigrant must have a higher IQ than the average Republican? John K Clark?

 

John the Republican party bitterly opposed Trump from the start, and refuses still to unify around him, even after he is the last one standing (of 17, at least 16 of which were more qualified) even after the party has been shattered into unrecognizable shards, self-immolated to ashes.

 

 

 

 

But this post is not about that.

 

Yesterday I had the experienced the joy of teaching my son how to use the chain rule.  I pulled up Sam Cooke?s memorable song Chain Gang, where he manages to take a most somber topic and turn it into a lively and pleasantly danceable tune.  

 

Younger friends, do soak in Cooke?s mellifluous voice:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBn5aIfZElE

 

My baritone/bass goes low enough to do the ??well don?t you know?s.   Of course I know the dance well.  We had way too much fun with that back in my own tragically cheerfully misspent youth.

 

I Weird-Al-Yankovic-ed the lyrics to make it about calculus:

 

?? that?s the sound of my son working out the chain rule?

 

And so on.  After being entertained by spontaneous song and dance, my son innocently asked ?Dad? where do you get all this? stuff??

 

{8^D

 

Oh the joy, the mirth.  Children do not understand what five and a half decades can do to a mind, enabling it to accumulate? stuff.

 

This part is no joke.  I have a nine-year-old child who daily demonstrates a good handle on calculus, what it does and how to use it.  If anyone is interested, I will freely share how he got there, and give credit to the one man who is most responsible (I am not that man.)  This boy has talent.  

 

I have not figured out how to leverage that talent and drive, but the urgency to do so increases steadily.

 

spike

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160519/6a86dbda/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Thu May 19 11:16:25 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 13:16:25 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Drake Equation Musings
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFiyAkq2G4vhV7pPE-hAPpnTvrp3Db5nEB-EwKaGnt=LCQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armiT=A=jFACmt5zRX=+Y_jEUFYjo5dCFtk9aaME++KmDFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <57383BFE.9080200@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armhGLGQgsDqMXG+L_Zwm3vWnE63MTu4WYP5QXozWmCW+2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <5738CF6F.9050407@aleph.se>
 <CAAc1gFgzx0phW3D7-tO3tzZMVz_6skABBME9m95D3zR9S8_5Ug@mail.gmail.com>
 <573ADBE8.4000801@aleph.se>
 <CAAc1gFg3ReM2a-agDSiUo=8xUngcUfDU9uZKjyj-hbVFAvaoYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <573AF5EE.1080304@aleph.se>
 <CAAc1gFiyAkq2G4vhV7pPE-hAPpnTvrp3Db5nEB-EwKaGnt=LCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57955846-9a2a-46ae-d171-8e80532e81ac@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-19 07:24, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>
> ### Are you mentioning there the Shiva-explanation for the empty 
> skies? I mean the possibility that the physics of our part of the 
> multiverse is such that technogenesis leads early-on and with a 
> significant probability to the discovery of a simple method to trigger 
> a false vacuum decay, thus erasing the civilization and its universe, 
> along with any civilizations that managed not to become the destroyers 
> of worlds

Remember the Bostrom and Tegmark paper on doomsday probability? It 
shows, using anthropics, that the probability of vacuum decay is less 
than one in a billion per year. If we had been living in a Shiva 
unniverse we should expect to be very early (since observers exist 
before the vacuum decay), but Earth formed after most other planets in 
the universe formed and we look like we are fairly late compared to when 
intelligence could have emerged.

> The observable world seems to be consistent with such an explanation. 
> The probabilities surrounding the Shiva explanation are the opposite 
> of the black-box explanation - it takes only one in any number of 
> budding civilizations to trigger a superluminal erasure of a universe, 
> before any of the million civs ever get to see light from their neighbors.

Superluminal? I though all vacuum decay models had it spreading merely 
at lightspeed?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160519/17721f89/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Thu May 19 19:47:13 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 15:47:13 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <00a301d1b1d2$8ae1d700$a0a58500$@att.net>
References: <CAJPayv29hVUEPhaeaHYGm9_MuGJ-ptixka-UdopVzvBZrP8pPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY-magA4qLA5J+kd3mQQgNf1xK4Bn6f3zbAVoeyU9Vc3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEbVf2-bqAdyRoNN8xuXgjHj-E1PFzJVXvFKC14DgZANdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3tT636qp6qkVVDD02nAWnmgBCX1XH3b3en_Sws3y6pDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2fkK1JHpeWdS7n6G7MK74y_HUmS9q_jQJQAy4mZv8pigQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2VB4r7m5CiyQ+WMOrM91LHHeZfkaLXjWL4GXAMpj=eZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <010101d1b05b$0fdfe920$2f9fbb60$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv2qjN7_7CoiPYP3=pYviuQ=QSdYDNLNQodKcXO_-354TA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01d801d1b074$57cdb910$07692b30$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1tcu3DpSDX1qeZA1xhT1TJ74pMpspYqT98aeNUyY3yaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <043101d1b0ac$15f36070$41da2150$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3SOL1J81Tp1BuXsuQhVsrSrCm76pLeyNsVhxhY=RrahQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACB7g26ZU_WZWvLKsjrBP0zWWXiBRqBoiWdDnj3cmNQ+A_3=Pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <00a301d1b1d2$8ae1d700$a0a58500$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFgTqJvVRqoa5xvc=w-pyeYttW8Uyfx0msLYgiLjU-G-TQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 9:29 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
> Examination of the constitution reveals that there is no requirement that
> the president must be homo sapiens, however I still find it most tragic
> that the mighty nuclear-armed nation of the USA has now chosen down to two
> candidates and we still do not know for sure the biological species of
> either of them.
>
>
>
### Well, we do know Clinton is reptilian - if you look closely at her
pictures you can see the typical pattern of dry scales and before she molts
you can see the slightly hazy appearance of the eyes. On the other hand her
barking sounds definitely mammalian, even chihuahua-like.

Maybe she is a reptile that swallowed a chihuahua and keeps it alive inside
its body to be able to produce the mammalian sounds it/she needs on the
campaign trail?

For engaging in such musings, am I going to go to be "disappeared" once
this organism is elected to office?

If the tone of my posts changes after the Inauguration, shiver, because you
might be next on the menu.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160519/7cca2aab/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Thu May 19 20:03:50 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 16:03:50 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Drake Equation Musings
In-Reply-To: <57955846-9a2a-46ae-d171-8e80532e81ac@aleph.se>
References: <CAL_armiT=A=jFACmt5zRX=+Y_jEUFYjo5dCFtk9aaME++KmDFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <57383BFE.9080200@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armhGLGQgsDqMXG+L_Zwm3vWnE63MTu4WYP5QXozWmCW+2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <5738CF6F.9050407@aleph.se>
 <CAAc1gFgzx0phW3D7-tO3tzZMVz_6skABBME9m95D3zR9S8_5Ug@mail.gmail.com>
 <573ADBE8.4000801@aleph.se>
 <CAAc1gFg3ReM2a-agDSiUo=8xUngcUfDU9uZKjyj-hbVFAvaoYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <573AF5EE.1080304@aleph.se>
 <CAAc1gFiyAkq2G4vhV7pPE-hAPpnTvrp3Db5nEB-EwKaGnt=LCQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <57955846-9a2a-46ae-d171-8e80532e81ac@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFh=o6DwDo6UMBdiuyq5n9xeRCmORUsFjojfC4AJuvRt=Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 7:16 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

Remember the Bostrom and Tegmark paper on doomsday probability? It shows,
> using anthropics, that the probability of vacuum decay is less than one in
> a billion per year. If we had been living in a Shiva unniverse we should
> expect to be very early (since observers exist before the vacuum decay),
> but Earth formed after most other planets in the universe formed and we
> look like we are fairly late compared to when intelligence could have
> emerged.
>

### You are right, the Shiva explanation does not work without additional
assumptions about how early the first civs could have formed.

>
> Superluminal? I though all vacuum decay models had it spreading merely at
> lightspeed?
>
>
### This is one (of many) things I don't quite get: Inflation was
superluminal and occurred after the false vacuum decay that generated our
spacetime, so you would think the change would propagate superluminally.

Now that I think about it, maybe it went like this: vacuum decay generated
new dimensions and inflation occurred in these new dimensions, not in the
parent universe. Linde's eternal inflation does not blow up the
non-inflating domains, it keeps happening between them.

Well, anyway, even if the change is only at lightspeed, we won't see it
coming.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160519/3db75423/attachment.html>

From test at ssec.wisc.edu  Thu May 19 20:40:12 2016
From: test at ssec.wisc.edu (Bill Hibbard)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 15:40:12 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [ExI] snowden paradox: was: RE: Sanders, Clinton and Trump
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605191537310.3958@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>

> Still, the issue is not transparency/privacy but secrecy and
> accountability. If somebody uses you likeness or information in ways
> that are harmful to you, do you have a legal or moral recourse? A system
> giving tremendous power to some actors must also give them equally
> tremendous accountability - and if it has failed to do so, it needs to
> correct itself.

Doesn't that require transparency, so that the public
is aware of how the tremendous power is used? That is
exactly my intent in advocating transparency. I realize
this is a semantic nitpik, but I think we need to be
clear about the need for transparency.


From spike66 at att.net  Thu May 19 20:43:45 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 13:43:45 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFgTqJvVRqoa5xvc=w-pyeYttW8Uyfx0msLYgiLjU-G-TQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv29hVUEPhaeaHYGm9_MuGJ-ptixka-UdopVzvBZrP8pPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY-magA4qLA5J+kd3mQQgNf1xK4Bn6f3zbAVoeyU9Vc3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEbVf2-bqAdyRoNN8xuXgjHj-E1PFzJVXvFKC14DgZANdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3tT636qp6qkVVDD02nAWnmgBCX1XH3b3en_Sws3y6pDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2fkK1JHpeWdS7n6G7MK74y_HUmS9q_jQJQAy4mZv8pigQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2VB4r7m5CiyQ+WMOrM91LHHeZfkaLXjWL4GXAMpj=eZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <010101d1b05b$0fdfe920$2f9fbb60$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv2qjN7_7CoiPYP3=pYviuQ=QSdYDNLNQodKcXO_-354TA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01d801d1b074$57cdb910$07692b30$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1tcu3DpSDX1qeZA1xhT1TJ74pMpspYqT98aeNUyY3yaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <043101d1b0ac$15f36070$41da2150$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3SOL1J81Tp1BuXsuQhVsrSrCm76pLeyNsVhxhY=RrahQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACB7g26ZU_WZWvLKsjrBP0zWWXiBRqBoiWdDnj3cmNQ+A_3=Pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <00a301d1b1d2$8ae1d700$a0a58500$@att.net>
 <CAAc1gFgTqJvVRqoa5xvc=w-pyeYttW8Uyfx0msLYgiLjU-G-TQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <027e01d1b20f$239388e0$6aba9aa0$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki
Subject: Re: [ExI] Sanders, Clinton and Trump

 

 

 

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 9:29 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net> > wrote: 

>>? we still do not know for sure the biological species of either of them.

 

### ?For engaging in such musings, am I going to go to be "disappeared" once this organism is elected to office?

 

Ja.  Where does it say in the constitution that a political leader may not vilify you into virtual non-existence for posting things that upset the? uh?  where can we go with this? Christian world!  Sure, that works, inflaming the Christian world.  We already have an example where a sitting Secretary of State called attention to an internet posting for inflaming delicate religious sensibilities, and perhaps just slightly arranged for the local friendly probation ossifer to pay the originator a little visit, after which he went to prison.

 

Does the constitution say the IRS may not make your life a living hell for being registered for the wrong party?  Is that what the former IRS director meant when she said she did nothing wrong?

 

Amendment 16:  The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

 

Is there anything in that complete text which says the provision may not be used as a political weapon, a means of keeping the proletariat quietly subdued and in an orderly line?  I am having as much trouble finding any indication of that as W had in finding nukes in Iraq.  WOW!  Unspent money is merely wastefully idle capital, but un-abused power is squandered.

 

 

>?If the tone of my posts changes after the Inauguration, shiver, because you might be next on the menu?Rafa?

 

Dr. Rafal, more to the point is this: if the tone of your posts do change, how do we know it is still you back there writing them?  Is there any known law against the powers intercepting your messages, modifying the content, perhaps selecting the ones to forward, and selecting the ones you receive?

 

And since we are on the topic, consider the recent FakeBook controversy, where a wing of the political spectrum says it is being suppressed.  I ask: is there anything illegal about that?  And if FakeBook demonstrates it can be done, what stops political interests from doing likewise?  And if so, cannot we see that the first amendment freedom of speech only guarantees that we cannot be prosecuted for what we say.  Another means must be found to prosecute us for what we say, such as? the IRS saying there is something wrong with our tax returns.  Or? perhaps something illegal being found on our home computers for instance.  Or? some kind of suspicious activity in the search engines.

 

OK then.  Because of what I have already posted, it looks to me like I lose either way.  I have criticized both major candidates, approximately evenly.  I have identified both as potential power abusers.  Both have apparently studied Saul Alinsky.  Both are sure acting as if they have.  Both are demonstrating an attitude that tells me they go along with the Alinsky concept that winning the election is itself the accomplishment.  

 

Some of us have perhaps struggled under the illusion that winning an election is being granted the opportunity to accomplish something.  The Alinsky view is that winning the election in itself is the accomplishment.  What happens afterwards isn?t in view.  Winning the election.  After that, Alinsky doesn?t really say much.

 

I do thank Saul Alinsky however, for arranging to be interred close to my home.  His consideration in this matter means I need not drive very far in order to piss on his goddam grave.

 

spike 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160519/2d8d9aee/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Thu May 19 21:12:54 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 16:12:54 -0500
Subject: [ExI] segregation forever!!
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEbyiuVU5QD37=ToSEAh63xDhr=y72ZcFsv0rX+g1KtP_w@mail.gmail.com>

That has been the rallying cry here in the South for many years, though no
one has used it lately.  Not in public, anyway.

Finally, Mississippi has done something right:  the Cleveland, MS, schools
are finally de-segregated.  Only about 60 years after they should have
been.

You should, however, be aware that many schools, especially in the Delta,
are over 90% black.

White flight.  Private schools galore.  I have read that many difficult
legal cases are in the North, but I have no data (to lazy to google it).

Will Cleveland now sprout private schools?  What do you think?

bill w
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160519/02041557/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Thu May 19 21:40:45 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 16:40:45 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <027e01d1b20f$239388e0$6aba9aa0$@att.net>
References: <CAJPayv29hVUEPhaeaHYGm9_MuGJ-ptixka-UdopVzvBZrP8pPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY-magA4qLA5J+kd3mQQgNf1xK4Bn6f3zbAVoeyU9Vc3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEbVf2-bqAdyRoNN8xuXgjHj-E1PFzJVXvFKC14DgZANdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3tT636qp6qkVVDD02nAWnmgBCX1XH3b3en_Sws3y6pDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2fkK1JHpeWdS7n6G7MK74y_HUmS9q_jQJQAy4mZv8pigQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2VB4r7m5CiyQ+WMOrM91LHHeZfkaLXjWL4GXAMpj=eZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <010101d1b05b$0fdfe920$2f9fbb60$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv2qjN7_7CoiPYP3=pYviuQ=QSdYDNLNQodKcXO_-354TA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01d801d1b074$57cdb910$07692b30$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1tcu3DpSDX1qeZA1xhT1TJ74pMpspYqT98aeNUyY3yaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <043101d1b0ac$15f36070$41da2150$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3SOL1J81Tp1BuXsuQhVsrSrCm76pLeyNsVhxhY=RrahQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACB7g26ZU_WZWvLKsjrBP0zWWXiBRqBoiWdDnj3cmNQ+A_3=Pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <00a301d1b1d2$8ae1d700$a0a58500$@att.net>
 <CAAc1gFgTqJvVRqoa5xvc=w-pyeYttW8Uyfx0msLYgiLjU-G-TQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <027e01d1b20f$239388e0$6aba9aa0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZTHZOvzaqK4krHp3iof8jm6+EKNZnx64uUbVzMn3=Jbg@mail.gmail.com>

Dr. Rafal, more to the point is this: if the tone of your posts do change,
how do we know it is still you back there writing them?  Is there any known
law against the powers intercepting your messages, modifying the content,
perhaps selecting the ones to forward, and selecting the ones you receive?
spike

Spike, if you would read Dark Territory, as I mentioned earlier, you could
put your mind to rest a bit about security of emails, phone calls, etc.
That is, unless you are so convinced of hidden plots that you cannot
believe anything about what the gov does.  As I understood it, only
metadata is stored - not content.  And there is a self-imposed limit on how
it can be used:  they can retrieve who you have called and who called you,
but not who your callers called, and then only if a court passes on it.

Changing the content of emails has been done, but to terrorist groups and
war enemies, such as Iraq.  We are far too small to mess with, and are US
citizens to boot.

bill w

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 3:43 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Rafal Smigrodzki
> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Sanders, Clinton and Trump
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 9:29 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
> >>? we still do not know for sure the biological species of either of them.
>
>
>
> ### ?For engaging in such musings, am I going to go to be "disappeared"
> once this organism is elected to office?
>
>
>
> Ja.  Where does it say in the constitution that a political leader may not
> vilify you into virtual non-existence for posting things that upset the?
> uh?  where can we go with this? Christian world!  Sure, that works,
> inflaming the Christian world.  We already have an example where a sitting
> Secretary of State called attention to an internet posting for inflaming
> delicate religious sensibilities, and perhaps just slightly arranged for
> the local friendly probation ossifer to pay the originator a little visit,
> after which he went to prison.
>
>
>
> Does the constitution say the IRS may not make your life a living hell for
> being registered for the wrong party?  Is that what the former IRS director
> meant when she said she did nothing wrong?
>
>
>
> Amendment 16:  The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on
> incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the
> several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
>
>
>
> Is there anything in that complete text which says the provision may not
> be used as a political weapon, a means of keeping the proletariat quietly
> subdued and in an orderly line?  I am having as much trouble finding any
> indication of that as W had in finding nukes in Iraq.  WOW!  Unspent money
> is merely wastefully idle capital, but un-abused power is squandered.
>
>
>
>
>
> >?If the tone of my posts changes after the Inauguration, shiver, because
> you might be next on the menu?Rafa?
>
>
>
> Dr. Rafal, more to the point is this: if the tone of your posts do change,
> how do we know it is still you back there writing them?  Is there any known
> law against the powers intercepting your messages, modifying the content,
> perhaps selecting the ones to forward, and selecting the ones you receive?
>
>
>
> And since we are on the topic, consider the recent FakeBook controversy,
> where a wing of the political spectrum says it is being suppressed.  I ask:
> is there anything illegal about that?  And if FakeBook demonstrates it can
> be done, what stops political interests from doing likewise?  And if so,
> cannot we see that the first amendment freedom of speech only guarantees
> that we cannot be prosecuted for what we say.  Another means must be found
> to prosecute us for what we say, such as? the IRS saying there is something
> wrong with our tax returns.  Or? perhaps something illegal being found on
> our home computers for instance.  Or? some kind of suspicious activity in
> the search engines.
>
>
>
> OK then.  Because of what I have already posted, it looks to me like I
> lose either way.  I have criticized both major candidates, approximately
> evenly.  I have identified both as potential power abusers.  Both have
> apparently studied Saul Alinsky.  Both are sure acting as if they have.
> Both are demonstrating an attitude that tells me they go along with the
> Alinsky concept that winning the election is itself the accomplishment.
>
>
>
> Some of us have perhaps struggled under the illusion that winning an
> election is being granted the opportunity to accomplish something.  The
> Alinsky view is that winning the election in itself is the accomplishment.
> What happens afterwards isn?t in view.  Winning the election.  After that,
> Alinsky doesn?t really say much.
>
>
>
> I do thank Saul Alinsky however, for arranging to be interred close to my
> home.  His consideration in this matter means I need not drive very far in
> order to piss on his goddam grave.
>
>
>
> 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/20160519/a70c68c0/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Thu May 19 21:44:55 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 16:44:55 -0500
Subject: [ExI] snowden paradox: was: RE: Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605191537310.3958@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605191537310.3958@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZqL6DxnZmfg5vOsVW6JdOhdSU9_SjHrvQp1WJsCi6hhA@mail.gmail.com>

bill hibbard:  Doesn't that require transparency, so that the public
is aware of how the tremendous power is used? That is
exactly my intent in advocating transparency. I realize
this is a semantic nitpik, but I think we need to be
clear about the need for transparency.
?

How in the world can the FBI, CIA, and NSA function at all with
transparency?  Transparent to very high gov officials in every branch of
gov, yes, but below that?  Nah.

bill w?

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Bill Hibbard <test at ssec.wisc.edu> wrote:

> Still, the issue is not transparency/privacy but secrecy and
>> accountability. If somebody uses you likeness or information in ways
>> that are harmful to you, do you have a legal or moral recourse? A system
>> giving tremendous power to some actors must also give them equally
>> tremendous accountability - and if it has failed to do so, it needs to
>> correct itself.
>>
>
> Doesn't that require transparency, so that the public
> is aware of how the tremendous power is used? That is
> exactly my intent in advocating transparency. I realize
> this is a semantic nitpik, but I think we need to be
> clear about the need for transparency.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160519/a9a5fa21/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Thu May 19 21:51:44 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 14:51:44 -0700
Subject: [ExI] New Horizons on 1994 JR1
Message-ID: <AFE78128-C03F-4CCE-AF01-893FAAA2AB27@gmail.com>

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/new-horizons-collects-first-science-on-a-post-pluto-object

Something a little non-political.

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/20160519/a11dc5fe/attachment.html>

From steinberg.will at gmail.com  Thu May 19 21:57:09 2016
From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 17:57:09 -0400
Subject: [ExI] chain rule
In-Reply-To: <01ea01d1b1ee$20811bc0$61835340$@att.net>
References: <01ea01d1b1ee$20811bc0$61835340$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAKrqSyH_0HNVCWqpm5yOzeoS0=oS3qkUCiARxV7kj+BpoQKf+w@mail.gmail.com>

I am certainly interested in how your nine year old son learned calculus,
especially if it did not involve "tiger parent" type pushing.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160519/f56a6869/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Thu May 19 21:58:27 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 14:58:27 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEZTHZOvzaqK4krHp3iof8jm6+EKNZnx64uUbVzMn3=Jbg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv29hVUEPhaeaHYGm9_MuGJ-ptixka-UdopVzvBZrP8pPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY-magA4qLA5J+kd3mQQgNf1xK4Bn6f3zbAVoeyU9Vc3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEbVf2-bqAdyRoNN8xuXgjHj-E1PFzJVXvFKC14DgZANdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3tT636qp6qkVVDD02nAWnmgBCX1XH3b3en_Sws3y6pDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2fkK1JHpeWdS7n6G7MK74y_HUmS9q_jQJQAy4mZv8pigQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2VB4r7m5CiyQ+WMOrM91LHHeZfkaLXjWL4GXAMpj=eZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <010101d1b05b$0fdfe920$2f9fbb60$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv2qjN7_7CoiPYP3=pYviuQ=QSdYDNLNQodKcXO_-354TA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01d801d1b074$57cdb910$07692b30$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1tcu3DpSDX1qeZA1xhT1TJ74pMpspYqT98aeNUyY3yaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <043101d1b0ac$15f36070$41da2150$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3SOL1J81Tp1BuXsuQhVsrSrCm76pLeyNsVhxhY=RrahQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACB7g26ZU_WZWvLKsjrBP0zWWXiBRqBoiWdDnj3cmNQ+A_3=Pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <00a301d1b1d2$8ae1d700$a0a58500$@att.net>
 <CAAc1gFgTqJvVRqoa5xvc=w-pyeYttW8Uyfx0msLYgiLjU-G-TQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <027e01d1b20f$239388e0$6aba9aa0$@att.net> <CAO+xQEZTHZOvzaqK4krHp3iof8jm6
 +EKNZnx64uUbVzMn3=Jbg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <02f101d1b219$931d42f0$b957c8d0$@att.net>

 

 

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



 

>?Spike, if you would read Dark Territory, as I mentioned earlier, you could put your mind to rest a bit about security of emails, phone calls, etc.  That is, unless you are so convinced of hidden plots that you cannot believe anything about what the gov does.  As I understood it, only metadata is stored - not content? 

 

 

Ja of course.  We know Snowden leaked that part about metadata, but the public also learned a term recently called SAR, or Special Access Required programs.  Snowden was not in his job long enough to have access to SARs.  Usually those tickets are granted for a special purpose to people with special skills which they are trained by their employer carefully.  This takes some time, often at least years.  Some never get to where they are valuable enough to risk issuing a SAR ticket.  Snowden had none of those spooky numbers.  Sure, we know that they only get metadata.  But can we conceive of a technology that would intercept and record more than that?  Is it technologically possible to do?  If so, and there is any motive to do it, you have the means and the motive.  No conspiracy required.  Your turn sir.

 

>?Changing the content of emails has been done, but to terrorist groups and war enemies, such as Iraq?

 

Hmmm.  What does it take to be tagged an enemy of the state?  Will posting an internet video do it?  Does it matter what is in that video?

 

 

>?  We are far too small to mess with?

 

How big do we need to be to mess with BillW?

 

>?and are US citizens to boot.  bill w

 

Ja.  You do know that our current government had a US citizen murdered abroad, ja?  He was a terrorist, I am not saying it was Little Red Riding Hood on her way to bring cookies to her grandmother or anything.  But he was a US citizen, with the emphasis on was.

 

spike 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160519/51c85154/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Thu May 19 22:05:37 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 15:05:37 -0700
Subject: [ExI] chain rule
In-Reply-To: <CAKrqSyH_0HNVCWqpm5yOzeoS0=oS3qkUCiARxV7kj+BpoQKf+w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <01ea01d1b1ee$20811bc0$61835340$@att.net>
 <CAKrqSyH_0HNVCWqpm5yOzeoS0=oS3qkUCiARxV7kj+BpoQKf+w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <02f601d1b21a$93dad120$bb907360$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Will Steinberg
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 2:57 PM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] chain rule

 

I am certainly interested in how your nine year old son learned calculus, especially if it did not involve "tiger parent" type pushing.

 

 

Will, in a recent post, you heard me advocating Sal Khan for president.  Even had we managed to not Survivor ourselves into two power-tripping megalomaniacs, and had a choice of two good candidates, two excellent candidates, I would still advocate for Sal Khan.

You know of him, ja?

spike

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160519/b73376a6/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Thu May 19 22:51:33 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 15:51:33 -0700
Subject: [ExI] chain rule
In-Reply-To: <02f601d1b21a$93dad120$bb907360$@att.net>
References: <01ea01d1b1ee$20811bc0$61835340$@att.net>
 <CAKrqSyH_0HNVCWqpm5yOzeoS0=oS3qkUCiARxV7kj+BpoQKf+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <02f601d1b21a$93dad120$bb907360$@att.net>
Message-ID: <000c01d1b220$fe8e47d0$fbaad770$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 3:06 PM
To: 'ExI chat list' <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] chain rule

 

 

 

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



 

>?Will, in a recent post, you heard me advocating Sal Khan for president.  Even had we managed to not Survivor ourselves into two power-tripping megalomaniacs, and had a choice of two good candidates, two excellent candidates, I would still advocate for Sal Khan.

>?You know of him, ja?

spike

 

I was at the Khan Academy Learnstorm Champions celebration up at Google with my son.  Some yahoo stole my phone.  Sal was there, standing around like he is just anybody else, being Sal, the poster-child example of a microlomaniac.  The lowlife thief snapped a selfie with him.  Then perhaps his conscience compelled him to give back my phone.  That?s him on the left with the white hair.  Be on the lookout: bony white guy, about 6 ft, smirky grin, in awe of himself for being in Sal?s presence:



If I catch him? I?ll probably let it go, just to have this awesome photo.

If you want something astonishing to read, see if you can get a copy of Khan?s ?One-World Schoolhouse.?  There might be free online versions of it out there.

spike

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160519/08d09c31/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 20794 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160519/08d09c31/attachment.jpg>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Thu May 19 23:55:30 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 19:55:30 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEZTHZOvzaqK4krHp3iof8jm6+EKNZnx64uUbVzMn3=Jbg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv29hVUEPhaeaHYGm9_MuGJ-ptixka-UdopVzvBZrP8pPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY-magA4qLA5J+kd3mQQgNf1xK4Bn6f3zbAVoeyU9Vc3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEbVf2-bqAdyRoNN8xuXgjHj-E1PFzJVXvFKC14DgZANdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3tT636qp6qkVVDD02nAWnmgBCX1XH3b3en_Sws3y6pDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2fkK1JHpeWdS7n6G7MK74y_HUmS9q_jQJQAy4mZv8pigQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2VB4r7m5CiyQ+WMOrM91LHHeZfkaLXjWL4GXAMpj=eZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <010101d1b05b$0fdfe920$2f9fbb60$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv2qjN7_7CoiPYP3=pYviuQ=QSdYDNLNQodKcXO_-354TA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01d801d1b074$57cdb910$07692b30$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1tcu3DpSDX1qeZA1xhT1TJ74pMpspYqT98aeNUyY3yaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <043101d1b0ac$15f36070$41da2150$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3SOL1J81Tp1BuXsuQhVsrSrCm76pLeyNsVhxhY=RrahQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACB7g26ZU_WZWvLKsjrBP0zWWXiBRqBoiWdDnj3cmNQ+A_3=Pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <00a301d1b1d2$8ae1d700$a0a58500$@att.net>
 <CAAc1gFgTqJvVRqoa5xvc=w-pyeYttW8Uyfx0msLYgiLjU-G-TQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <027e01d1b20f$239388e0$6aba9aa0$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEZTHZOvzaqK4krHp3iof8jm6+EKNZnx64uUbVzMn3=Jbg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFgM9ojVnrUOc9-XkmviUU0Cp5RGmyA5SC9XZH0hNY6Aww@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 5:40 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> Changing the content of emails has been done, but to terrorist groups and
> war enemies, such as Iraq.  We are far too small to mess with, and are US
> citizens to boot.
>

### This is how I assuage my anxiety: Being a nobody I am much too
insignificant to ever attract the attention of our reptilian overlords.

But then a personal memory rises: About 35 years ago, when communism was
still a going concern in Poland, I used to listen the Voice of America.
There used to be a show where you could send in a question about the US,
and if it was selected to be answered on-air, you would get a letter with
notification and an illustrated book showing how great America was. I did
send in a question and then a long time afterwards, after I already forgot
what question I asked, I received the congratulatory letter and the book!
It arrived open and was read by the censorship office. These despicable
assholes also kept it long enough that it arrived after my question was
answered on the show.

Imagine, a great power, the People's Republic, stooping to messing with a
14 year-old boy who was too damn curious for his own good! At least they
didn't send me and my family to a concentration camp, as they would
definitely have done in North Korea.

So I never found out what was that cool thing I wanted to know about
America.

But I know they could come for you, even if you are a nobody.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160519/8bc3cc81/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Fri May 20 00:03:52 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 20:03:52 -0400
Subject: [ExI] segregation forever!!
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEbyiuVU5QD37=ToSEAh63xDhr=y72ZcFsv0rX+g1KtP_w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEbyiuVU5QD37=ToSEAh63xDhr=y72ZcFsv0rX+g1KtP_w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFgoLBuhjpSeLorYHzeU3n7X-SCUB34_MNJbX07tXiOnwA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 5:12 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
wrote:

Will Cleveland now sprout private schools?  What do you think?
>
> ### It's immoral to infringe on the right of free association. Also, it's
wrong for public schools to exist.

Victims of the state will try to escape until there is nowhere to go. Will
they make a last stand?

We will see.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160519/47bcd7ec/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Fri May 20 00:09:31 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 19:09:31 -0500
Subject: [ExI] segregation forever!!
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFgoLBuhjpSeLorYHzeU3n7X-SCUB34_MNJbX07tXiOnwA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEbyiuVU5QD37=ToSEAh63xDhr=y72ZcFsv0rX+g1KtP_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgoLBuhjpSeLorYHzeU3n7X-SCUB34_MNJbX07tXiOnwA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEawveSyku6kNGQQggkZh_M2qzNyxi4zhf4C49qAjLbsbg@mail.gmail.com>

 It's immoral to infringe on the right of free association. Also, it's
wrong for public schools to exist.

Victims of the state will try to escape until there is nowhere to go. Will
they make a last stand?

We will see.

Rafa?

?Public schools exist because that's what people want and will pay for.
The right not to go to a public school exists too, so it's hard to see any
victims here.  I think we will see Khan type online schools that are free
for everyone and public and private schools decline.  Why pay when it's
free?  More than that, it better designed than public education, according
to what I read, anyway.

bill w?


On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 5:12 PM, William Flynn Wallace <
> foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Will Cleveland now sprout private schools?  What do you think?
>>
>> ### It's immoral to infringe on the right of free association. Also, it's
> wrong for public schools to exist.
>
> Victims of the state will try to escape until there is nowhere to go. Will
> they make a last stand?
>
> We will see.
>
> Rafa?
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160519/0f41ab1b/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Fri May 20 00:13:41 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 20:13:41 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Open migration/was Re: Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEaQGFpiHoXjJAm0DcDBH25KcoM1qYMt7gaRwtQnh_nO0g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <27628F5D-A080-45DB-B701-18A1A3961B64@gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjbydVNX3U6Kt5G1BCAGDXrH1EbiU8bP1L4TXTH=qFKCw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEaQGFpiHoXjJAm0DcDBH25KcoM1qYMt7gaRwtQnh_nO0g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFgFwkvDq8NK2SM-POqTEyZLb89MTGmA2GsNQR4LYYnw2Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:03 AM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>
> ?Do you know of any data on the IQs of immigrants?
>
> ### Yes. It ranges from 69 for Sub-Saharan Africans to 105 for North-East
Asians. See here:

http://delong.typepad.com/pdf-1.pdf

BTW, Jason Richwine's career was destroyed by a left-wing online lynch mob
for the crimethink contained in the above dissertation and other
publications.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160519/53c2ec90/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Fri May 20 00:23:19 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 20:23:19 -0400
Subject: [ExI] segregation forever!!
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEawveSyku6kNGQQggkZh_M2qzNyxi4zhf4C49qAjLbsbg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEbyiuVU5QD37=ToSEAh63xDhr=y72ZcFsv0rX+g1KtP_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgoLBuhjpSeLorYHzeU3n7X-SCUB34_MNJbX07tXiOnwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEawveSyku6kNGQQggkZh_M2qzNyxi4zhf4C49qAjLbsbg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFgNSuYHF3kER=z3eCnQoU8pYSJRRGnPN-dRvRRx49QF7Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 8:09 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
 wrote:
>
>
> ?Public schools exist because that's what people want and will pay for.
> The right not to go to a public school exists too, so it's hard to see any
> victims here.  I think we will see Khan type online schools that are free
> for everyone and public and private schools decline.  Why pay when it's
> free?  More than that, it better designed than public education, according
> to what I read, anyway.
>

### I won't voluntarily pay for public school and I don't want it. It's
immoral, hateful, wrong. I still have to pay for it, or else they will send
constables to my home and evict me. And I pay for my daughter's Montessori
school because I want her to have good memories of childhood and the
freedom to seek who she wants to be.

Am I the "people"?

I think I am a victim.

My daughter is going to perform at Carnegie Hall next month. Private
schools are not yet illegal.

Things are not bad at all.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160519/086f35ff/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Fri May 20 01:34:31 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 20:34:31 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Open migration/was Re: Repudiating the national debt
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFgFwkvDq8NK2SM-POqTEyZLb89MTGmA2GsNQR4LYYnw2Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <27628F5D-A080-45DB-B701-18A1A3961B64@gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFjbydVNX3U6Kt5G1BCAGDXrH1EbiU8bP1L4TXTH=qFKCw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEaQGFpiHoXjJAm0DcDBH25KcoM1qYMt7gaRwtQnh_nO0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgFwkvDq8NK2SM-POqTEyZLb89MTGmA2GsNQR4LYYnw2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZ_pRtMkszvEBxF53vkG+yz0SggwNRb8Np23tBtq1CBag@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:03 AM, William Flynn Wallace <
> foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> ?Do you know of any data on the IQs of immigrants?
>>
>> ### Yes. It ranges from 69 for Sub-Saharan Africans to 105 for North-East
> Asians. See here:
>
> http://delong.typepad.com/pdf-1.pdf
>
> BTW, Jason Richwine's career was destroyed by a left-wing online lynch mob
> for the crimethink contained in the above dissertation and other
> publications.
>
> Rafa?
>
> ?Thanks.  He is not the first nor will he be the last to get bombed over
the IQ issue.  Seems some far left people, mainly in sociology departments,
have it in their heads that intelligence is totally learned and any
deficiency not attributable to brain injury is the result of inadequate
environment.  I have never seen such a group that just denies reality like
this.  Of course their point is that if differences are genetic then it
forms a basis for discrimination, as if all discrimination is wrong.  I
should add that there are many in the education establishment that think
the same way.  They are opposed to sorting students into groups based on
ability.  Many kids who are actually mentally retarded (a hate term
according to them - they prefer terms like 'disadvantaged') are forced to
try to make it in regular classes, a disservice to the better students and
to them as well, as they cannot hope to compete from day one.

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/20160519/c5b31b59/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Fri May 20 01:44:42 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 20:44:42 -0500
Subject: [ExI] segregation forever!!
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFgNSuYHF3kER=z3eCnQoU8pYSJRRGnPN-dRvRRx49QF7Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEbyiuVU5QD37=ToSEAh63xDhr=y72ZcFsv0rX+g1KtP_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgoLBuhjpSeLorYHzeU3n7X-SCUB34_MNJbX07tXiOnwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEawveSyku6kNGQQggkZh_M2qzNyxi4zhf4C49qAjLbsbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgNSuYHF3kER=z3eCnQoU8pYSJRRGnPN-dRvRRx49QF7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEYbf9is44ty_2+APN0XLy46K9zTWYy4qMZqBVtNaWDgfw@mail.gmail.com>

### I won't voluntarily pay for public school and I don't want it. It's
immoral, hateful, wrong. I still have to pay for it, or else they will send
constables to my home and evict me. And I pay for my daughter's Montessori
school because I want her to have good memories of childhood and the
freedom to seek who she wants to be.
rafal

I knew a kid who went to a Montessori school in Oklahoma.  When he went to
NYC to start the 4th grade he could neither read nor write.  Ultimately got
a Ph. D.   Hmm.

What instrument does your daughter play?  I wish her the best and would
like to know what pieces she is playing.

I disagree with forced public education, but there will be lots of people
who desperately need to learn to read and write who won't if they can stay
home and watch TV.  Unfortunately, parents in the lower classes, and
especially one parent households, don't have much control over their kids,
who will play hooky and sell drugs on the street.  Many of these households
are one parent because the daddy is absent - common among minorities.  Some
of the girls will turn to prostitution under the age of 12.

I disagree with the forced aspect, but overall we will be better off and so
will the kids if we do force them.  We do not do a good job of selling
education.

bill w

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 7:23 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 8:09 PM, William Flynn Wallace <
> foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> ?Public schools exist because that's what people want and will pay for.
>> The right not to go to a public school exists too, so it's hard to see any
>> victims here.  I think we will see Khan type online schools that are free
>> for everyone and public and private schools decline.  Why pay when it's
>> free?  More than that, it better designed than public education, according
>> to what I read, anyway.
>>
>
> ### I won't voluntarily pay for public school and I don't want it. It's
> immoral, hateful, wrong. I still have to pay for it, or else they will send
> constables to my home and evict me. And I pay for my daughter's Montessori
> school because I want her to have good memories of childhood and the
> freedom to seek who she wants to be.
>
> Am I the "people"?
>
> I think I am a victim.
>
> My daughter is going to perform at Carnegie Hall next month. Private
> schools are not yet illegal.
>
> Things are not bad at all.
>
> Rafa?
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160519/4f477f86/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Fri May 20 02:59:45 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 19:59:45 -0700
Subject: [ExI] segregation forever!!
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEYbf9is44ty_2+APN0XLy46K9zTWYy4qMZqBVtNaWDgfw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEbyiuVU5QD37=ToSEAh63xDhr=y72ZcFsv0rX+g1KtP_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgoLBuhjpSeLorYHzeU3n7X-SCUB34_MNJbX07tXiOnwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEawveSyku6kNGQQggkZh_M2qzNyxi4zhf4C49qAjLbsbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgNSuYHF3kER=z3eCnQoU8pYSJRRGnPN-dRvRRx49QF7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEYbf9is44ty_2+APN0XLy46K9zTWYy4qMZqBVtNaWDgfw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNRfoX2qV40jUi3YNv6=ZrSEHWFFUM2+yB3w0Q0uOrgUmA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 6:44 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> overall we will be better off and so will the kids if we do force them.
> We do not do a good job of selling education.
>

Pretty much my thoughts.  We are all better off, even those who become able
to work and generally function in society, if most people are made able to
work and generally function in society, no matter how many of them object
to the process at the time.  Education is a tricky sort of common good.

That said, we could use with ways to deliver the same degree of
completeness and capability in reduced time.  What if today's equivalent of
a bachelor's degree could commonly be obtained around 14-16 years old, with
today's equivalent of a high school education complete at 12?

And what if vocational training - to a degree employers would accept - in
whatever field is currently popular, were developed to the point that it
could cheaply be state-sponsored - thus, "free" to the students - such that
most industry-specific labor shortages were resolved within a year, ,not to
mention the effect on unemployment through obsolesce of skills (and the
resulting decrease in support for pandering-to-the-NEET* candidates like
Trump)?

* NEET: Not in Education, Employment, or Training, particularly for young
people (to distinguish from retired folks who have an income source,
however marginal).  The term originated in the UK before hopping to Japan,
but increasingly seems to be a useful demographic segmentation in the US.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160519/1360967c/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Fri May 20 03:14:47 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 23:14:47 -0400
Subject: [ExI] segregation forever!!
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEYbf9is44ty_2+APN0XLy46K9zTWYy4qMZqBVtNaWDgfw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEbyiuVU5QD37=ToSEAh63xDhr=y72ZcFsv0rX+g1KtP_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgoLBuhjpSeLorYHzeU3n7X-SCUB34_MNJbX07tXiOnwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEawveSyku6kNGQQggkZh_M2qzNyxi4zhf4C49qAjLbsbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgNSuYHF3kER=z3eCnQoU8pYSJRRGnPN-dRvRRx49QF7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEYbf9is44ty_2+APN0XLy46K9zTWYy4qMZqBVtNaWDgfw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFgDS1ZzeKtAzm_7OoUWptVZ7uqdK3RAm0ayxkJTPUJ3WQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 9:44 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> What instrument does your daughter play?  I wish her the best and would
> like to know what pieces she is playing.
>

### She sings in a choir. She is also taking piano lessons but I don't know
if it's something she likes or just goes with her mother's wishes.

She is quite forthright in her desire to get rich and asked me if having a
Carnegie Hall performance on her resume helps in getting to Harvard. She is
11. And she asked me to sign her up for cryonics. She is a delightfully
rational girl.

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

>
> I disagree with forced public education, but there will be lots of people
> who desperately need to learn to read and write who won't if they can stay
> home and watch TV.
>

### Well, stopping welfare would assure there is no TV for those who don't
work.... The poor might actually think before having children... They might
learn to humbly ask for a job rather than angrily demand handouts...
Knowing that there is no welfare might induce some of them to value
schooling as a way of earning access to a job... And ending the war on
drugs might leave them no option but to make themselves useful...

Ah, these ultra-reactionary thoughts... so useless.

  We do not do a good job of selling education.

### There is a whole culture that disdains education as "acting white",
while it feeds at the public trough. Empty the trough, let them learn
humility, and suddenly education will be much more popular. Not that it's
about learning school subjects per se, it's more of a socialization project
to inculcate obedience, punctuality and acceptance of their proper position
in the hierarchy.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160519/e1930a66/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Fri May 20 03:54:04 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 20:54:04 -0700
Subject: [ExI] segregation forever!!
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFgDS1ZzeKtAzm_7OoUWptVZ7uqdK3RAm0ayxkJTPUJ3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEbyiuVU5QD37=ToSEAh63xDhr=y72ZcFsv0rX+g1KtP_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgoLBuhjpSeLorYHzeU3n7X-SCUB34_MNJbX07tXiOnwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEawveSyku6kNGQQggkZh_M2qzNyxi4zhf4C49qAjLbsbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgNSuYHF3kER=z3eCnQoU8pYSJRRGnPN-dRvRRx49QF7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEYbf9is44ty_2+APN0XLy46K9zTWYy4qMZqBVtNaWDgfw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgDS1ZzeKtAzm_7OoUWptVZ7uqdK3RAm0ayxkJTPUJ3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNRgszHbut-L4PUDFmckvXVqucoJJhJouF8A3z3S7sXfxw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:

> ### Well, stopping welfare would assure there is no TV for those who don't
> work.... The poor might actually think before having children... They might
> learn to humbly ask for a job rather than angrily demand handouts...
> Knowing that there is no welfare might induce some of them to value
> schooling as a way of earning access to a job... And ending the war on
> drugs might leave them no option but to make themselves useful...
>

That is a nice fantasy, but that's not the way they think.  If they're
starving *RIGHT NOW* there's no time or energy for education...but there is
to steal bread.  Assuming they do not wind up in the alternate welfare
known as prison (or dead from an armed merchant, or etc.), they see what
works and keep doing it.

Also, not having had education, most of them are incapable of the kind of
long-term deductive reasoning that goes, "I need money therefore I need job
therefore I need education".  Besides, many of them think they can't get a
job even if they were educated; to convince them otherwise would require
education, even if forced upon them.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160519/0ae55d0d/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Fri May 20 03:56:54 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 20:56:54 -0700
Subject: [ExI] carnegie hall
Message-ID: <00d501d1b24b$a6b77fb0$f4267f10$@att.net>

 

 

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

 

>?My daughter is going to perform at Carnegie Hall next month?Rafa?

 

 

Details please sir!

 

This is really cool.  It is OK to tell what your kids are doing in this forum.  We are futurists, Extropians and transhumanists, but all of that second, humans first.  

 

What does she play?  Or does she sing?  

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160519/b49cc604/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Fri May 20 04:25:35 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 21:25:35 -0700
Subject: [ExI] chain rule
In-Reply-To: <000c01d1b220$fe8e47d0$fbaad770$@att.net>
References: <01ea01d1b1ee$20811bc0$61835340$@att.net>
 <CAKrqSyH_0HNVCWqpm5yOzeoS0=oS3qkUCiARxV7kj+BpoQKf+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <02f601d1b21a$93dad120$bb907360$@att.net>
 <000c01d1b220$fe8e47d0$fbaad770$@att.net>
Message-ID: <00f801d1b24f$a830b560$f8922020$@att.net>

 

 

 

On Behalf Of spike

>?If I catch him? I?ll probably let it go, just to have this awesome photo.

>?If you want something astonishing to read, see if you can get a copy of Khan?s ?One-World Schoolhouse.?  There might be free online versions of it out there?spike

 

What this was about was a local competition they had for Khan Academy students.  They invited the top 5 achievers in each grade to a big party up at the Google headquarters, invited the parents, everybody had a blast.  My son placed 4th so we went.

Khan Academy is an online curriculum, the kind we have theorized for years could exist.  The lectures are about ten minutes, always about very specific skills or topics, right to the point.  Sal Khan made most of them, but he brought in subject matter specialists for some of it.

My son has mostly focused his attention on the math (his choice) but we also browsed among the other materials over there.  They have some interesting history lectures.  Khan did something I never thought was possible: explained the origin of the nation of Israel without any noticeable political slant or bias, offered the pertinent facts at a reasonable high-school level.  The math lectures are excellent.

Khan Academy is free; anyone can sign up for an account, do exercises, listen to lectures or work on programming projects.  It remembers your progress.  You can leave it and come back a couple years later; everything will still be there.  Sal Khan set up a really useful valuable free education for anyone who wants to reach out and take it.  Anywhere in the world, any socio-economic class or any station in life: everyone has a shot at a ton of good stuff.  Check it out:

https://www.khanacademy.org/

Fun story: last summer my son wanted to take programming classes, so we went thru the JavaScript class.  We both took it but he got it; I sorta kinda did.  I can fumble my way thru and fake it to some extent, but my JavaScript sucks and I don?t have good intuition for object oriented code.  He does, and demonstrates it by spinning out reams of code, that works right.  My code seems clunky and FORTRANy, ugly, cobbled together.

Well, OK then.  What we are seeing now is opportunity opening up everywhere.  The eagles are being allowed to soar, while the sloths are being encouraged to keep on plodding the old fashioned way.

spike

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160519/4711bdd5/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Fri May 20 05:14:35 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 07:14:35 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFgM9ojVnrUOc9-XkmviUU0Cp5RGmyA5SC9XZH0hNY6Aww@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv29hVUEPhaeaHYGm9_MuGJ-ptixka-UdopVzvBZrP8pPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3tT636qp6qkVVDD02nAWnmgBCX1XH3b3en_Sws3y6pDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2fkK1JHpeWdS7n6G7MK74y_HUmS9q_jQJQAy4mZv8pigQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2VB4r7m5CiyQ+WMOrM91LHHeZfkaLXjWL4GXAMpj=eZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <010101d1b05b$0fdfe920$2f9fbb60$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv2qjN7_7CoiPYP3=pYviuQ=QSdYDNLNQodKcXO_-354TA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01d801d1b074$57cdb910$07692b30$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1tcu3DpSDX1qeZA1xhT1TJ74pMpspYqT98aeNUyY3yaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <043101d1b0ac$15f36070$41da2150$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3SOL1J81Tp1BuXsuQhVsrSrCm76pLeyNsVhxhY=RrahQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACB7g26ZU_WZWvLKsjrBP0zWWXiBRqBoiWdDnj3cmNQ+A_3=Pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <00a301d1b1d2$8ae1d700$a0a58500$@att.net>
 <CAAc1gFgTqJvVRqoa5xvc=w-pyeYttW8Uyfx0msLYgiLjU-G-TQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <027e01d1b20f$239388e0$6aba9aa0$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEZTHZOvzaqK4krHp3iof8jm6+EKNZnx64uUbVzMn3=Jbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgM9ojVnrUOc9-XkmviUU0Cp5RGmyA5SC9XZH0hNY6Aww@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <24bb7d94-d373-44ee-4ee3-f6f9abba55d1@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-20 01:55, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> But I know they could come for you, even if you are a nobody.

That is the point of all repressive systems. They do not have to come 
for people much, if everybody thinks they could and then do their best 
to be at least slightly less likely to be victimized by their neighbor.

The interesting and scary thing with automation is that it may 
eventually make it cost-effective to come for everybody.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160520/6ec4d851/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Fri May 20 06:02:20 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 23:02:20 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <24bb7d94-d373-44ee-4ee3-f6f9abba55d1@aleph.se>
References: <CAJPayv29hVUEPhaeaHYGm9_MuGJ-ptixka-UdopVzvBZrP8pPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3tT636qp6qkVVDD02nAWnmgBCX1XH3b3en_Sws3y6pDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2fkK1JHpeWdS7n6G7MK74y_HUmS9q_jQJQAy4mZv8pigQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2VB4r7m5CiyQ+WMOrM91LHHeZfkaLXjWL4GXAMpj=eZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <010101d1b05b$0fdfe920$2f9fbb60$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv2qjN7_7CoiPYP3=pYviuQ=QSdYDNLNQodKcXO_-354TA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01d801d1b074$57cdb910$07692b30$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1tcu3DpSDX1qeZA1xhT1TJ74pMpspYqT98aeNUyY3yaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <043101d1b0ac$15f36070$41da2150$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3SOL1J81Tp1BuXsuQhVsrSrCm76pLeyNsVhxhY=RrahQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACB7g26ZU_WZWvLKsjrBP0zWWXiBRqBoiWdDnj3cmNQ+A_3=Pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <00a301d1b1d2$8ae1d700$a0a58500$@att.net>
 <CAAc1gFgTqJvVRqoa5xvc=w-pyeYttW8Uyfx0msLYgiLjU-G-TQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <027e01d1b20f$239388e0$6aba9aa0$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEZTHZOvzaqK4krHp3iof8jm6+EKNZnx64uUbVzMn3=Jbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgM9ojVnrUOc9-XkmviUU0Cp5RGmyA5SC9XZH0hNY6Aww@mail.gmail.com>
 <24bb7d94-d373-44ee-4ee3-f6f9abba55d1@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <5CF0648D-EEAD-4C91-AB80-2EA329827F3F@gmail.com>

On May 19, 2016, at 10:14 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:
>> On 2016-05-20 01:55, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>> But I know they could come for you, even if you are a nobody.
> 
> That is the point of all repressive systems. They do not have to come for people much, if everybody thinks they could and then do their best to be at least slightly less likely to be victimized by their neighbor.
> 
> The interesting and scary thing with automation is that it may eventually make it cost-effective to come for everybody.

Indeed. The issue to would be making sure there are no effective competitors. 

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/20160519/fb75ef60/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Fri May 20 11:59:24 2016
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 12:59:24 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Drake Equation Musings
In-Reply-To: <1971e8f7-06a6-e055-f728-c76a67c3115c@aleph.se>
References: <CAPiwVB7To3vNouN=cfJjF4hJtto5q4-7xTjOBaP1QJ5pOVJ73A@mail.gmail.com>
 <573AD95A.3030900@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armisyJOCL3aUCfrFYSBPHJZfSuxiocukE0-AwzBB18_dtA@mail.gmail.com>
 <573AF985.1070307@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armgJ8hCQdOHQ4OMG3GFoea4kbOxiCK95u8CTqNfGs4yw8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <1971e8f7-06a6-e055-f728-c76a67c3115c@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAL_armjLQa3pzab65V5gddvtLAdWBY249wy4TXA6Wfj3xdYVWA@mail.gmail.com>

On 18 May 2016 at 09:58, Anders Sandberg  wrote:
> I am not using a rare earth argument. Maybe I was oversimplifying my
> explanation of the Carter argument ( https://www.jstor.org/stable/37419 ):
> it allows for life being super-easy too. Extremophiles does not prove life
> is everywhere, since they merely show that once you have life, then it can
> spread into available niches.
>
> Think of it like this: what evidence would present itself to you in a
> universe where life was very easy, or one where it was very rare? In both
> cases you would see a planet with a biosphere compatible with you. You would
> find life adapted to a broad range of conditions. You would see life showing
> up early (either because it was simply likely, or because observers require
> a few rare steps). None of these observations give you any information
> allowing you to choose between the two universes.
>
> Now, if you had evidence that there wasn't lots of aliens around, that would
> favor the later conclusion - as well as the "life is easy, intelligence
> hard" and "intelligence doesn't last" conclusions (plus "weird" things like
> the zoo hypothesis). It weakens the "life is easy" conclusion a bit, but
> since the uncertainty of intelligence and future longevity parameters are
> big enough to soften the change in probabilities.
>

So you are agreeing with Carter's Weak Anthropic Principle that the
universe's apparent fine tuning is the result of selection bias: i.e.
only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be
living beings capable of observing and reflecting upon fine tuning.
And this selection bias provides no information about the likelihood
of life elsewhere in the universe.
This view is compatible with the Rare Earth hypothesis which argues
that the combination of circumstances for life like us to evolve is
most unlikely and an extremely rare event.

This view is logically sound until we find actual evidence, firstly of
how widespread simple life is in the universe and secondly, how
frequently intelligent life has evolved from simple beginnings.

However, until such evidence appears, speculation continues on the
Strong Anthropic Principle that the fundamental physical parameters of
this universe are finely-tuned to allow (force?) life to evolve. This
is my preference. If life happened here, why not everywhere? To me,
the evidence that science is accumulating points in this direction.
Our universe appears to be the same as far out as our systems can
analyse. The universe is enormous and has been evolving for 13 billion
years.
"World enough and time".

BillK


From jordanhh at gmail.com  Fri May 20 10:20:20 2016
From: jordanhh at gmail.com (Jordan Hosmer-Henner)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 13:20:20 +0300
Subject: [ExI] designing a malevolent AI
Message-ID: <CALoiC50wN0Jn=9thpDcD+warbWqfOz+Zmyjkq6obPKYc7tiVZA@mail.gmail.com>

http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.02817

'So what warning signs indicate that work on a malevolent AI system might
be possible? Pistono and Yampolskiy say there likely to be some clear signs.

One of the most obvious would be the absence of oversight boards in the
development of AI systems. ?If a group decided to create a malevolent
artificial intelligence, it follows that preventing a global oversight
board committee from coming to existence would increase its probability of
succeeding,? they say.'
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160520/c8f36b6c/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Fri May 20 13:09:10 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 06:09:10 -0700
Subject: [ExI] designing a malevolent AI
In-Reply-To: <CALoiC50wN0Jn=9thpDcD+warbWqfOz+Zmyjkq6obPKYc7tiVZA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALoiC50wN0Jn=9thpDcD+warbWqfOz+Zmyjkq6obPKYc7tiVZA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <006d01d1b298$cd317a40$67946ec0$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jordan Hosmer-Henner
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 3:20 AM
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Subject: [ExI] designing a malevolent AI

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.02817

 

'So what warning signs indicate that work on a malevolent AI system might be possible? Pistono and Yampolskiy say there likely to be some clear signs.

One of the most obvious would be the absence of oversight boards in the development of AI systems. ?If a group decided to create a malevolent artificial intelligence, it follows that preventing a global oversight board committee from coming to existence would increase its probability of succeeding,? they say.'

 

 

 

 

Hmmmm, cool, thanks.

 

Welcome Jordan.  Tell us something about Jordan if you wish, the usual stuff: where are ya from, whaddya do, where are ya going, that sorta thing.

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160520/1b1025a3/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Fri May 20 14:37:42 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 09:37:42 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <02f101d1b219$931d42f0$b957c8d0$@att.net>
References: <CAJPayv29hVUEPhaeaHYGm9_MuGJ-ptixka-UdopVzvBZrP8pPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY-magA4qLA5J+kd3mQQgNf1xK4Bn6f3zbAVoeyU9Vc3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEbVf2-bqAdyRoNN8xuXgjHj-E1PFzJVXvFKC14DgZANdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3tT636qp6qkVVDD02nAWnmgBCX1XH3b3en_Sws3y6pDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2fkK1JHpeWdS7n6G7MK74y_HUmS9q_jQJQAy4mZv8pigQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2VB4r7m5CiyQ+WMOrM91LHHeZfkaLXjWL4GXAMpj=eZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <010101d1b05b$0fdfe920$2f9fbb60$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv2qjN7_7CoiPYP3=pYviuQ=QSdYDNLNQodKcXO_-354TA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01d801d1b074$57cdb910$07692b30$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1tcu3DpSDX1qeZA1xhT1TJ74pMpspYqT98aeNUyY3yaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <043101d1b0ac$15f36070$41da2150$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3SOL1J81Tp1BuXsuQhVsrSrCm76pLeyNsVhxhY=RrahQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACB7g26ZU_WZWvLKsjrBP0zWWXiBRqBoiWdDnj3cmNQ+A_3=Pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <00a301d1b1d2$8ae1d700$a0a58500$@att.net>
 <CAAc1gFgTqJvVRqoa5xvc=w-pyeYttW8Uyfx0msLYgiLjU-G-TQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <027e01d1b20f$239388e0$6aba9aa0$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEZTHZOvzaqK4krHp3iof8jm6+EKNZnx64uUbVzMn3=Jbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <02f101d1b219$931d42f0$b957c8d0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEbJmGuLs-rwH3w=2BU_tzRnmjsN9qxF+YaBb8Zgd3vthg@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:58 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On
> Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace
>
>
>
> >?Spike, if you would read Dark Territory, as I mentioned earlier, you
> could put your mind to rest a bit about security of emails, phone calls,
> etc.  That is, unless you are so convinced of hidden plots that you cannot
> believe anything about what the gov does.  As I understood it, only
> metadata is stored - not content?
>
>
>
>
>
> Ja of course.  We know Snowden leaked that part about metadata, but the
> public also learned a term recently called SAR, or Special Access Required
> programs.  Snowden was not in his job long enough to have access to SARs.
> Usually those tickets are granted for a special purpose to people with
> special skills which they are trained by their employer carefully.  This
> takes some time, often at least years.  Some never get to where they are
> valuable enough to risk issuing a SAR ticket.  Snowden had none of those
> spooky numbers.  Sure, we know that they only get metadata.  But can we
> conceive of a technology that would intercept and record more than that?
> Is it technologically possible to do?  If so, and there is any motive to do
> it, you have the means and the motive.  No conspiracy required.  Your turn
> sir.
>
>
>
> ?Well, of course they have the capability (I don't really know this for a
> fact but it seems obvious) ?- it might take a billion dollars worth of
> storage to handle it.  Who knows what they are recording from Russian
> secret service calls etc.?   But hundreds of employees are doing something
> with foreign data.
>
>


> ?
> >?Changing the content of emails has been done, but to terrorist groups
> and war enemies, such as Iraq?
>
>
>
> Hmmm.  What does it take to be tagged an enemy of the state?  Will posting
> an internet video do it?  Does it matter what is in that video?
>
>
>
>
> ?What state?  Iran, for sure!  I would not post anything on this group or
> anywhere that denigrates Muslims.  As far as the USA is concerned, we still
> have freedom of speech, eh?  One of these days I am going to read about
> Hoover.  He was just the kind of evil man you are talking about.  He was
> said to have files on everyone and so everyone was scared to call him of
> the legality of it?.
>
>

> >?  We are far too small to mess with?
>
>
>
> How big do we need to be to mess with BillW?
> ?
>
>
?I think we have to be in some sort of targeted group, like the skinheads
or something like domestic terrorists.  There was not much in the book
about domestic stuff.?


> ?
>
>
>
> >?and are US citizens to boot.  bill w
>
>
>
> Ja.  You do know that our current government had a US citizen murdered
> abroad, ja?  He was a terrorist, I am not saying it was Little Red Riding
> Hood on her way to bring cookies to her grandmother or anything.  But he
> was a US citizen, with the emphasis on was.
>
>
>
?Surely for you this is a good sign.  Good?  Yes.  We know about it -
that's very good.  Now if they had offed him in this country and we found
out about it only because of a leak from an attempted coverup, we should
all shudder in our boots about just how far they'd go.  The guy was
actively involved, wasn't he?  Not just trying to get there and join.  Am I
right?  Then I think he should have been treated like any other terrorist.?

?We'd both like to know about what their guidelines are.  I'll be the pres
had to OK this one.  Ironic, isn't it?  Obama won the Peace Prize and has
been fighting wars longer than any other US pres in history, and has not
been hesitant to use drones and so forth.  I think they go too far with
this program, btw.  Too much 'collateral damage' - killing civilians to get
one or two guys is just too much to swallow.  Doesn't matter if they are
big chiefs.  I think that's overrated. One guy falls and another takes his
place and we have little to show for it except one guy dead.  And more
suicide bombers motivated.?

?bill w
>
> ?p.s. - kinda scary how our opinions correlate with our political stance:
 you are more conservative than I am, and conservatives tend to be more
fearful about things like this (this says nothing about the actual
situation.  That is, being more liberal or conservative does not match with
being right or wrong)
?


> ?
> 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/20160520/8920ce60/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Fri May 20 15:12:10 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 10:12:10 -0500
Subject: [ExI] segregation forever!!
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNRgszHbut-L4PUDFmckvXVqucoJJhJouF8A3z3S7sXfxw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEbyiuVU5QD37=ToSEAh63xDhr=y72ZcFsv0rX+g1KtP_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgoLBuhjpSeLorYHzeU3n7X-SCUB34_MNJbX07tXiOnwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEawveSyku6kNGQQggkZh_M2qzNyxi4zhf4C49qAjLbsbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgNSuYHF3kER=z3eCnQoU8pYSJRRGnPN-dRvRRx49QF7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEYbf9is44ty_2+APN0XLy46K9zTWYy4qMZqBVtNaWDgfw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgDS1ZzeKtAzm_7OoUWptVZ7uqdK3RAm0ayxkJTPUJ3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRgszHbut-L4PUDFmckvXVqucoJJhJouF8A3z3S7sXfxw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEbmsi9WZE1x7BTXFG9wKqLM7tR0o6BvW93aDHXCEocy1w@mail.gmail.com>

Also, not having had education, most of them are incapable of the kind of
long-term deductive reasoning that goes, "I need money therefore I need job
therefore I need education".  Besides, many of them think they can't get a
job even if they were educated; to convince them otherwise would require
education, even if forced upon them.

?Years ago I saw a study done by a welfare dept.  It found that about 5% of
the people getting checks were fraudulent.  They then figured how many more
agents it would take to catch those people and get them out of the system.
Turned out that it would cost more to hire more agents than it would to
just keep paying those cheaters.

It seems that there is a myth that some huge number of welfare recipients
are lazy people who could take a job but don't care too as long as they get
free money.  They also find that many are looking for jobs but they jobs
simply aren't there.  Or it would eat their entire check to pay for child
care, so they can stow their kids while they work.

For Rafal - but who would hire a 15 year old with a B.A.?  Certainly there
are kids who could do it.  And anything that supports or increases
vocational education has my support.  One more thing:  my state and many
others requires passing an algebra test to get a high school diploma.  The
jobs that require algebra are few and far between, so this requirement is
just stupid.  Sure, we need to catch up to the world in math and science,
but with out op 1%, not with everybody.

bill w?


On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
> rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ### Well, stopping welfare would assure there is no TV for those who
>> don't work.... The poor might actually think before having children... They
>> might learn to humbly ask for a job rather than angrily demand handouts...
>> Knowing that there is no welfare might induce some of them to value
>> schooling as a way of earning access to a job... And ending the war on
>> drugs might leave them no option but to make themselves useful...
>>
>
> That is a nice fantasy, but that's not the way they think.  If they're
> starving *RIGHT NOW* there's no time or energy for education...but there is
> to steal bread.  Assuming they do not wind up in the alternate welfare
> known as prison (or dead from an armed merchant, or etc.), they see what
> works and keep doing it.
>
> Also, not having had education, most of them are incapable of the kind of
> long-term deductive reasoning that goes, "I need money therefore I need job
> therefore I need education".  Besides, many of them think they can't get a
> job even if they were educated; to convince them otherwise would require
> education, even if forced upon them.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160520/b009c512/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Fri May 20 15:19:54 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 10:19:54 -0500
Subject: [ExI] carnegie hall
In-Reply-To: <00d501d1b24b$a6b77fb0$f4267f10$@att.net>
References: <00d501d1b24b$a6b77fb0$f4267f10$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEan0v_WY7Csd5ReUz7Pr0FaoDvmTZUjG6aNNTGN+qiPcA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:56 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Rafal Smigrodzki
> *?*
>
>
>
> >?My daughter is going to perform at Carnegie Hall next month?Rafa?
>
>
>
>
>
> Details please sir!
>
>
>
> This is really cool.  It is OK to tell what your kids are doing in this
> forum.  We are futurists, Extropians and transhumanists, but all of that
> second, humans first.
>
>
>
> What does she play?  Or does she sing?
>
>
>
> spike
>
> ?Rafal - if I am not mistaken, Carnegie Hall is open to anyone who will
pay their fees.  I have had piano teachers who did just that.  I have no
idea how it helped their career.  And singing in a choir is not nearly as
important as solo work, so your daughter might be disappointed at the
impact of performing there.  That said, it will be a glorious experience
for her.

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/20160520/c48d088f/attachment.html>

From sparge at gmail.com  Fri May 20 15:48:11 2016
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 11:48:11 -0400
Subject: [ExI] chain rule
In-Reply-To: <00f801d1b24f$a830b560$f8922020$@att.net>
References: <01ea01d1b1ee$20811bc0$61835340$@att.net>
 <CAKrqSyH_0HNVCWqpm5yOzeoS0=oS3qkUCiARxV7kj+BpoQKf+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <02f601d1b21a$93dad120$bb907360$@att.net>
 <000c01d1b220$fe8e47d0$fbaad770$@att.net>
 <00f801d1b24f$a830b560$f8922020$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAM5aL2cJW=3d3c_ve5yRP8rQkaNs73U8EtW_NHF8-OnMaFn=qQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 12:25 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> Khan Academy is free; anyone can sign up for an account, do exercises,
> listen to lectures or work on programming projects.  It remembers your
> progress.  You can leave it and come back a couple years later; everything
> will still be there.  Sal Khan set up a really useful valuable free
> education for anyone who wants to reach out and take it.  Anywhere in the
> world, any socio-economic class or any station in life: everyone has a shot
> at a ton of good stuff.  Check it out:
>
> https://www.khanacademy.org/
>
Cool, thanks. Don't know how I've managed not to run into that before.

-Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160520/c178266d/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Fri May 20 16:42:49 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 18:42:49 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Drake Equation Musings
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armjLQa3pzab65V5gddvtLAdWBY249wy4TXA6Wfj3xdYVWA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB7To3vNouN=cfJjF4hJtto5q4-7xTjOBaP1QJ5pOVJ73A@mail.gmail.com>
 <573AD95A.3030900@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armisyJOCL3aUCfrFYSBPHJZfSuxiocukE0-AwzBB18_dtA@mail.gmail.com>
 <573AF985.1070307@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armgJ8hCQdOHQ4OMG3GFoea4kbOxiCK95u8CTqNfGs4yw8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <1971e8f7-06a6-e055-f728-c76a67c3115c@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armjLQa3pzab65V5gddvtLAdWBY249wy4TXA6Wfj3xdYVWA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0d44fe03-65a1-f218-7234-bddb2b3983b1@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-20 13:59, BillK wrote:
> So you are agreeing with Carter's Weak Anthropic Principle that the
> universe's apparent fine tuning is the result of selection bias: i.e.
> only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be
> living beings capable of observing and reflecting upon fine tuning.
> And this selection bias provides no information about the likelihood
> of life elsewhere in the universe.

Yes to the first, not necessarily the second. Selection biases can 
produce very nontrivial effects (e.g. see my notes 
http://aleph.se/papers/Observer%20selection%20effects.pdf )

As noted in Barrow and Tipler many aspects of the universe we see - 
relative sizes of stars, animals and mountains - are tied together by 
anthropics-related relations. A universe with a weaker anthropic 
selection effect might have a bigger spread between things.



From spike66 at att.net  Fri May 20 16:48:26 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 09:48:26 -0700
Subject: [ExI] chain rule
In-Reply-To: <CAM5aL2cJW=3d3c_ve5yRP8rQkaNs73U8EtW_NHF8-OnMaFn=qQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <01ea01d1b1ee$20811bc0$61835340$@att.net>
 <CAKrqSyH_0HNVCWqpm5yOzeoS0=oS3qkUCiARxV7kj+BpoQKf+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <02f601d1b21a$93dad120$bb907360$@att.net>
 <000c01d1b220$fe8e47d0$fbaad770$@att.net>
 <00f801d1b24f$a830b560$f8922020$@att.net>
 <CAM5aL2cJW=3d3c_ve5yRP8rQkaNs73U8EtW_NHF8-OnMaFn=qQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00ff01d1b2b7$6e797d30$4b6c7790$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dave Sill
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 8:48 AM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] chain rule

 

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 12:25 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net <mailto:spike66 at att.net> > wrote:

Khan Academy is free?Anywhere in the world, any socio-economic class or any station in life: everyone has a shot at a ton of good stuff.  Check it out:

https://www.khanacademy.org/

>?Cool, thanks. Don't know how I've managed not to run into that before. -Dave

 

OK cool, now let us reason together.

Plenty of us here will likely relate to this next part.  I have two other groups I sometimes post with: the math geek crowd and the MENSA people (not so much these days) but both definitely resonated with the following meme:

Think back on your growing up years, especially the earlier ones, elementary school, but also high school and think about what you were capable of learning and when you became capable of learning it.  I read these messages: we have not a single bonehead among us, they just don?t hang out here.  We are not their people.  But I know we have their counterparts in profusion, so I know plenty of you felt the frustration of being ready to move on and learn something really cool, but couldn?t.  

You heard some teacher say: OK you have this down, so just go get a book and read quietly or help the others.  

You may have heard an administrator say: I would like to help you, but we don?t have any textbooks on that level and even if we did, we have no teachers qualified for it, and even if we had both of those, we can?t get at least a dozen students to sign up for it, sorry.  

You may have heard:  Don?t worry about why a nucleus doesn?t fly apart.  They will explain it to you in college if you take physics.

You may have heard:  I agree you might be able to make it in that class, but we don?t let sophomores take calculus.  It is reserved for seniors.  It would hurt their delicate egos if we let you younger hot-asses go in there.  You might beat them.  Then our best students would get discouraged, give up, we find them ten years from now face down drunk in the gutter? 

Likely you can relate your own school?s excuses and bullshit they gave you (and you are welcome to do so) for? what? for getting in your way, for educators preventing your getting educated to your capacity, for failing to clear your runway, failing to allow you to soar with the eagles, keeping you down to flap around with the pigeons.

Sal Khan has brought in the internet bulldozer and cleared the runway for everyone in the world.  That man has shoveled aside thousands of years of accumulated bullshit, so now the path is free for anyone who can and will.  The runway is clear to take off and soar with the eagles.  

I could hug that man.  Oh wait, already did that.  He was cool with it.  I imagine he gets that a lot.

spike

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160520/f3c4876c/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Fri May 20 10:28:57 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 12:28:57 +0200
Subject: [ExI] chain rule
In-Reply-To: <01ea01d1b1ee$20811bc0$61835340$@att.net>
References: <01ea01d1b1ee$20811bc0$61835340$@att.net>
Message-ID: <e741fc7d-5618-10bf-893d-285792172007@aleph.se>

Congratulations to you and Isaac! The chain rule is an awesome tool.

I guess the next step is to get used to using it on the weird and 
wonderful functions of real analysis and geometry (tanh! superellipses!) 
before moving to 3D and complex analysis.






From foozler83 at gmail.com  Fri May 20 17:05:55 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 12:05:55 -0500
Subject: [ExI] aeon article - you have no memory
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEaikH8DH8foN4Q+PV53y1SS21zZi-7Z0A3uwbCLexa6Og@mail.gmail.com>

https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=0223b88963-Weekly_Newsletter_20_May_20165_20_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-0223b88963-68993993

Not surprisingly, I did not understand this at all, but clearly this
relates to some of the postings in this group, so have at it and I'll try
to follow.

bill w
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160520/f537b50c/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Fri May 20 09:39:36 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 11:39:36 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Drake Equation Musings
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFh=o6DwDo6UMBdiuyq5n9xeRCmORUsFjojfC4AJuvRt=Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armiT=A=jFACmt5zRX=+Y_jEUFYjo5dCFtk9aaME++KmDFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <57383BFE.9080200@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armhGLGQgsDqMXG+L_Zwm3vWnE63MTu4WYP5QXozWmCW+2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <5738CF6F.9050407@aleph.se>
 <CAAc1gFgzx0phW3D7-tO3tzZMVz_6skABBME9m95D3zR9S8_5Ug@mail.gmail.com>
 <573ADBE8.4000801@aleph.se>
 <CAAc1gFg3ReM2a-agDSiUo=8xUngcUfDU9uZKjyj-hbVFAvaoYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <573AF5EE.1080304@aleph.se>
 <CAAc1gFiyAkq2G4vhV7pPE-hAPpnTvrp3Db5nEB-EwKaGnt=LCQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <57955846-9a2a-46ae-d171-8e80532e81ac@aleph.se>
 <CAAc1gFh=o6DwDo6UMBdiuyq5n9xeRCmORUsFjojfC4AJuvRt=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a908eb56-7f43-5ffa-bc54-46e955753a01@aleph.se>

My understanding of the story is like this: we start with a spacetime 
manifold which is curled up in a complex way, on which various fields 
slosh around. One of them undergoes a false vaccum phase transition that 
makes some of the directions of the manifold unfold a lot very fast, 
producing a big spacetime. However, this unfolding happens differently 
in different patches, producing big spacetimes separated from each other 
and potentially with different dimensionality or physics (due to local 
symmetry breaking of what dimensions unfolded or the values of the 
parameters set by the fields).

Note that spacetime expansion is allowed to be arbitrary, but fields on 
it can only change with signals moving at the speed of light on the 
spacetime. So vacuum decay can only spread at lightspeed in the 
surrounding manifold, although the internal spacetime metric of the 
decyed region might have turned all weird.


On 2016-05-19 22:03, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:


    Superluminal? I though all vacuum decay models had it spreading
    merely at lightspeed?


### This is one (of many) things I don't quite get: Inflation was 
superluminal and occurred after the false vacuum decay that generated 
our spacetime, so you would think the change would propagate superluminally.

Now that I think about it, maybe it went like this: vacuum decay 
generated new dimensions and inflation occurred in these new dimensions, 
not in the parent universe. Linde's eternal inflation does not blow up 
the non-inflating domains, it keeps happening between them.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160520/3543c2ff/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Fri May 20 17:30:27 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 12:30:27 -0500
Subject: [ExI] chain rule
In-Reply-To: <e741fc7d-5618-10bf-893d-285792172007@aleph.se>
References: <01ea01d1b1ee$20811bc0$61835340$@att.net>
 <e741fc7d-5618-10bf-893d-285792172007@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEYmOuOOUCKb1gAA+po+a+pw7WXUkFOpqPo2NrSzt3ERkw@mail.gmail.com>

I could hug that man.  Oh wait, already did that.  He was cool with it.  I
imagine he gets that a lot.

spike

My grandson is taking a totally online course this summer.  May have to go
to the school to take the tests. My question is:  what will perfectly
adequate online courses do to colleges and universities?  What if a person
applies for a job and presents no educational credentials, but can ace any
tests they give him?

Colleges then are relegated to providing labs and such and play little part
in the dissemination of information.  Then, out side of labs, the teachers
are free to write grants for support from gov and business and only have
lab work to do.  Theses and dissertations are done online with online
mentors, who may not be associated with colleges at all.

I think it will take a long time before most of this is free, but I can see
it happening..   An online course may charge if it gets a larger number of
'likes' on Facebook.  What a strange world compared to what we grew up with.

bill w

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 5:28 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> Congratulations to you and Isaac! The chain rule is an awesome tool.
>
> I guess the next step is to get used to using it on the weird and
> wonderful functions of real analysis and geometry (tanh! superellipses!)
> before moving to 3D and complex analysis.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160520/8bdebb31/attachment.html>

From sparge at gmail.com  Fri May 20 17:50:45 2016
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 13:50:45 -0400
Subject: [ExI] chain rule
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEYmOuOOUCKb1gAA+po+a+pw7WXUkFOpqPo2NrSzt3ERkw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <01ea01d1b1ee$20811bc0$61835340$@att.net>
 <e741fc7d-5618-10bf-893d-285792172007@aleph.se>
 <CAO+xQEYmOuOOUCKb1gAA+po+a+pw7WXUkFOpqPo2NrSzt3ERkw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM5aL2cesrqhwSBiZKcsJ9OpNqCe96-kdKqhMU+pzZ+j2u+vrQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 1:30 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> My grandson is taking a totally online course this summer.  May have to go
> to the school to take the tests. My question is:  what will perfectly
> adequate online courses do to colleges and universities?  What if a person
> applies for a job and presents no educational credentials, but can ace any
> tests they give him?
>
> Colleges then are relegated to providing labs and such and play little
> part in the dissemination of information.  Then, out side of labs, the
> teachers are free to write grants for support from gov and business and
> only have lab work to do.  Theses and dissertations are done online with
> online mentors, who may not be associated with colleges at all.
>
> I think it will take a long time before most of this is free, but I can
> see it happening..   An online course may charge if it gets a larger number
> of 'likes' on Facebook.  What a strange world compared to what we grew up
> with.
>
See:

https://www.amazon.com/Nearly-Free-University-Emerging-Economy-ebook/dp/B00EZCR9S0

The university model is pretty broken, as Smith explains, so something will
have to change.

-Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160520/4935e076/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Fri May 20 18:27:07 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 11:27:07 -0700
Subject: [ExI] aeon article - you have no memory
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEaikH8DH8foN4Q+PV53y1SS21zZi-7Z0A3uwbCLexa6Og@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEaikH8DH8foN4Q+PV53y1SS21zZi-7Z0A3uwbCLexa6Og@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNSqrRXtbBiq5ALJpVV1fmeZwePRhytW_gi9ZUQz1z+oxQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 10:05 AM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com
> wrote:

>
> https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=0223b88963-Weekly_Newsletter_20_May_20165_20_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-0223b88963-68993993
>
> Not surprisingly, I did not understand this at all, but clearly this
> relates to some of the postings in this group, so have at it and I'll try
> to follow.
>

It presents a sadly all too common logical fallacy: just because the brain
does not store information exactly like computers, it asserts that no
computing metaphors can possibly apply.  More generally, it asserts "not
100% therefore 0%" in multiple places.

For example, the bit about the dollar bill, where someone asked to draw a
dollar bill could only put in the general details.  The article argues,
just because the representation stored in the memory is not picture-perfect
- instead compressed and distilled down to just certain details - there is
no such thing as a representation of a dollar bill in the brain, the way a
computer might have a data object representing a dollar bill.  Problem is,
computers are entirely capable of having less-than-perfect representations,
optimized to their needs; not all programs need complete digital images of
a dollar bill in order to know that bill's serial number and condition.

Another example of the article's flawed logic:

"Because neither ?memory banks? nor ?representations? of stimuli exist in
the brain, and because all that is required for us to function in the world
is for the brain to change in an orderly way as a result of our
experiences, *there is no reason to believe that any two of us are changed
the same way by the same experience*."

The first clause has nothing to do with the last clause.  The middle clause
is technically false: a working body is needed as well as a brain.  It is
true that neither of these would support that two of us could be changed in
the same way by the same experience...but, contrary to the assertion in
italics, they do not rule out any possible other explanation.  (It is not
the case that any random two people are always changed in exactly the same
way by the same experience, true - but neither is it the case that any
random two people are never changed in exactly the same way by the same
experience.)

An even bigger mistake:

"Worse still, even if we had the ability to take a snapshot of all of the
brain?s 86 billion neurons and then to simulate the state of those neurons
in a computer, *that vast pattern would mean nothing outside the body of
the brain that produced it*."

If that were true, then transplanted organs could not work, because they
would have nothing in common and be utterly unable to understand the neural
and hormonal signals from the brain in the new body.  And yet, they do.  So
even if one body is not exactly the same as another, there are
commonalities - a great deal, even - which can be used in a new context
(such as if that snapshot were put into an imperfect simulation of the
original body).  The remaining differences can be learned and handled.  It
is perhaps philosophically true that an uploaded person would not be "the
same", but only in the sense that normal people are not "the same" day to
day.

(For instance, as I write this, I have caught something that has made it
painful to swallow or breathe, and that builds up enough mucus that I have
not been able to sleep more than 2 hours in a row before waking up coughing
the past couple nights.  I'll be seeing a doctor later today about it.  But
in the mean time, my capabilities and preferred range of action are
significantly diminished from what they were a month ago, when I did not
have this problem.  Am I the exact same person?  Clearly my state is not
100% identical.  And yet, everyone who knows me and has seen me in person
has accepted me as the same person, just ill.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160520/3449f04a/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Fri May 20 18:25:12 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 11:25:12 -0700
Subject: [ExI] chain rule
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEYmOuOOUCKb1gAA+po+a+pw7WXUkFOpqPo2NrSzt3ERkw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <01ea01d1b1ee$20811bc0$61835340$@att.net>
 <e741fc7d-5618-10bf-893d-285792172007@aleph.se>
 <CAO+xQEYmOuOOUCKb1gAA+po+a+pw7WXUkFOpqPo2NrSzt3ERkw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <017201d1b2c4$f30573d0$d9105b70$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 10:30 AM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] chain rule

 

I could hug that man.  Oh wait, already did that.  He was cool with it.  I imagine he gets that a lot.

spike

My grandson is taking a totally online course this summer.  May have to go to the school to take the tests. My question is:  what will perfectly adequate online courses do to colleges and universities?  What if a person applies for a job and presents no educational credentials, but can ace any tests they give him?

Colleges then are relegated to providing labs and such and play little part in the dissemination of information.  Then, out side of labs, the teachers are free to write grants for support from gov and business and only have lab work to do.  Theses and dissertations are done online with online mentors, who may not be associated with colleges at all.  

I think it will take a long time before most of this is free, but I can see it happening..   An online course may charge if it gets a larger number of 'likes' on Facebook.  What a strange world compared to what we grew up with.

bill w

 

 

No BillW, way no sir, at least to one important part of it, and yes Bill yes to the rest of it.

First the no part.  I left your entire post in there for a reason because you wrote a lot of important ideas in there, even the no part, and I want especially you to ponder the hell outta this, my grandpa friend.  This is important, more so that the political stuff we have been posting.

You commented:

>?I think it will take a long time before most of this is free?

No sir, way no.  It has already happened.  Read on please:

>?but I can see it happening?

You sure can, anyone with internet can see it happening, and you already have that.  You can see it now, no waiting required, and there is no time to wait.  Our world is in a desperate race between education and utter chaos.  So far chaos is ahead, but I see education coming up fast from behind.

>?What if a person applies for a job and presents no educational credentials, but can ace any tests they give him?

Thanks for asking sir.  In Khan Academy, they don?t offer you a piece of paper explaining how smart you are (have you ever pondered the fact that two from the same class get the same diploma when the one had mostly A average and the other was lucky to make it to e?  (Does that make sense?  (And does it make sense that the guy with the e average is likely better set up to succeed (because he spent much of his college days making important business and political contacts while his scholarly buddy was holed up on the fourth floor of the library alone, sweat on the brow, studying her ass off?  (But I digress.)))))

Khan Academy doesn?t offer degrees or diplomas, but they offer badges and patches, which are specific skills and milestones.  These are not controlled in the sense that you could theoretically hire a ringer to take the mastery challenges and fake your way through the class and get your badge or patch.  But? you can do that now, in actual universities, if you have the funds.  You can hire ringers, even in those places where they check ID on the way in.  I have seen this done, especially with the foreign exchange students.  The people checking IDs know what is going on, they don?t give a damn, they know the student is going to buy their phony diplomas and take them back to over there somewhere, and the local employers know what gives when a foreign accent guy shows up with sparkly credentials and no actual detectable brain activity.  But I digress.

Khan Academy offers these badges and patches and things.  It goes up on the student?s online trophy shelf.  The job applicant could show up in person, offer to let the employer choose any skill Khan Academy claims the student has mastered, any skill that employer wanted or needed, then the applicant could demonstrate in realtime mastery of that topic or that skill with a realtime demonstration right there.  You can choose and retake any KA mastery challenge.  

In some ways this is better than a degree: an employer doesn?t really know what to ask sometimes.  What if a lawyer is hiring an engineer?  How would she even know how to determine if this guy with the diploma is the real deal?  With a Khan Academy badge or patch, she doesn?t need to know that.  She looks at this profile, picks something, anything, gets to see realtime if he can do what it says he can do.  This looks like it would make the entire interview process so much simpler and more accurate.

The cool part of this is that it is free, more free than public education.  You need to fit the profile to go to school, you need at least some semblance of clothing and shoes, you need to be under 18 to get into public schools etc.  Now anyone can go to the local public library, any ragged nearly naked homeless person may do it, get on the public terminals, educate herself on any topic and get online credentials, and it is all free as free gets.  Then she may go over to Salvation Army (they give clothing to people who really are needy (I loooove Salvation Army (give them stuff often (those fine people know how to determine who really is needy and who is just some stoner out on a lark))))) put together some semblance of an interview outfit, go in with that online profile with head held high.  

Conclusion: Sal Khan has offered a free ticket out of the poverty trap, for anyone who will stretch out and grab it, with intentional emphasis on ?stretch out? because a free education with credentials does not mean credentials will be handed to you like the scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz.  It still takes a lot of work.

BillW, ponder this please sir, for you are perhaps the most qualified person here on this topic, being an educator yourself.  We value your opinion, and your own grandson values your opinion on this, and your thoughts and speculations on where this leads.

spike

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160520/d78c37c7/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Fri May 20 19:02:07 2016
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 20:02:07 +0100
Subject: [ExI] chain rule
In-Reply-To: <017201d1b2c4$f30573d0$d9105b70$@att.net>
References: <01ea01d1b1ee$20811bc0$61835340$@att.net>
 <e741fc7d-5618-10bf-893d-285792172007@aleph.se>
 <CAO+xQEYmOuOOUCKb1gAA+po+a+pw7WXUkFOpqPo2NrSzt3ERkw@mail.gmail.com>
 <017201d1b2c4$f30573d0$d9105b70$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAL_armj6x0e0w3p1kwD--SJAHXxf6Tpadz9yF+c=9c=NSjtbaQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 20 May 2016 at 19:25, spike  wrote:
<big snip>
> Conclusion: Sal Khan has offered a free ticket out of the poverty trap, for
> anyone who will stretch out and grab it, with intentional emphasis on
> ?stretch out? because a free education with credentials does not mean
> credentials will be handed to you like the scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz.
> It still takes a lot of work.
>
> BillW, ponder this please sir, for you are perhaps the most qualified person
> here on this topic, being an educator yourself.  We value your opinion, and
> your own grandson values your opinion on this, and your thoughts and
> speculations on where this leads.
>


Spike, I appreciate your enthusiasm for educating your son and applaud it.
(So please don't take my comments as criticism).

The Sal Khan Academy is one extreme.
Looking at education from the opposite extreme, I have read articles
worrying about smartphones causing the dumbing-down of the population.
With a smartphone, nobody needs to remember or know much at all.
Google gives you any info you need. Apps do calculating for you, give
directions, organise schedules, buy stuff, etc.
That's why the younger generation are addicted to gossiping on their
smartphones.
There's not much else left for them to do.

BillK



From johnkclark at gmail.com  Fri May 20 19:54:21 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 15:54:21 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Sanders, Clinton and Trump
In-Reply-To: <027e01d1b20f$239388e0$6aba9aa0$@att.net>
References: <CAJPayv29hVUEPhaeaHYGm9_MuGJ-ptixka-UdopVzvBZrP8pPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEY-magA4qLA5J+kd3mQQgNf1xK4Bn6f3zbAVoeyU9Vc3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEbVf2-bqAdyRoNN8xuXgjHj-E1PFzJVXvFKC14DgZANdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3tT636qp6qkVVDD02nAWnmgBCX1XH3b3en_Sws3y6pDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2fkK1JHpeWdS7n6G7MK74y_HUmS9q_jQJQAy4mZv8pigQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2VB4r7m5CiyQ+WMOrM91LHHeZfkaLXjWL4GXAMpj=eZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <010101d1b05b$0fdfe920$2f9fbb60$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv2qjN7_7CoiPYP3=pYviuQ=QSdYDNLNQodKcXO_-354TA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01d801d1b074$57cdb910$07692b30$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv1tcu3DpSDX1qeZA1xhT1TJ74pMpspYqT98aeNUyY3yaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <043101d1b0ac$15f36070$41da2150$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3SOL1J81Tp1BuXsuQhVsrSrCm76pLeyNsVhxhY=RrahQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACB7g26ZU_WZWvLKsjrBP0zWWXiBRqBoiWdDnj3cmNQ+A_3=Pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <00a301d1b1d2$8ae1d700$a0a58500$@att.net>
 <CAAc1gFgTqJvVRqoa5xvc=w-pyeYttW8Uyfx0msLYgiLjU-G-TQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <027e01d1b20f$239388e0$6aba9aa0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv2qvCE9cSFFdMfQSt+d-5Mwbuj6Uv_EM9FSTujCHgj1bA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:43 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:


> ?> ?
> We already have an example where a sitting Secretary of State called
> attention to an internet posting for inflaming delicate religious
> sensibilities, and perhaps just slightly arranged for the local friendly
> probation ossifer to pay the originator a little visit, after which he went
> to prison.
>
>

?
And after that perhaps that
? ?particular
Secretary of State
? went to Pluto on a flying saucer; we have equally good evidence for both.


?> ?
> We know Snowden leaked that part about metadata, but the public also
> learned a term recently called SAR, or Special Access Required programs.
> Snowden was not in his job long enough to have access to SARs.


?I think Snowden did a great thing letting the world know what he could
. And this is what that great libertarian Donald Trump had to say about
Snowden: ?

*?I think Snowden is a terrible threat, I think he?s a terrible traitor,
and you know what we used to do in the good old days when we were a strong
country ? you know what we used to do to traitors, right??*

?Ah the good old days, let's ?make America great again like it was in the
1950s and interracial restrooms were a radical idea.

? John K Clark?








>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160520/7976369a/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Fri May 20 19:55:23 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 14:55:23 -0500
Subject: [ExI] chain rule
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armj6x0e0w3p1kwD--SJAHXxf6Tpadz9yF+c=9c=NSjtbaQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <01ea01d1b1ee$20811bc0$61835340$@att.net>
 <e741fc7d-5618-10bf-893d-285792172007@aleph.se>
 <CAO+xQEYmOuOOUCKb1gAA+po+a+pw7WXUkFOpqPo2NrSzt3ERkw@mail.gmail.com>
 <017201d1b2c4$f30573d0$d9105b70$@att.net>
 <CAL_armj6x0e0w3p1kwD--SJAHXxf6Tpadz9yF+c=9c=NSjtbaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEY_7TfpJ+E7zS=bddoiqV5B8Adp438mUhgrpMavVOuB9w@mail.gmail.com>

BillW, ponder this please sir, for you are perhaps the most qualified
person here on this topic, being an educator yourself.  We value your
opinion, and your own grandson values your opinion on this, and your
thoughts and speculations on where this leads.
spike

What may happen may benefit my field tremendously.  A person shows up to
take tests for a job with that company.  The industrial psychologist
administers them and then hires or not.  This means that the company has to
very carefully define what they are looking for in a candidate, something
they do not often to, or not to very specific degrees.  Sometimes a person
is hired just because they come off well in an interview (the least valid
method of choosing, as proven over and over).  Gut feelings about someone
does not substitute for objective tests.

This may be relatively easy in engineering and other science venues.  But
what about management and sales?  Passing tests is no substitute for the
person to person interactions that those jobs require.

I think we all want the world wired - everyone able to get to a wifi and at
least rent some time on it.  Government should underwrite this big time.
It's as if you could beam electricity to backwoods areas that it is too
expensive to lay wire to,

Really good point about GPA - data show that lawyers averaging C in grad
school make the most money.  A students stay and teach, B students become
corporate lawyers.  Another thing:  we simply cannot define what some would
call 'heart', or 'drive'.  Or a near inability to quit.

What is happening now, and so fast as Spike says, will require tons of
studies on what really delivers the goods online.  My students while I was
in grad school took Psych 101 by TV.  I took roll and turned on the TV.  I
was available to answer questions as the end but few were asked.  At the
end of the term a survey showed that they hated it with a passion.  Now the
teacher was sitting at a desk and reading his notes and it was boring as
hell (why do we use that phrase?  I can't think of anything less boring
than hell would be).

So we will eventually wind up with the very best teachers, who are going to
be showmen and women, not necessarily the smartest people, and depending on
how this goes, they may become very rich, with students all over the
world.  A fine thing that would be after teachers having been underpaid
since the beginning.

But who is selling these ideas?  I never see any reference to online
courses.  OK, Phoenix and others - questionable.

This may wind up costing millions of local jobs as online competes with sit
down local classes.  A problem?

bill w

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 2:02 PM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 20 May 2016 at 19:25, spike  wrote:
> <big snip>
> > Conclusion: Sal Khan has offered a free ticket out of the poverty trap,
> for
> > anyone who will stretch out and grab it, with intentional emphasis on
> > ?stretch out? because a free education with credentials does not mean
> > credentials will be handed to you like the scarecrow from the Wizard of
> Oz.
> > It still takes a lot of work.
> >
> > BillW, ponder this please sir, for you are perhaps the most qualified
> person
> > here on this topic, being an educator yourself.  We value your opinion,
> and
> > your own grandson values your opinion on this, and your thoughts and
> > speculations on where this leads.
> >
>
>
> Spike, I appreciate your enthusiasm for educating your son and applaud it.
> (So please don't take my comments as criticism).
>
> The Sal Khan Academy is one extreme.
> Looking at education from the opposite extreme, I have read articles
> worrying about smartphones causing the dumbing-down of the population.
> With a smartphone, nobody needs to remember or know much at all.
> Google gives you any info you need. Apps do calculating for you, give
> directions, organise schedules, buy stuff, etc.
> That's why the younger generation are addicted to gossiping on their
> smartphones.
> There's not much else left for them to do.
>
> 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/20160520/7067596b/attachment.html>

From sparge at gmail.com  Fri May 20 19:57:29 2016
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 15:57:29 -0400
Subject: [ExI] chain rule
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armj6x0e0w3p1kwD--SJAHXxf6Tpadz9yF+c=9c=NSjtbaQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <01ea01d1b1ee$20811bc0$61835340$@att.net>
 <e741fc7d-5618-10bf-893d-285792172007@aleph.se>
 <CAO+xQEYmOuOOUCKb1gAA+po+a+pw7WXUkFOpqPo2NrSzt3ERkw@mail.gmail.com>
 <017201d1b2c4$f30573d0$d9105b70$@att.net>
 <CAL_armj6x0e0w3p1kwD--SJAHXxf6Tpadz9yF+c=9c=NSjtbaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM5aL2eWGoQ3AS3dw1z+bev88gHu0CDWBENfWv=JYgRbf-zRQA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 3:02 PM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Looking at education from the opposite extreme, I have read articles
> worrying about smartphones causing the dumbing-down of the population.
> With a smartphone, nobody needs to remember or know much at all.
> Google gives you any info you need. Apps do calculating for you, give
> directions, organise schedules, buy stuff, etc.
> That's why the younger generation are addicted to gossiping on their
> smartphones.
> There's not much else left for them to do.


It all started going downhill when early man began counting on his fingers.
That led to abacuses, then calculators, then computers. Writing degraded
verbal storytelling and led to books and printing. It's a wonder we modern
men can accomplish anything intellectual at all.

But seriously, yeah, learning how to do arithmetic is harder when you can
just say "ok google, what is 52 times 7?" But the tools we've developed
have removed a lot of the tedium from everyday life/work and freed up our
minds for the kinds of things that our tools can't do...yet.

-Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160520/aff15606/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Fri May 20 20:10:29 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 16:10:29 -0400
Subject: [ExI] segregation forever!!
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEbyiuVU5QD37=ToSEAh63xDhr=y72ZcFsv0rX+g1KtP_w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEbyiuVU5QD37=ToSEAh63xDhr=y72ZcFsv0rX+g1KtP_w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv21YE=FH3sNm7sbGOJEb4MDAy=WctRpEw-YtSKGMFq5hA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 5:12 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
wrote:

?> ?
> That has been the rallying cry here in the South for many years, though no
> one has used it lately.  Not in public, anyway.
>

?They've found a new catch phrase, now they say "I want my country back";
 they started saying it on Wednesday
November 5 2008? and haven't stopped yet, but I predict they'll find a new
catch phrase on Wednesday November 9 2016.

? John K Clark?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160520/70c88992/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Fri May 20 20:43:00 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 13:43:00 -0700
Subject: [ExI] chain rule
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armj6x0e0w3p1kwD--SJAHXxf6Tpadz9yF+c=9c=NSjtbaQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <01ea01d1b1ee$20811bc0$61835340$@att.net>
 <e741fc7d-5618-10bf-893d-285792172007@aleph.se>
 <CAO+xQEYmOuOOUCKb1gAA+po+a+pw7WXUkFOpqPo2NrSzt3ERkw@mail.gmail.com>
 <017201d1b2c4$f30573d0$d9105b70$@att.net>
 <CAL_armj6x0e0w3p1kwD--SJAHXxf6Tpadz9yF+c=9c=NSjtbaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <01ee01d1b2d8$3395cb30$9ac16190$@att.net>



-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 12:02 PM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] chain rule

On 20 May 2016 at 19:25, spike  wrote:
<big snip>
>>... Conclusion: Sal Khan has offered a free ticket out of the poverty 
> trap, for anyone who will stretch out and grab it...


>...Spike, I appreciate your enthusiasm for educating your son and applaud it.
(So please don't take my comments as criticism)...

Hi BillK, I didn't take this as criticism at all.  On the contrary, it supports where I go with this next.



>...The Sal Khan Academy is one extreme.
Looking at education from the opposite extreme, I have read articles worrying about smartphones causing the dumbing-down of the population.
With a smartphone, nobody needs to remember or know much at all.
Google gives you any info you need. Apps do calculating for you, give directions, organise schedules, buy stuff, etc.
That's why the younger generation are addicted to gossiping on their smartphones.
There's not much else left for them to do.  BillK

_______________________________________________

BillK, I left everything in there again rather than trimming your post, since you know this is a topic near and dear.

What we are seeing here is very important.  The cell phones and the OK Google functions are exactly why we are facing an enormous revolution in education, a fundamental rethinking of all our traditional notions, because technology has handed us the option of externalizing knowledge.  

Plenty of us here are engineers and tech types so you took calculus in college, and somewhere along the line you were asked to do the more esoteric stuff such as integration by parts.  OK cool, you did it, passed the test, congratulations, can you do it now?  If the answer is no, I am not criticizing anyone here.  I can, but I am a hobbyist in that kind of stuff.

OK now, engineers and scientists (but not math teachers) this next question is for you please:  since you took and passed that test, have you ever integrated by parts (or did partial fraction decomposition, or did a LaPlace transform or any of that cool stuff) in your job, or even as a real-life analysis, even once, or used in the line of duty any of that stuff you learned how to do?  No criticism, I haven't either.  That isn't how real-world tasks are done, and this is remarkable, considering I was the office math geek, so when the other engineers needed some oddball math skill they knew who to see.  Oh I loved that.  However, in all those years in a really techy office doing really mathematical stuff being the local go-to geek, I never did any of that cool stuff in the line of duty not even once.

OK then.  Why do we teach it?

Next: you are aware (ja?) that you don't even need to know how the hell to integrate?  You can pull up Google, put in the search window Integrate {yakkity yak and bla bla} and Google will return the integral of yakkity yak and bla bla.  

If you are out somewhere, you can pull up Google on your phone, and you guys with OK Google, pull them out and try it right now.  OK Google, then Integral of {insert your favorite function}.  In some cases it will not only give you the answer, but Miss Google will tell it to you in her beautiful voice (and isn't that a turn-on when girls talk math? (oh my (it works on me even when she mispronounces the function names (and is rather hilarious (such as calling sine sin and cosine koss and secant seck (it is still major boner material (yes I know I am a sicko (but I like me that way.)))))))

BillK, how does this impact what is worthwhile to teach calc students?  Are we finally safe to go ahead and admit that we are asking them to struggle to master something they will neeeeever need in real life, unless they are math professors struggling to perpetuate the illusion that the math professor is at that moment struggling to perpetuate, hoping to continue perpetuating that same illusion perpetually?

Think on it.  I will even give you time, since I am heading out on a weekend camping trip with no phone, no lights, no motorcars, not a single luxury.  Nature, red in tooth and claw, that sorta thing.

Note in particular BillK, you cited the case of video gaming cell phone zombies, attention spans already dwindled beyond hope of mastering the more subtle arts and skills in Sir Isaac Newton's queen of mathematics.  I agree, but I am asking the next question.  Given we are evolving into a species with diminished attention spans, we already understand that some skills do slip away, and new opportunities present themselves.  How do we design the curriculum to be suitable in a world where integration techniques are irrelevant, where every integral in the table is as close as our cell phone, where we can externalize knowledge but still cannot externalize reasoning.

As Adrian asked and I paraphrase: what if we can use current tech, some of the students can master the material in a traditional Bachelor's Degree curriculum by the time they are about 14, and they can sit down in front of a GRE and prove it?  What if the fraction who can do that is 10%?  Is the traditional bachelor's degree still meaningful?  Or do the cap and gown traditionalists get handed a diploma with a snarky "Are you as smart as an 8th grader?"  Is it still worth it for the rest of the students to shoulder a debt bigger than their own parents' mortgage to pay for that degree?  What if the 8th grader still outscores the traditional robed Pomp and Circumstancers?  Wouldn't employers really prefer the 8th grader with that GRE-proven skill level anyway, reasoning she would be cheaper and more adaptable, as well as smarter?

You guys who have known me for a couple decades know I am always screwing around here on ExI chat, but I am not on this topic.  Parenthood has a way of sobering a person, and finding oneself a parent of one with special talents can be especially sobering.  BillW, ja?

You guys with the startups who hire people, your thoughts and opinions are warmly invited, requested please.

Both Bills, Adrian, Anders, Rafal, anyone else following this perplexing and critically important thread, with these considerations in mind, what should we be teaching the next generation, when, how and why?  Do show your work please.

spike









From atymes at gmail.com  Sat May 21 00:24:43 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 17:24:43 -0700
Subject: [ExI] chain rule
In-Reply-To: <01ee01d1b2d8$3395cb30$9ac16190$@att.net>
References: <01ea01d1b1ee$20811bc0$61835340$@att.net>
 <e741fc7d-5618-10bf-893d-285792172007@aleph.se>
 <CAO+xQEYmOuOOUCKb1gAA+po+a+pw7WXUkFOpqPo2NrSzt3ERkw@mail.gmail.com>
 <017201d1b2c4$f30573d0$d9105b70$@att.net>
 <CAL_armj6x0e0w3p1kwD--SJAHXxf6Tpadz9yF+c=9c=NSjtbaQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <01ee01d1b2d8$3395cb30$9ac16190$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNS5PUcpKuNMCz4wBLqrja3VuL7_1akUvNY9F7iqBQyLFA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 1:43 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> OK now, engineers and scientists (but not math teachers) this next
> question is for you please:  since you took and passed that test, have you
> ever integrated by parts (or did partial fraction decomposition, or did a
> LaPlace transform or any of that cool stuff) in your job, or even as a
> real-life analysis, even once, or used in the line of duty any of that
> stuff you learned how to do?


Yes.  Not often, but more times than I can remember.

Both Bills, Adrian, Anders, Rafal, anyone else following this perplexing
> and critically important thread, with these considerations in mind, what
> should we be teaching the next generation, when, how and why?


I'm not sure the "what" is as important as the "how".  But perhaps, how to
learn - in and of itself - and why (to counter the increasingly large
anti-education memeplex: learning is not, in and of itself, an inherently
bad nor necessarily painful thing).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160520/6f1b1d84/attachment.html>

From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Sat May 21 01:28:44 2016
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 18:28:44 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Power satellite video
Message-ID: <CAPiwVB4jUAMbvthinUD6kkmDOz9zCuPgSnJy8XzVZ5jywJenZw@mail.gmail.com>

I am in Puerto Rico at the ISDC.  Showed this at the contest this
afternoon so can release it.

Keith


From sparge at gmail.com  Sat May 21 13:37:04 2016
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 09:37:04 -0400
Subject: [ExI] chain rule
In-Reply-To: <01ee01d1b2d8$3395cb30$9ac16190$@att.net>
References: <01ea01d1b1ee$20811bc0$61835340$@att.net>
 <e741fc7d-5618-10bf-893d-285792172007@aleph.se>
 <CAO+xQEYmOuOOUCKb1gAA+po+a+pw7WXUkFOpqPo2NrSzt3ERkw@mail.gmail.com>
 <017201d1b2c4$f30573d0$d9105b70$@att.net>
 <CAL_armj6x0e0w3p1kwD--SJAHXxf6Tpadz9yF+c=9c=NSjtbaQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <01ee01d1b2d8$3395cb30$9ac16190$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAM5aL2c2+3+nBAc2KNJxx-G_OWRPsBQJb_AoEw_fAK1Oho3k8Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 4:43 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> OK now, engineers and scientists (but not math teachers) this next
> question is for you please:  since you took and passed that test, have you
> ever integrated by parts (or did partial fraction decomposition, or did a
> LaPlace transform or any of that cool stuff) in your job, or even as a
> real-life analysis, even once, or used in the line of duty any of that
> stuff you learned how to do?
>

No.


> OK then.  Why do we teach it?
>

Because there's a difference between trade school and education. We rely on
college degrees as "trade school" for a lot of fields, especially technical
ones, but they're not the same thing at all. A real education is broad and
covers a lot things that one doesn't *need* in order to design or produce
widgets but which are important nonetheless.

-Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160521/9ee85881/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Sat May 21 15:18:21 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 11:18:21 -0400
Subject: [ExI] aeon article - you have no memory
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEaikH8DH8foN4Q+PV53y1SS21zZi-7Z0A3uwbCLexa6Og@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEaikH8DH8foN4Q+PV53y1SS21zZi-7Z0A3uwbCLexa6Og@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv3CEq9u4+FcxGLOstE=sgajaj74NTW_JiC+e9+say5eJQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 1:05 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
wrote:

https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=0223b88963-Weekly_Newsletter_20_May_20165_20_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-0223b88963-68993993
>
> ?> ?
> Not surprisingly, I did not understand this at all, but clearly this
> relates to some of the postings in this group, so have at it and I'll try
> to follow.
>

?
The first warning sign that the article is probably worthless
??
is
? ?
that it
? ?
was written by
? ?
Robert Epstein, a
? ?
psychologist and former editor of Psychology Today, a "science" that hasn't
discovered anything of much importance
? ?
today or
? ?
in decades. The second warning sign was in the
? ?
ridiculous
? ?
opening tag line "*Your brain does not process information, retrieve
knowledge or store memories*
?"?
.  So after that I just quickly skimmed the article, however one sentence
did catch my eye:

?> ?
> *the IP metaphor is, after all, just another metaphor*


?Years ago they said the brain ?was like a switchboard and that was indeed
a metaphor because a switchboard can't beat a human brain
at Chess or GO or Jeopardy, but a computer can.?
 And nobody would hesitate to call a human champion of those games
intelligent. And that's why a computer is more than just another metaphor.

?> ?a story we tell to make sense of something we don?t actually understand.


Richard Feynman felt that you don't really understand something until you
can do it, and I think he was right. If Mr. Epstein can make something that
behaves intelligently then his philosophy of mind would be worth studying,
until then it's just metaphorical hot air.

 John K Clark





>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160521/0d8cbf9c/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Sat May 21 16:44:25 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 11:44:25 -0500
Subject: [ExI] In defense of psych;
	was Re:  aeon article - you have no memory
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEbv=9JM7aSd1pzZPVBF9c4wdEuK+wOo8wLgm=Ft-pnxGA@mail.gmail.com>

The first warning sign that the article is probably worthless
??
is
? ?
that it
? ?
was written by
? ?
Robert Epstein, a
? ?
psychologist and former editor of Psychology Today, a "science" that hasn't
discovered anything of much importance
? ?
today or
? ?
in decades.  John Clark

Now John, I have to scold you for that.  You just do not know what you are
talking about.  Clinical psychology, for which I have little respect
(some), constitutes a plurality of psychology but not a majority.  Most of
the goofy stuff comes out of clinical.

 Psychologists are everywhere:  designing  dashboards for NASA (as well as
being intimately involved in training astronauts), doing great cognitive
work like Kahneman and TVersky (and winning a Nobel Prize for it),
designing ads, contributing to neurology, and tons more.

Yes, we are a science.  Get outside of the clinical part and you have
plenty of hard science.  Give us a break - dealing with human subjects is
about the hardest thing to do experiments with.  Our brains are the most
complicated thing in the known universe.

I agree about the article and I have never had much respect for Psychology
Today.  It is embarrassing when a psychologist goes far beyond what we
actually know.  There is a tremendous amount of junk 'science' coming out
of psychology, not all of it clinical.  We are young.  Our errors are to
the left of the decimal, not the right, as typical in physics.  We have
physiological psychology at one end and social psychology at the other,
linking us to biology and sociology (the latter I have very little respect
for - the socio, not the social, that is).  It is a huge field, with
spinoffs like behavioral economics.

Most people, like you, are just not aware of what psychology has evolved
to.  Read Stephen Pinker if you want some really up to date good science.
He may be our best.

I would say that we are ahead of economics, a good bit behind biology, way
behind chemistry and physics.  As I said - we are young.

bill w

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 10:18 AM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 1:05 PM, William Flynn Wallace <
> foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=0223b88963-Weekly_Newsletter_20_May_20165_20_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-0223b88963-68993993
>>
>> ?> ?
>> Not surprisingly, I did not understand this at all, but clearly this
>> relates to some of the postings in this group, so have at it and I'll try
>> to follow.
>>
>
> ?
> The first warning sign that the article is probably worthless
> ??
> is
> ? ?
> that it
> ? ?
> was written by
> ? ?
> Robert Epstein, a
> ? ?
> psychologist and former editor of Psychology Today, a "science" that
> hasn't discovered anything of much importance
> ? ?
> today or
> ? ?
> in decades. The second warning sign was in the
> ? ?
> ridiculous
> ? ?
> opening tag line "*Your brain does not process information, retrieve
> knowledge or store memories*
> ?"?
> .  So after that I just quickly skimmed the article, however one sentence
> did catch my eye:
>
> ?> ?
>> *the IP metaphor is, after all, just another metaphor*
>
>
> ?Years ago they said the brain ?was like a switchboard and that was indeed
> a metaphor because a switchboard can't beat a human brain
> at Chess or GO or Jeopardy, but a computer can.?
>  And nobody would hesitate to call a human champion of those games
> intelligent. And that's why a computer is more than just another metaphor.
>
> ?> ?a story we tell to make sense of something we don?t actually
>> understand.
>
>
> Richard Feynman felt that you don't really understand something until you
> can do it, and I think he was right. If Mr. Epstein can
> make something that behaves intelligently then his philosophy of mind would
> be worth studying, until then it's just metaphorical hot air.
>
>  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/20160521/111a601d/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Sat May 21 17:37:10 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 13:37:10 -0400
Subject: [ExI] In defense of psych;
	was Re: aeon article - you have no memory
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEbv=9JM7aSd1pzZPVBF9c4wdEuK+wOo8wLgm=Ft-pnxGA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEbv=9JM7aSd1pzZPVBF9c4wdEuK+wOo8wLgm=Ft-pnxGA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv0p=XHN26fgu7rAw+xC8ZDRknDUr8rV7o=Dq09Jemm6ng@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 12:44 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com
> wrote:

?> ?
> Psychologists are everywhere:  designing  dashboards for NASA (as well as
> being intimately involved in training astronauts), doing great cognitive
> work like Kahneman and TVersky (and winning a Nobel Prize for it),
>


?OK maybe I was a little too hard on psychology, but only a little; and
they won the Nobel Prize in 2002? for work that was done decades before
that, and it was for economics not psychology.



> ?> ?
> Our brains are the most complicated thing in the known universe.
>

?I certainly agree with that.?

?> ?
> Read Stephen Pinker if you want some really up to date good science.  He
> may be our best.
>

I've read
?"?
The Language Instinct
?"?
and
?"?
The Better Angels of Our Nature
?" and liked them? both, and I've already bought "How The Mind Works" and
put it into my book queue and should read it in a month or two,  but Pinker
likes interesting stuff like linguistics neurology and AI, and yes
evolutionary psychology and I admit that can be interesting too.


 > Most people, like you, are just not aware of what psychology has evolved
> to.


It's just that when you look at what psychology has discovered in the last
50 years and compare it with what physics or biology or computer science
has found it's day and night, hell astronomers discovered that all the
planets and stars and galaxies that they thought was all there was turned
out to be only 4% of what there was.

  John K Clark


>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160521/be8689e4/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Sat May 21 20:13:54 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 15:13:54 -0500
Subject: [ExI] In defense of psych;
	was Re: aeon article - you have no memory
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv0p=XHN26fgu7rAw+xC8ZDRknDUr8rV7o=Dq09Jemm6ng@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEbv=9JM7aSd1pzZPVBF9c4wdEuK+wOo8wLgm=Ft-pnxGA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0p=XHN26fgu7rAw+xC8ZDRknDUr8rV7o=Dq09Jemm6ng@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEYGjgBxwyg6j58RgdMwxLeE9i5BA+OCCXoOGYZsMpUJvg@mail.gmail.com>

Well, I have to agree with all of that, but the Kahneman and Tversky
(trained as psychologists) was psychology even though the award was for
economics since there is no prize for psych.  I mean, what they did WAS
psych, as is a lot of other things like market research.  Actually, a lot
of medical research is psych as well.

I suppose that trying to claim that any research done with human behavior
is psych seems pretentious, but if the shoe fits........  some departmental
territoriality here.

No contest:  the hard sciences are galloping along and psych is inching,
but a lot of the basic stuff was done prior to 1950, esp. in learning.  You
don't see references to Pavlov or Skinner anymore but their results are
still valid and are back of what cognitive research is finding.
Psychologists are very poor at giving credit to earlier research compared
to, say, biology, where Darwin is still all over the place.

Good experiments with people is hard work and very creative work and I
wasn't very good at it.  Cut out to be a teacher.  Test yourself:  try to
come up with a creative way to test for jealousy other than to give people
questionnaires.  Just try to define it.

PR for psych is not good because of all the wannabes doing bad research and
the lack of any publicity for basic research.  (And the lack of really good
treatments for the mentally ill, and that affects psychiatry as well.
Biology, that is, drugs, have taken over that field, mostly.)

bill w

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 12:37 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 12:44 PM, William Flynn Wallace <
> foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ?> ?
>> Psychologists are everywhere:  designing  dashboards for NASA (as well as
>> being intimately involved in training astronauts), doing great cognitive
>> work like Kahneman and TVersky (and winning a Nobel Prize for it),
>>
>
>
> ?OK maybe I was a little too hard on psychology, but only a little; and
> they won the Nobel Prize in 2002? for work that was done decades before
> that, and it was for economics not psychology.
>
>
>
>> ?> ?
>> Our brains are the most complicated thing in the known universe.
>>
>
> ?I certainly agree with that.?
>
> ?> ?
>> Read Stephen Pinker if you want some really up to date good science.  He
>> may be our best.
>>
>
> I've read
> ?"?
> The Language Instinct
> ?"?
> and
> ?"?
> The Better Angels of Our Nature
> ?" and liked them? both, and I've already bought "How The Mind Works" and
> put it into my book queue and should read it in a month or two,  but Pinker
> likes interesting stuff like linguistics neurology and AI, and yes
> evolutionary psychology and I admit that can be interesting too.
>
>
>  > Most people, like you, are just not aware of what psychology has
>> evolved to.
>
>
> It's just that when you look at what psychology has discovered in the last
> 50 years and compare it with what physics or biology or computer science
> has found it's day and night, hell astronomers discovered that all the
> planets and stars and galaxies that they thought was all there was turned
> out to be only 4% of what there was.
>
>   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/20160521/d1fe672b/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Sun May 22 00:11:45 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 19:11:45 -0500
Subject: [ExI] chain rule
In-Reply-To: <01ee01d1b2d8$3395cb30$9ac16190$@att.net>
References: <01ea01d1b1ee$20811bc0$61835340$@att.net>
 <e741fc7d-5618-10bf-893d-285792172007@aleph.se>
 <CAO+xQEYmOuOOUCKb1gAA+po+a+pw7WXUkFOpqPo2NrSzt3ERkw@mail.gmail.com>
 <017201d1b2c4$f30573d0$d9105b70$@att.net>
 <CAL_armj6x0e0w3p1kwD--SJAHXxf6Tpadz9yF+c=9c=NSjtbaQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <01ee01d1b2d8$3395cb30$9ac16190$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZ=N6618ZqfU9U=zvYLvGoiO25WeT2Jgcmg2jo4omNLHA@mail.gmail.com>

Both Bills, Adrian, Anders, Rafal, anyone else following this perplexing
and critically important thread, with these considerations in mind, what
should we be teaching the next generation, when, how and why?  Do show your
work please.  spike

Of course, according to the Depts. of Education, I know nothing about
education or teaching since I have had no education courses.  It's not OK
to have people who are going to give people all the education most of them
will ever have take no education course, but it is OK for college profs to
have none.  Ever think about that?  I don't know what high school teachers
learn in these courses.  No idea.  I did see one course, 3 hours, on how to
run a projector.  But I have known college profs who should have not been
allowed to teach cats how to ignore people.  Would you fail a graduating
senior (except for your elective course) who had an average of 59?  I would
have burned his house down.

Hell, I gave a D to a music major who had failed psych 101 7 times, and he
had a 45 average.  I see no purpose in keeping a student like that in
college.

Well, let's see - classically you need Latin and Greek, math, swordplay,
poetry (doing, not just reading!), music, art, horseback riding, an A+ in
your particular code of honor, and maybe more that I can't think of right
now.

Anyone in the present who can do most of that is a Renaissance man for
sure.  We have people to do those things for us, especially the swordplay,
and so we are much freer than those in the past to define what it is we
need.  But you may object:  people in school often have little idea about
what they need.  Also, they know what they like now, but when they are 40?
Giving degrees to people who have entirely chosen their courses is stupid
and incompetent.

What we need before we even start are valid (thus predictive) tests at an
early age that can rule in or out certain abilities.  What we have now are
very crude, including IQ, the best of the bunch.

But knowing what you might really be good at tells us nothing about what
you will like, though we do tend to like things we are good at.

OK, let's get started:  History.  A de-emphasis on people, places, dates
and things you can easily look up, and an emphasis on the evolution of
ideas.  I hated history but loved the book Connections:  the invention of
the crossbow led to this and that etc.

Math - I will leave this one to you guys, but I am in full agreement with
Spike about the necessity of certain higher maths - or lack thereof.
Should be able to at least estimate values requiring addition, subtraction,
multiplication and division.  Rote memory not needed.  Common math
problems, inclu. taxes, interest rates, credit and debt (basically a course
in home finance, though not entirely)

Physics - I'll let you all deal with this one.  I don't see why you can't
introduce simple physics, like the lever, inclined plane, etc. in grammar
school

Chemistry - ditto.- but would include biochemistry of people.  Who gives a
dog's drool what table salt is made of?  Practical stuff for nonmajors,
like don't mix ammonia and bleach

English - a hard one.  I could not care less whether a high school graduate
knows the difference between a gerund and a participle, but should be able
to write and talk in the common tongue (we can tolerate a lot here, esp. if
a person is dyslexic - we did have a POTUS who said 'nuculer').
Literature:  some but maybe not as much as we require now (Mama the English
teacher is rolling over in her grave).  No emphasis on theories of
interpretation, like deconstruction.  Just learning what's out there if you
want to read for pleasure sometime.  All genres included!  Even romance
novels and comic books.  I taught my own classes how to attack a textbook.

Civics - how government from local to federal works and how to change it.

Philosophy - will leave most of this for Anders or whoever, but certainly
epistemology - how we say we know what we know.  Including philosophy of
government.  Different moral systems incl. religion.

Psychology - from genetics to gerontology - will interact with biology and
chemistry lessons.  When I started teaching psych 101 could not be taught
to freshmen.  But I taught it to high schoolers and they did fine.
Personality and Social, Statistics (a very different course than what is
taught in math dept. stat).

Biology - the usual?  Far less on just rote memory - more towards zoology
than botany, incl. some microbio, gene splicing

The arts:  starting in first grade - when I got out of grammar school I
missed singing in class.  I was never offered art anywhere except college.
Two things:  most of us don't learn if we could be good at any of the arts
or learn to appreciate those who are good (outside of TV and radio, that
is).  So, some art and music history for sure.  These you can enjoy all
your life (as opposed to civics, history.....)  Fourteen centuries of
classical music and most have never heard one note of it (except when TV
and movies steal some of it and not give credit).  Sad

Thinking:  courses in logic, errors in cognition, very practical content,
not symbolic - I am not particularly up in this area except for the errors

Phys. ed.   - yes! - incl. health (like understanding the difference
between viral and bacterial infections), drugs legal and otherwise, foods,
supplements, exercise, yoga and meditation, karate or ??, the usual stuff:
tennis, soccer etc.  Emphasis on a long term plan to stay healthy mentally
and physically

Speech - here's one that cannot be done online.  Ideas?  Real people need
to be present.

Choice of languages, incl. Japanese and Mandarin

Economics - for those interested beyond household finance

Business - ?? no idea here - a foreign language to me except for marketing

Internships, perhaps in the summer - emphasis on contact with the 'real'
world,such as bagging groceries, digging ditches, flipping burgers, or
whatever is entirely outside your experience.  No tests - just a paper
detailing what they have learned about themselves and others.  My grandson
wants to start a business but has never held a job of any kind.  He has no
idea what he is in for, how to attract customers, how to manage people he
hires, etc.

Other things, like for ex. social work, as extras, not required.  I would
require all of the above..

I know I have left stuff out, maybe important stuff, but I am sure you'll
tell me, so here it is for now, spike

bill w

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 3:43 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On
> Behalf Of BillK
> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 12:02 PM
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] chain rule
>
> On 20 May 2016 at 19:25, spike  wrote:
> <big snip>
> >>... Conclusion: Sal Khan has offered a free ticket out of the poverty
> > trap, for anyone who will stretch out and grab it...
>
>
> >...Spike, I appreciate your enthusiasm for educating your son and applaud
> it.
> (So please don't take my comments as criticism)...
>
> Hi BillK, I didn't take this as criticism at all.  On the contrary, it
> supports where I go with this next.
>
>
>
> >...The Sal Khan Academy is one extreme.
> Looking at education from the opposite extreme, I have read articles
> worrying about smartphones causing the dumbing-down of the population.
> With a smartphone, nobody needs to remember or know much at all.
> Google gives you any info you need. Apps do calculating for you, give
> directions, organise schedules, buy stuff, etc.
> That's why the younger generation are addicted to gossiping on their
> smartphones.
> There's not much else left for them to do.  BillK
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> BillK, I left everything in there again rather than trimming your post,
> since you know this is a topic near and dear.
>
> What we are seeing here is very important.  The cell phones and the OK
> Google functions are exactly why we are facing an enormous revolution in
> education, a fundamental rethinking of all our traditional notions, because
> technology has handed us the option of externalizing knowledge.
>
> Plenty of us here are engineers and tech types so you took calculus in
> college, and somewhere along the line you were asked to do the more
> esoteric stuff such as integration by parts.  OK cool, you did it, passed
> the test, congratulations, can you do it now?  If the answer is no, I am
> not criticizing anyone here.  I can, but I am a hobbyist in that kind of
> stuff.
>
> OK now, engineers and scientists (but not math teachers) this next
> question is for you please:  since you took and passed that test, have you
> ever integrated by parts (or did partial fraction decomposition, or did a
> LaPlace transform or any of that cool stuff) in your job, or even as a
> real-life analysis, even once, or used in the line of duty any of that
> stuff you learned how to do?  No criticism, I haven't either.  That isn't
> how real-world tasks are done, and this is remarkable, considering I was
> the office math geek, so when the other engineers needed some oddball math
> skill they knew who to see.  Oh I loved that.  However, in all those years
> in a really techy office doing really mathematical stuff being the local
> go-to geek, I never did any of that cool stuff in the line of duty not even
> once.
>
> OK then.  Why do we teach it?
>
> Next: you are aware (ja?) that you don't even need to know how the hell to
> integrate?  You can pull up Google, put in the search window Integrate
> {yakkity yak and bla bla} and Google will return the integral of yakkity
> yak and bla bla.
>
> If you are out somewhere, you can pull up Google on your phone, and you
> guys with OK Google, pull them out and try it right now.  OK Google, then
> Integral of {insert your favorite function}.  In some cases it will not
> only give you the answer, but Miss Google will tell it to you in her
> beautiful voice (and isn't that a turn-on when girls talk math? (oh my (it
> works on me even when she mispronounces the function names (and is rather
> hilarious (such as calling sine sin and cosine koss and secant seck (it is
> still major boner material (yes I know I am a sicko (but I like me that
> way.)))))))
>
> BillK, how does this impact what is worthwhile to teach calc students?
> Are we finally safe to go ahead and admit that we are asking them to
> struggle to master something they will neeeeever need in real life, unless
> they are math professors struggling to perpetuate the illusion that the
> math professor is at that moment struggling to perpetuate, hoping to
> continue perpetuating that same illusion perpetually?
>
> Think on it.  I will even give you time, since I am heading out on a
> weekend camping trip with no phone, no lights, no motorcars, not a single
> luxury.  Nature, red in tooth and claw, that sorta thing.
>
> Note in particular BillK, you cited the case of video gaming cell phone
> zombies, attention spans already dwindled beyond hope of mastering the more
> subtle arts and skills in Sir Isaac Newton's queen of mathematics.  I
> agree, but I am asking the next question.  Given we are evolving into a
> species with diminished attention spans, we already understand that some
> skills do slip away, and new opportunities present themselves.  How do we
> design the curriculum to be suitable in a world where integration
> techniques are irrelevant, where every integral in the table is as close as
> our cell phone, where we can externalize knowledge but still cannot
> externalize reasoning.
>
> As Adrian asked and I paraphrase: what if we can use current tech, some of
> the students can master the material in a traditional Bachelor's Degree
> curriculum by the time they are about 14, and they can sit down in front of
> a GRE and prove it?  What if the fraction who can do that is 10%?  Is the
> traditional bachelor's degree still meaningful?  Or do the cap and gown
> traditionalists get handed a diploma with a snarky "Are you as smart as an
> 8th grader?"  Is it still worth it for the rest of the students to shoulder
> a debt bigger than their own parents' mortgage to pay for that degree?
> What if the 8th grader still outscores the traditional robed Pomp and
> Circumstancers?  Wouldn't employers really prefer the 8th grader with that
> GRE-proven skill level anyway, reasoning she would be cheaper and more
> adaptable, as well as smarter?
>
> You guys who have known me for a couple decades know I am always screwing
> around here on ExI chat, but I am not on this topic.  Parenthood has a way
> of sobering a person, and finding oneself a parent of one with special
> talents can be especially sobering.  BillW, ja?
>
> You guys with the startups who hire people, your thoughts and opinions are
> warmly invited, requested please.
>
> Both Bills, Adrian, Anders, Rafal, anyone else following this perplexing
> and critically important thread, with these considerations in mind, what
> should we be teaching the next generation, when, how and why?  Do show your
> work please.
>
> 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/20160521/d729d0b5/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Sun May 22 01:06:37 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 18:06:37 -0700
Subject: [ExI] chain rule
Message-ID: <k8k60jyoxujdohg05ud2bo39.1463879197665@email.android.com>


    




Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: William Flynn Wallace?
...(Suggested modernized cuuiculum)...
Cool excellent billw but now I want you to sharpen the question just a bit.
This curriculum bill has suggested suits me but what I am really wondering about now is how we deal with modern online learning tools suddenly changing all the usual paradigms.
We have long thought of education as a ticket into an office somewhere, the starting point of a career. ?Seldom are these tickets issued to those younger than about 21 or 22.?
OK what if we can now go around all those traditional roadblocks which slowed the racehorses and kept them back with the herd? ?Bill w this is your field. ?What happens when a generation is suddenly set free and we find what plenty of us suspected for a long time, that it does not take 16 years to master that curriculum you patiently outlined. ?It doesn't take leaving home, going deeply into debt, doesn't require joining a frat, going to sports events, doesn't really require any of the traditional clutter in and around the usual four year college.
Did we suddenly introduce a really good alternate path to success, one I have perceived as missing for a long time and needed for even longer?
I can imagine KA as but one early excellent example of a class of software which could obviate plenty of traditional education, freely available to all everywher, arriving just as traditional college costs have spiraled out of the reach of too many.
spike







































-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160521/b9e111d1/attachment.html>

From steinberg.will at gmail.com  Sun May 22 01:38:07 2016
From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg)
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 21:38:07 -0400
Subject: [ExI] aeon article - you have no memory
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv3CEq9u4+FcxGLOstE=sgajaj74NTW_JiC+e9+say5eJQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEaikH8DH8foN4Q+PV53y1SS21zZi-7Z0A3uwbCLexa6Og@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv3CEq9u4+FcxGLOstE=sgajaj74NTW_JiC+e9+say5eJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAKrqSyG1=t4dxmsszBXZdoeD9sZxBZFE0=+67U-ZeW_R-P=Nuw@mail.gmail.com>

God, this article is awful.  I can't even begin to address all the wrong
points because there are too many.  I don't think that the brain is a
digital computer, but it shares a lot of concepts.

The biggest issue here though is that it's all semantics.  At the end he
says "We are organisms, not computers."  What an uninformed sentence.
Because--what IS an organism?  What is a computer?  Was he really thinking
about that when he wrote it (hint: no)?  They're nebulous terms that could
be made to appear similar or different depending on what you emphasize.  I
could make an argument for why a ham sandwich is a good metaphor for a
brain, an equally good argument for why a ham sandwich is a good metaphor
for soil layers, and a third, also equally good argument for why soil
layers are a bad metaphor for the brain.  When you traffic in metaphors, if
you're EVER making absolute statements, you know something is wrong.
Metaphors are not the realm of absolutes, rather the opposite.

And that's all ignoring the fact that there is compiled evidence of people
who ARE able to draw perfect representations from memory.  What the author
did here is incorrectly extrapolate from the quite obvious fact that the
symbols in a brain for, say, a dollar bill are NOT an ACTUAL, PHYSICAL
dollar bill (holy shit, what a surprise!).  We already know that.

How about THIS: the dollar bill (let's say the hundred because of changing
more often) has been updated over the years, so the current hundred is
actually a REPRESENTATION of the collective PSYCHIC/MEMETIC construct of
the hundred dollar bill!  It's turtles all the way down!

Seriously, the first sentence gives it away.  So: "Your brain does not
process information, retrieve knowledge or store memories. In short: your
brain is not a computer".  Anyone could make that statement (it would
probably always sound ridiculous...) so long as they decide on definitions
of "process information", "retrieve knowledge", "store memories", and
"computer" which make the argument work.  And arguing for the opposite
conclusion would be just as possible by taking out those two "not"s.

Just a bad article that shows a real lack of understanding.  Terrible.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160521/6ce61fa6/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Sun May 22 01:42:33 2016
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 11:42:33 +1000
Subject: [ExI] aeon article - you have no memory
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEaikH8DH8foN4Q+PV53y1SS21zZi-7Z0A3uwbCLexa6Og@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEaikH8DH8foN4Q+PV53y1SS21zZi-7Z0A3uwbCLexa6Og@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH=2ypXVv0+b6Mybrv=YNeyacNBUVEQL9dihvU-PDBr7g0Q2fA@mail.gmail.com>

On 21 May 2016 at 03:05, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=0223b88963-Weekly_Newsletter_20_May_20165_20_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-0223b88963-68993993
>
> Not surprisingly, I did not understand this at all, but clearly this
> relates to some of the postings in this group, so have at it and I'll try
> to follow.
>

This is like a detailed argument explaining why birds are not a type of
airplane. It's an embarrassment to psychology.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160522/4179852d/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Sun May 22 07:56:55 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 09:56:55 +0200
Subject: [ExI] chain rule
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEZ=N6618ZqfU9U=zvYLvGoiO25WeT2Jgcmg2jo4omNLHA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <01ea01d1b1ee$20811bc0$61835340$@att.net>
 <e741fc7d-5618-10bf-893d-285792172007@aleph.se>
 <CAO+xQEYmOuOOUCKb1gAA+po+a+pw7WXUkFOpqPo2NrSzt3ERkw@mail.gmail.com>
 <017201d1b2c4$f30573d0$d9105b70$@att.net>
 <CAL_armj6x0e0w3p1kwD--SJAHXxf6Tpadz9yF+c=9c=NSjtbaQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <01ee01d1b2d8$3395cb30$9ac16190$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEZ=N6618ZqfU9U=zvYLvGoiO25WeT2Jgcmg2jo4omNLHA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5d752a6c-c0d3-ad02-3905-8cdd9ef1c6fe@aleph.se>


> Both Bills, Adrian, Anders, Rafal, anyone else following this 
> perplexing and critically important thread, with these considerations 
> in mind, what should we be teaching the next generation, when, how and 
> why?  Do show your work please.  spike

While people have tended to overdo "the growth mindset" it is really 
useful to recognize that you can learn most things if you want or need 
to, and that there is skill in searching  out and selecting good 
learning materials (whether online courses, asking friends, reading 
intro sections of science papers, or going to school). That includes 
organising what one does, understanding how one learns and one's quirks, 
and a sense of what knowledge is out there.

I also tend to laud learning "root" skills that help a lot of domains: 
math, statistics, programming, simulation, history, economics, 
psychology, etc.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160522/6a889b7f/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Sun May 22 08:25:09 2016
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 09:25:09 +0100
Subject: [ExI] chain rule
In-Reply-To: <k8k60jyoxujdohg05ud2bo39.1463879197665@email.android.com>
References: <k8k60jyoxujdohg05ud2bo39.1463879197665@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <CAL_armiZUnFZEP7RyNu9yg=2NDvasWOn1cixX6ySAWV_9iLmfg@mail.gmail.com>

On 22 May 2016 at 02:06, spike  wrote:
> We have long thought of education as a ticket into an office somewhere, the
> starting point of a career.  Seldom are these tickets issued to those
> younger than about 21 or 22.
>
> OK what if we can now go around all those traditional roadblocks which
> slowed the racehorses and kept them back with the herd?
> Bill w this is your field.  What happens when a generation is suddenly set
> free and we find what plenty of us suspected for a long time, that it does
> not take 16 years to master that curriculum you patiently outlined.  It
> doesn't take leaving home, going deeply into debt, doesn't require joining a
> frat, going to sports events, doesn't really require any of the traditional
> clutter in and around the usual four year college.
>
> Did we suddenly introduce a really good alternate path to success, one I
> have perceived as missing for a long time and needed for even longer?
>


Sorry, Spike, but you will run into physical growth limits. The
teenage brain is still a work in progress. The human brain goes
through big physical changes up until the early 20s age. Why do you
think teens act so crazy?  :)


A search will find a lot of documentation.
Try:
<https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-teen-brain-still-under-construction/index.shtml>
Quotes:
An understanding of how the brain of an adolescent is changing may
help explain a puzzling contradiction of adolescence: young people at
this age are close to a lifelong peak of physical health, strength,
and mental capacity, and yet, for some, this can be a hazardous age.
Mortality rates jump between early and late adolescence. Rates of
death by injury between ages 15 to 19 are about six times that of the
rate between ages 10 and 14. Crime rates are highest among young males
and rates of alcohol abuse are high relative to other ages. Even
though most adolescents come through this transitional age well, it?s
important to understand the risk factors for behavior that can have
serious consequences. Genes, childhood experience, and the environment
in which a young person reaches adolescence all shape behavior. Adding
to this complex picture, research is revealing how all these factors
act in the context of a brain that is changing, with its own impact on
behavior
-------

The assumption for many years had been that the volume of gray matter
was highest in very early childhood, and gradually fell as a child
grew. The more recent scans, however, revealed that the high point of
the volume of gray matter occurs during early adolescence.

While the details behind the changes in volume on scans are not
completely clear, the results push the timeline of brain maturation
into adolescence and young adulthood. In terms of the volume of gray
matter seen in brain images, the brain does not begin to resemble that
of an adult until the early 20s.

The scans also suggest that different parts of the cortex mature at
different rates. Areas involved in more basic functions mature first:
those involved, for example, in the processing of information from the
senses, and in controlling movement. The parts of the brain
responsible for more "top-down" control, controlling impulses, and
planning ahead?the hallmarks of adult behavior?are among the last to
mature.
-----------


So for the teenage years 14-19ish, you will find education becomes a
very different experience.  :)
Note: classic English understatement!

BillK



From foozler83 at gmail.com  Sun May 22 14:32:06 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 09:32:06 -0500
Subject: [ExI] chain rule
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armiZUnFZEP7RyNu9yg=2NDvasWOn1cixX6ySAWV_9iLmfg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <k8k60jyoxujdohg05ud2bo39.1463879197665@email.android.com>
 <CAL_armiZUnFZEP7RyNu9yg=2NDvasWOn1cixX6ySAWV_9iLmfg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEbc-qFVexgCBJLjLwOt+HpOth6RA9HEARt-Wkf+NszFaw@mail.gmail.com>

Did we suddenly introduce a really good alternate path to success, one I
> have perceived as missing for a long time and needed for even longer?
>spike

I am just not sure what you want.  Of course I would separate students on
the basis of aptitude and let the upper group advance as rapidly as they
want to - meaning each individual goes at the pace he wants, not that he
has to follow his group.  Otherwise, big waste of time.

But I think you are asking what happens when a kid is home schooled.  That
would take a developmental psychologist, which I am not, to answer.  Kids
learn what's acceptable and what's not, not only from their parents, but
from their peers.  In fact they value the peers' opinions far more than
their parents.  So if you take them out of the social mix, I dunno what
happens.  But I'll bet there is a lot of research on it.

In answer to another question I noted that not too many employers are
willing to hire a 15 year old, even if they have a Master's degree.  I did
not watch Doogie Howard (SP?) but there will be definite problems with
teens interacting with adults.

So, if you will, be a bit more precise about the environment you think will
work that is different from our traditional one.......

bill w

On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 3:25 AM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 22 May 2016 at 02:06, spike  wrote:
> > We have long thought of education as a ticket into an office somewhere,
> the
> > starting point of a career.  Seldom are these tickets issued to those
> > younger than about 21 or 22.
> >
> > OK what if we can now go around all those traditional roadblocks which
> > slowed the racehorses and kept them back with the herd?
> > Bill w this is your field.  What happens when a generation is suddenly
> set
> > free and we find what plenty of us suspected for a long time, that it
> does
> > not take 16 years to master that curriculum you patiently outlined.  It
> > doesn't take leaving home, going deeply into debt, doesn't require
> joining a
> > frat, going to sports events, doesn't really require any of the
> traditional
> > clutter in and around the usual four year college.
> >
> > Did we suddenly introduce a really good alternate path to success, one I
> > have perceived as missing for a long time and needed for even longer?
> >
>
>
> Sorry, Spike, but you will run into physical growth limits. The
> teenage brain is still a work in progress. The human brain goes
> through big physical changes up until the early 20s age. Why do you
> think teens act so crazy?  :)
>
>
> A search will find a lot of documentation.
> Try:
> <
> https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-teen-brain-still-under-construction/index.shtml
> >
> Quotes:
> An understanding of how the brain of an adolescent is changing may
> help explain a puzzling contradiction of adolescence: young people at
> this age are close to a lifelong peak of physical health, strength,
> and mental capacity, and yet, for some, this can be a hazardous age.
> Mortality rates jump between early and late adolescence. Rates of
> death by injury between ages 15 to 19 are about six times that of the
> rate between ages 10 and 14. Crime rates are highest among young males
> and rates of alcohol abuse are high relative to other ages. Even
> though most adolescents come through this transitional age well, it?s
> important to understand the risk factors for behavior that can have
> serious consequences. Genes, childhood experience, and the environment
> in which a young person reaches adolescence all shape behavior. Adding
> to this complex picture, research is revealing how all these factors
> act in the context of a brain that is changing, with its own impact on
> behavior
> -------
>
> The assumption for many years had been that the volume of gray matter
> was highest in very early childhood, and gradually fell as a child
> grew. The more recent scans, however, revealed that the high point of
> the volume of gray matter occurs during early adolescence.
>
> While the details behind the changes in volume on scans are not
> completely clear, the results push the timeline of brain maturation
> into adolescence and young adulthood. In terms of the volume of gray
> matter seen in brain images, the brain does not begin to resemble that
> of an adult until the early 20s.
>
> The scans also suggest that different parts of the cortex mature at
> different rates. Areas involved in more basic functions mature first:
> those involved, for example, in the processing of information from the
> senses, and in controlling movement. The parts of the brain
> responsible for more "top-down" control, controlling impulses, and
> planning ahead?the hallmarks of adult behavior?are among the last to
> mature.
> -----------
>
>
> So for the teenage years 14-19ish, you will find education becomes a
> very different experience.  :)
> Note: classic English understatement!
>
> 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/20160522/cf69d679/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Sun May 22 22:21:27 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 18:21:27 -0400
Subject: [ExI] In defense of psych;
	was Re: aeon article - you have no memory
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEYGjgBxwyg6j58RgdMwxLeE9i5BA+OCCXoOGYZsMpUJvg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEbv=9JM7aSd1pzZPVBF9c4wdEuK+wOo8wLgm=Ft-pnxGA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0p=XHN26fgu7rAw+xC8ZDRknDUr8rV7o=Dq09Jemm6ng@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEYGjgBxwyg6j58RgdMwxLeE9i5BA+OCCXoOGYZsMpUJvg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv2dVzLsJXCrpynS8Prn3u4=+=XDFPhN0MxFEYVbPVN5NQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 21, 2016  William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:

?> ?
> Good experiments with people is hard work and very creative work and I
> wasn't very good at it.  Cut out to be a teacher.  Test yourself:  try to
> come up with a creative way to test for jealousy other than to give people
> questionnaires.


?When test subjects walk into a psychology lab I don't understand how they
can take anything the experimenter says ?at face value. When I was in
school I took a physiology course and as part of the course I had to be a
test subject. I always looked at it as a game where I tried to outwit the
experimenters and figure out what they were really testing for.

One time they put me in a small room and told me the experiment was about
how people solved algebra problems, so I knew that whatever the experiment
was really about it wasn't about how people solved algebra problems. They
gave me a paper with 10 problems on it and said "you have 10 minutes to
solve these, we don't expect anyone to solve them all but do as many as you
can". But the questions were easy, really really easy, after 5 minutes I
solved all 10, checked them twice and give them to the experimenter. He
only glanced at my paper and then said in a flat voice as if he'd recited
the same canned speech many times " I can see that you're extraordinarily
good at this". Why on earth would he say that? I never found out for sure
but my hunch at the time was that he flipped a coin and if it was heads he
said I was extraordinarily good and if tails he said I stink to high
heaven. I must have been heads.

Then he said he wanted to test me again, this time with 20 problems and I'd
have 20 minutes. He brought out a egg timer and set it for 20 minutes and
said, "I have things to do so I'm going to leave you now, but when the
timer rings stop working. Oh and to make sure you're not disturbed lock the
door after I leave, in about half an hour I'll come back and knock on the
door and then you can unlock the door and let me back in". Hmm.

I soon found that these 20 problems were MUCH more difficult than the
previous 10, real ball busters. I was still struggling to finish problem #4
when the timer went off, so I immediately put the pencil down and just
stared at the suspiciously placed mirror built into the wall directly
across from me for another 20 minutes until I heard a knock on door and I
let the experimenter back in. He then asked me if I cheated and continued
to work after the timer went off and told him what he undoubtedly already
knew that I hadn't cheated. Looking back on it now I wish I'd lied and told
him I cheated, I wonder what he would have made of that.

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160522/15a7b631/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Mon May 23 14:45:40 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 09:45:40 -0500
Subject: [ExI] In defense of psych;
	was Re: aeon article - you have no memory
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv2dVzLsJXCrpynS8Prn3u4=+=XDFPhN0MxFEYVbPVN5NQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEbv=9JM7aSd1pzZPVBF9c4wdEuK+wOo8wLgm=Ft-pnxGA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv0p=XHN26fgu7rAw+xC8ZDRknDUr8rV7o=Dq09Jemm6ng@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEYGjgBxwyg6j58RgdMwxLeE9i5BA+OCCXoOGYZsMpUJvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2dVzLsJXCrpynS8Prn3u4=+=XDFPhN0MxFEYVbPVN5NQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZWved6XQc-NgYdQbu8xniaL=_UVEBELKg1A=pm1McCxg@mail.gmail.com>

Really good deception is hard.

Our college got all het up about research in education so some of us did
some and went to the state educ. research convention.  It was appalling.

Now in psych conventions, you get up and give a paper and they will try to
tear you apart and no slack for grad students.  In the educ. conference
they practically stood up and applauded.  It was a feel good thing.  I
could have criticized every paper I heard.  The quality of papers at a
sectional psych conference - maybe about 1/4 worth putting in a good
journal.  At the educ. - well, that's not my area and so who am I to judge,
but I thought the quality was poor, esp. as compared to my psych
conventions.

This would be just laughable except for the fact that grad depts. of
education are the go to people for designing what is taught in K-12.  They
never saw a new theory they didn't like.  Did you like the "New Math" of a
couple of decades ago?  Math teachers I knew hated it, but all the same it
went into effect in the public schools.  What are legislators to do?  They
have to listen to the educ. people because they will say that only they can
know what is good for kids because that's their area, whereas the math
people may know math but don't know teaching. etc. etc.

At least poor quality psych papers don't affect the public at all.  When I
first starting teaching college I learned that there was a big prejudice
against the education dept. and wondered why.  Ph.D.s ought to be smart
people and all that.   Nope - not in educ.

One more anecdote:  a fellow grad student of mine in psych decided he
needed a course taught in the grad counseling (educ.) dept.  One night a
week.  He came back from his first meeting looking grim.  He said it was
going to be all kinds of work - not what he expected.  So he took his list
of readings, did them all, and went to class the next week, only to find
that he had done the outside readings for the semester, not the week.
Needless to say he breezed through that course.

bill w

On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 5:21 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, May 21, 2016  William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ?> ?
>> Good experiments with people is hard work and very creative work and I
>> wasn't very good at it.  Cut out to be a teacher.  Test yourself:  try to
>> come up with a creative way to test for jealousy other than to give people
>> questionnaires.
>
>
> ?When test subjects walk into a psychology lab I don't understand how
> they can take anything the experimenter says ?at face value. When I was in
> school I took a physiology course and as part of the course I had to be a
> test subject. I always looked at it as a game where I tried to outwit the
> experimenters and figure out what they were really testing for.
>
> One time they put me in a small room and told me the experiment was about
> how people solved algebra problems, so I knew that whatever the experiment
> was really about it wasn't about how people solved algebra problems. They
> gave me a paper with 10 problems on it and said "you have 10 minutes to
> solve these, we don't expect anyone to solve them all but do as many as you
> can". But the questions were easy, really really easy, after 5 minutes I
> solved all 10, checked them twice and give them to the experimenter. He
> only glanced at my paper and then said in a flat voice as if he'd recited
> the same canned speech many times " I can see that you're extraordinarily
> good at this". Why on earth would he say that? I never found out for sure
> but my hunch at the time was that he flipped a coin and if it was heads he
> said I was extraordinarily good and if tails he said I stink to high
> heaven. I must have been heads.
>
> Then he said he wanted to test me again, this time with 20 problems and
> I'd have 20 minutes. He brought out a egg timer and set it for 20 minutes
> and said, "I have things to do so I'm going to leave you now, but when the
> timer rings stop working. Oh and to make sure you're not disturbed lock the
> door after I leave, in about half an hour I'll come back and knock on the
> door and then you can unlock the door and let me back in". Hmm.
>
> I soon found that these 20 problems were MUCH more difficult than the
> previous 10, real ball busters. I was still struggling to finish problem #4
> when the timer went off, so I immediately put the pencil down and just
> stared at the suspiciously placed mirror built into the wall directly
> across from me for another 20 minutes until I heard a knock on door and I
> let the experimenter back in. He then asked me if I cheated and continued
> to work after the timer went off and told him what he undoubtedly already
> knew that I hadn't cheated. Looking back on it now I wish I'd lied and told
> him I cheated, I wonder what he would have made of that.
>
>  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/20160523/fbaeb8f9/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Mon May 23 17:19:41 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 13:19:41 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Has the mystery of Dark Matter been solved?
Message-ID: <CAJPayv2H23CxAO4qP2U4iTySE-SJjTiXYkBUvPHY5rhX0eABLw@mail.gmail.com>

I would give  50% odds that the mystery of Dark Matter has been solved and
it will turn out not to be some new particle but will consist of Primordial
Black Holes. We know from the percentage of the  elements Hydrogen,
Deuterium, Helium and  Lithium  how much regular matter was around one
minute after the Big Bang when nucleosynthesis cooked up these elements,
and there is no room for Dark Matter. So the Black Holes that form the bulk
of the Dark Matter can't have come from the corpses of dead stars made of
regular matter; but maybe Black Holes formed long before nucleosynthesis
occurred when the universe was much less than one minute old and things
were too hot for even protons to exist much less elements.
Stephen Hawking proposed this explanation for Dark Matter some years ago
but the idea had fallen out of favor because it was largely (but not
entirely) ruled out by the data. We know that to account for all the Dark
Matter the Black Holes can't be larger than 100  solar masses because there
would be more gravitational microlensing than we observe. And we know that
to account for all the Dark Matter the Black Holes can't be smaller than 10
solar masses because we'd see Black Hole explosions /evaporations (if they
were REALLY small) and the orbits of widely spaced binary stars would be
disrupted, but we don't see any of that.

There is still a window for Primordial Black Holes being Dark Matter that
the data hasn't excluded and it's between 10 and 100 solar masses, and
during its short engineering run that's just what LIGO discovered. It found
a 29 solar mass Black Hole merging with a 36 solar mass Black Hole in a
fifth of a second producing a 62 solar mass black hole and 3 solar masses
of energy in the form of Gravitational Waves.  Everybody was amazed they
found something that good so quickly when the instrument hadn't even
reached its design sensitivity yet, everybody thought it would take years
of observing to detect a thing like that. Maybe they just got
extraordinarily lucky, or maybe Black Holes are far far more common than
had been previously thought. Maybe 85% of all the matter in the universe is
in the form of Primordial Black Holes. The two LIGO detectors will get back
online in September and with greatly improved sensitivity and will be
joined by a third detector, VIRGO near Pisa in Italy. So we should know
pretty soon if Dark Matter and Black Holes are the same thing, if they are
then the second greatest mystery in physics will have been solved, but
we'll still have the mystery of Dark Energy.

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160523/6226148a/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Mon May 23 18:57:02 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 20:57:02 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Has the mystery of Dark Matter been solved?
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv2H23CxAO4qP2U4iTySE-SJjTiXYkBUvPHY5rhX0eABLw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv2H23CxAO4qP2U4iTySE-SJjTiXYkBUvPHY5rhX0eABLw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f6787507-c2ae-86ec-3ac2-a7912812287e@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-23 19:19, John Clark wrote:
>
> We know from the percentage of the  elements Hydrogen, Deuterium, 
> Helium and  Lithium  how much regular matter was around one minute 
> after the Big Bang when nucleosynthesis cooked up these elements, and 
> there is no room for Dark Matter.
>
Huh? Can you unfold how the nucleosynthesis data doesn't fit dark 
matter? Last time I checked the literature (fall last year) there was a 
fairly decent parameter window of the nuclei/DM parameter space, where 
lithium abundance was used as a sensitive constraint on the properties 
of DM.

I thought the gravitational lensing studies ruled out black hole halos 
fairly strongly.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160523/d3eb5535/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Mon May 23 23:33:19 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 19:33:19 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Has the mystery of Dark Matter been solved?
In-Reply-To: <f6787507-c2ae-86ec-3ac2-a7912812287e@aleph.se>
References: <CAJPayv2H23CxAO4qP2U4iTySE-SJjTiXYkBUvPHY5rhX0eABLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <f6787507-c2ae-86ec-3ac2-a7912812287e@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv1r4FYa11PmH7d6TDrPBvGCw755ANSAZF=TskD_SZr+Zg@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

O
> ? ?
> n 2016-05-23 19:19, John Clark wrote:
>
>> ?>> ?
>> We know from the percentage of the  elements Hydrogen, Deuterium, Helium
>> and  Lithium  how much regular matter was around one minute after the Big
>> Bang when nucleosynthesis cooked up these elements, and there is no room
>> for Dark Matter.
>
>

?> ?
> Huh? Can you unfold how the nucleosynthesis data doesn't fit dark matter?
> Last time I checked the literature (fall last year) there was a fairly
> decent parameter window of the nuclei/DM parameter space, where lithium
> abundance was used as a sensitive constraint on the properties of DM.
>

?
The present
?
lithium
?and Helium ?
abundance
?
gives a tight constraint on the amount of normal baryonic matter (matter
made from electrons neutrons and protons) that
?could have ?
existed at the time of  nucleosynthesis
?, and there is not nearly enough of it to account for
Dark Matter. So whatever Dark Matter is it can not be normal ?
baryonic matter
?,?
? and it can't be made of Stellar Black Holes that came from burnt ?out
stars either because stars are made
baryonic matter
?,?
? and there was never enough
baryonic matter
?. But Dark Matter
might be made of Primordial Black Holes that were made of stuff that was
never baryonic and formed not one minute after the Big Bang as
?Helium and ?
Lithium w
?ere?
but less than a thousandth of a second after the Big Bang.

Primordial Black Holes
could solve another
?mystery too. Astronomers have found a 12 billion solar mass
supermassive Black Hole ?that existed just 900 million years after the Big
Bang, and they've had a very hard time explaining how a Black Hole could
get that big so quickly from the merger of much smaller Stellar Black Holes
that were produced from dead stars. But if you had 100 solar mass Black
Holes around since day one, and if they were very very common, in fact if
85% of all matter was in that form, then the creation of a 12 billion solar
mass Black Hole 900 million years later is much easier to explain.

?> ?
> I thought the gravitational lensing studies ruled out black hole halos
> fairly strongly.
>

?The number of ?
gravitational lensing
? events that have been observed has ruled out Dark Matter being made of
Black Holes larger than 100 solar masses, but not smaller. And the fact
that we don't see a lot of widely spaced binary stars moving in strange
orbits rules out Dark Matter made of Black Holes smaller than 10 solar
masses but not larger. Nothing has ruled out Dark Matter being in the 10 to
100 solar mass range and LIGO found Black Holes right smack in the middle
of that range.


 John K Clark?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160523/926c8002/attachment.html>

From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Mon May 23 22:46:08 2016
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 15:46:08 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Power satellite video
Message-ID: <CAPiwVB7SpLWNjruFDzC1EGSJK3yz+w65O1g8C=2+=J=YsRTQzA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 5:12 PM,  Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com>wrote:

> I am in Puerto Rico at the ISDC.  Showed this at the contest this
> afternoon so can release it.

Oops.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEkZkINrJaA


From rhanson at gmu.edu  Mon May 23 18:30:40 2016
From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin D Hanson)
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 18:30:40 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Has the mystery of Dark Matter been solved?
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv2H23CxAO4qP2U4iTySE-SJjTiXYkBUvPHY5rhX0eABLw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv2H23CxAO4qP2U4iTySE-SJjTiXYkBUvPHY5rhX0eABLw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E602614E-C8B4-45BD-A144-B45E2540987A@gmu.edu>

Yes, this seems a very reasonable guess to me as well.

On May 23, 2016, at 1:19 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com<mailto:johnkclark at gmail.com>> wrote:


I would give  50% odds that the mystery of Dark Matter has been solved and it will turn out not to be some new particle but will consist of Primordial Black Holes. We know from the percentage of the  elements Hydrogen, Deuterium, Helium and  Lithium  how much regular matter was around one minute after the Big Bang when nucleosynthesis cooked up these elements, and there is no room for Dark Matter. So the Black Holes that form the bulk of the Dark Matter can't have come from the corpses of dead stars made of regular matter; but maybe Black Holes formed long before nucleosynthesis occurred when the universe was much less than one minute old and things were too hot for even protons to exist much less elements.

Stephen Hawking proposed this explanation for Dark Matter some years ago but the idea had fallen out of favor because it was largely (but not entirely) ruled out by the data. We know that to account for all the Dark Matter the Black Holes can't be larger than 100  solar masses because there would be more gravitational microlensing than we observe. And we know that to account for all the Dark Matter the Black Holes can't be smaller than 10 solar masses because we'd see Black Hole explosions /evaporations (if they were REALLY small) and the orbits of widely spaced binary stars would be disrupted, but we don't see any of that.

There is still a window for Primordial Black Holes being Dark Matter that the data hasn't excluded and it's between 10 and 100 solar masses, and during its short engineering run that's just what LIGO discovered. It found a 29 solar mass Black Hole merging with a 36 solar mass Black Hole in a fifth of a second producing a 62 solar mass black hole and 3 solar masses of energy in the form of Gravitational Waves.  Everybody was amazed they found something that good so quickly when the instrument hadn't even reached its design sensitivity yet, everybody thought it would take years of observing to detect a thing like that. Maybe they just got extraordinarily lucky, or maybe Black Holes are far far more common than had been previously thought. Maybe 85% of all the matter in the universe is in the form of Primordial Black Holes. The two LIGO detectors will get back online in September and with greatly improved sensitivity and will be joined by a third detector, VIRGO near Pisa in Italy. So we should know pretty soon if Dark Matter and Black Holes are the same thing, if they are then the second greatest mystery in physics will have been solved, but we'll still have the mystery of Dark Energy.

 John K Clark



_______________________________________________
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

Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu<mailto:rhanson at gmu.edu>
Future of Humanity Inst., Oxford University
Assoc. Prof. Economics, George Mason University
See my new book: http://ageofem.com









-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160523/d0db4a72/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Tue May 24 22:46:51 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 15:46:51 -0700
Subject: [ExI] an ai wrote this script
Message-ID: <050401d1b60e$2a8dd2b0$7fa97810$@att.net>

 

 

I now have an explanation for that video which enraged the Presbyterian
world and caused the attack on the American Embassy: it was written by an
AI.  

 

Or perhaps not, but I have seen videos written by humans weirder and dumber
than this one:

 

http://singularityhub.com/2016/05/24/an-ai-wrote-this-short-film-and-its-sur
prisingly-entertaining/

 

Those of you who played computer chess in the 1970s know how bad it was and
how some of its moves were so absurd it would leave you howling with
derisive laughter.  The programmers failed to write an embarrassment module
and a hopelessness module into their software.  But even in those benighted
times, the computer software could beat some humans, assuming the humans
were stoned and already sucked anyway.

 

So now, we have computer-generated movie scripts.  For now, Aaron Sorkin can
rest with confidence that unemployment is not a near-term threat.  But chess
software improved.  It was playing a reasonable game by the mid 1980s, and
was getting good by 1990.  Deep Blue beat Kasparov at his peak in 1997.

 

So, will computers ever write a good movie script?

 

spike  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160524/fede233f/attachment.html>

From sparge at gmail.com  Wed May 25 01:15:00 2016
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 21:15:00 -0400
Subject: [ExI] an ai wrote this script
In-Reply-To: <050401d1b60e$2a8dd2b0$7fa97810$@att.net>
References: <050401d1b60e$2a8dd2b0$7fa97810$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAM5aL2faEW+E1HvU5xn+k2UiZ61KsSXoL1Aq-B+sxFcDdiFGOQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 6:46 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
> I now have an explanation for that video which enraged the Presbyterian
> world and caused the attack on the American Embassy: it was written by an
> AI.
>
>
>
> Or perhaps not, but I have seen videos written by humans weirder and
> dumber than this one:
>
>
>
>
> http://singularityhub.com/2016/05/24/an-ai-wrote-this-short-film-and-its-surprisingly-entertaining/
>

Hmm. That 404's now.

-Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160524/a40443c6/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Tue May 24 17:02:20 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 19:02:20 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Has the mystery of Dark Matter been solved?
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv1r4FYa11PmH7d6TDrPBvGCw755ANSAZF=TskD_SZr+Zg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv2H23CxAO4qP2U4iTySE-SJjTiXYkBUvPHY5rhX0eABLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <f6787507-c2ae-86ec-3ac2-a7912812287e@aleph.se>
 <CAJPayv1r4FYa11PmH7d6TDrPBvGCw755ANSAZF=TskD_SZr+Zg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fb6dfcc2-9c33-aa5d-63fc-43f574394e04@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-24 01:33, John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se 
> <mailto:anders at aleph.se>> wrote:
>
>     O
>     ? ?
>     n 2016-05-23 19:19, John Clark wrote:
>
>         ?>> ?
>         We know from the percentage of the  elements Hydrogen,
>         Deuterium, Helium and  Lithium  how much regular matter was
>         around one minute after the Big Bang when nucleosynthesis
>         cooked up these elements, and there is no room for Dark Matter.
>
>     ?> ?
>     Huh? Can you unfold how the nucleosynthesis data doesn't fit dark
>     matter? Last time I checked the literature (fall last year) there
>     was a fairly decent parameter window of the nuclei/DM parameter
>     space, where lithium abundance was used as a sensitive constraint
>     on the properties of DM.
>
>
> ?
> The present
> ?
> lithium
> ?and Helium ?
> abundance
> ?
> gives a tight constraint on the amount of normal baryonic matter 
> (matter made from electrons neutrons and protons) that
> ?could have ?
> existed at the time of  nucleosynthesis
> ?, and there is not nearly enough of it to account for
> Dark Matter. So whatever Dark Matter is it can not be normal ?
> baryonic matter
> ?,?
> ? and it can't be made of Stellar Black Holes

So how does this rule out WIMPs? In fact, if I understand the models 
right, WIMPs are much better at explaining halo shapes than MACHOs. 
While it might be annoying to posit some new weakly interacting 
particle, there is ample precedent for them existing (neutrinos) and 
they sometimes show up because of other theories (axinos and Susy). It 
seems a bit premature to immediately latch on to black holes.

Although it does indeed nicely explain that early black hole. Of course, 
we should be able to figure out a frequency distribution of early too 
large holes from this theory and check it.

-- 
Dr 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/20160524/6343af16/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Wed May 25 13:29:03 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 06:29:03 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Has the mystery of Dark Matter been solved?
In-Reply-To: <fb6dfcc2-9c33-aa5d-63fc-43f574394e04@aleph.se>
References: <CAJPayv2H23CxAO4qP2U4iTySE-SJjTiXYkBUvPHY5rhX0eABLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <f6787507-c2ae-86ec-3ac2-a7912812287e@aleph.se>
 <CAJPayv1r4FYa11PmH7d6TDrPBvGCw755ANSAZF=TskD_SZr+Zg@mail.gmail.com>
 <fb6dfcc2-9c33-aa5d-63fc-43f574394e04@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <003401d1b689$686eed50$394cc7f0$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg
Subject: Re: [ExI] Has the mystery of Dark Matter been solved?

 

On 2016-05-24 01:33, John Clark wrote:



>>? So whatever Dark Matter is it can not be normal ?

baryonic matter and it can't be made of Stellar Black Holes?John


>?So how does this rule out WIMPs? ? It seems a bit premature to immediately latch on to black holes?Although it does indeed nicely explain that early black hole. Of course, we should be able to figure out a frequency distribution of early too large holes from this theory and check it. -- Dr Anders Sandberg

 

 

 

 

LIGO is still a shiny new instrument, only a few years old.  It has already found in that short time a pair of colliding black holes on 14 Sept 2015, but that might have been an unusually easy to see case (sounds like it to me.)  We need to wait and work more on the LIGO data, sift more through the noise, now that we know what a pair of colliding biggies looks like, make sure it agrees with existing theories.

 

Yesterday I saw something amazing.  I am accustomed to seeing the astronomy geek crowd, the kinds of people it attracts and the numbers.  SLAC was offering a free public lecture on LIGO and the 14Sept event.  It was held in their huge main auditorium, and the place was packed, to standing room only.  There were normal-looking people in attendance.  There were actual women in attendance, several of them.  Astonishing!

 

This to me is evidence that we need to always check our long-accepted theories with instruments and data, look carefully for anomalies.  We might discover that LIGO data indicates that something is wrong with our notions on the distribution of black holes and if so, why we don?t see good agreement in the amount of known lensing, or if something else is amiss with long-held assumptions.  We have no good explanation for how lucky we were to have already seen those two biggies collide or for all those women at SLAC yesterday.  In both cases, we could attribute it to our good fortune I suppose.

 

Oh it is a glorious time to be alive if one gets turned on by this sorta thing, and if not, there is still time to become someone like that.

  

spike

 

 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160525/21c26bdd/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Wed May 25 08:33:08 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 10:33:08 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Has the mystery of Dark Matter been solved?
In-Reply-To: <E602614E-C8B4-45BD-A144-B45E2540987A@gmu.edu>
References: <CAJPayv2H23CxAO4qP2U4iTySE-SJjTiXYkBUvPHY5rhX0eABLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <E602614E-C8B4-45BD-A144-B45E2540987A@gmu.edu>
Message-ID: <410e2e78-8ee7-aa4e-4c01-5f6882a98d5e@aleph.se>

Likely just to annoy John, there is a recent paper ( 
http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.08522 ) arguing the early supermassive holes 
could be due to direct collapse of gas clouds. I cannot judge the 
likelihood of this, but it will be interesting to see how it turns out.


On 2016-05-23 20:30, Robin D Hanson wrote:
> Yes, this seems a very reasonable guess to me as well.
>
>> On May 23, 2016, at 1:19 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:johnkclark at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I would give  50% odds that the mystery of Dark Matter has been 
>> solved and it will turn out not to be some new particle but will 
>> consist of Primordial Black Holes. We know from the percentage of the 
>>  elements Hydrogen, Deuterium, Helium and  Lithium  how much regular 
>> matter was around one minute after the Big Bang when nucleosynthesis 
>> cooked up these elements, and there is no room for Dark Matter. So 
>> the Black Holes that form the bulk of the Dark Matter can't have come 
>> from the corpses of dead stars made of regular matter; but maybe 
>> Black Holes formed long before nucleosynthesis occurred when the 
>> universe was much less than one minute old and things were too hot 
>> for even protons to exist much less elements.
>>
>> Stephen Hawking proposed this explanation for Dark Matter some years 
>> ago but the idea had fallen out of favor because it was largely (but 
>> not entirely) ruled out by the data. We know that to account for all 
>> the Dark Matter the Black Holes can't be larger than 100  solar 
>> masses because there would be more gravitational microlensing than we 
>> observe. And we know that to account for all the Dark Matter the 
>> Black Holes can't be smaller than 10 solar masses because we'd see 
>> Black Hole explosions /evaporations (if they were REALLY small) and 
>> the orbits of widely spaced binary stars would be disrupted, but we 
>> don't see any of that.
>>
>> There is still a window for Primordial Black Holes being Dark Matter 
>> that the data hasn't excluded and it's between 10 and 100 solar 
>> masses, and during its short engineering run that's just what LIGO 
>> discovered. It found a 29 solar mass Black Hole merging with a 36 
>> solar mass Black Hole in a fifth of a second producing a 62 solar 
>> mass black hole and 3 solar masses of energy in the form of 
>> Gravitational Waves.  Everybody was amazed they found something that 
>> good so quickly when the instrument hadn't even reached its design 
>> sensitivity yet, everybody thought it would take years of observing 
>> to detect a thing like that. Maybe they just got extraordinarily 
>> lucky, or maybe Black Holes are far far more common than had been 
>> previously thought. Maybe 85% of all the matter in the universe is in 
>> the form of Primordial Black Holes. The two LIGO detectors will get 
>> back online in September and with greatly improved sensitivity and 
>> will be joined by a third detector, VIRGO near Pisa in Italy. So we 
>> should know pretty soon if Dark Matter and Black Holes are the same 
>> thing, if they are then the second greatest mystery in physics will 
>> have been solved, but we'll still have the mystery of Dark Energy.
>>
>>  John K Clark
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
> Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu <mailto:rhanson at gmu.edu>
> Future of Humanity Inst., Oxford University
> Assoc. Prof. Economics, George Mason University
> See my new book: http://ageofem.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/20160525/da65e0b0/attachment.html>

From steinberg.will at gmail.com  Wed May 25 15:04:29 2016
From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 11:04:29 -0400
Subject: [ExI] an ai wrote this script
In-Reply-To: <CAM5aL2faEW+E1HvU5xn+k2UiZ61KsSXoL1Aq-B+sxFcDdiFGOQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <050401d1b60e$2a8dd2b0$7fa97810$@att.net>
 <CAM5aL2faEW+E1HvU5xn+k2UiZ61KsSXoL1Aq-B+sxFcDdiFGOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAKrqSyFuaN0Rzy1cuYov98uAYgT3QBLh7H9VyT02AfePNUfbNA@mail.gmail.com>

Looks like they took the video down (and the script too.)  Maybe they've
decided not to show it free after all the press, but that'd be a bit
ridiculous.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160525/e311b592/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Wed May 25 15:16:57 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 11:16:57 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Has the mystery of Dark Matter been solved?
In-Reply-To: <fb6dfcc2-9c33-aa5d-63fc-43f574394e04@aleph.se>
References: <CAJPayv2H23CxAO4qP2U4iTySE-SJjTiXYkBUvPHY5rhX0eABLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <f6787507-c2ae-86ec-3ac2-a7912812287e@aleph.se>
 <CAJPayv1r4FYa11PmH7d6TDrPBvGCw755ANSAZF=TskD_SZr+Zg@mail.gmail.com>
 <fb6dfcc2-9c33-aa5d-63fc-43f574394e04@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv1a+YvYOpY9Qo1E+OWkdV+S+qgTQbPdoNgoSG9vkeyPyQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

?
> ?>>?
> The present
> ?
> lithium
> ?and Helium ?
> abundance
> ?
> gives a tight constraint on the amount of normal baryonic matter (matter
> made from electrons neutrons and protons) that
> ?could have ?
> existed at the time of  nucleosynthesis
> ?, and there is not nearly enough of it to account for
> Dark Matter. So whatever Dark Matter is it can not be normal ?
> baryonic matter
> ?,?
> ? and it can't be made of Stellar Black Holes
>
> ?> ?
> So how does this rule out WIMPs?
>

?It doesn't. Maybe WIMPs exist, but if LIGO starts finding lots of Black
holes soon after it comes back

?online ?in September then WIMPS would be unnecessary to explain Dark
Matter.

 John K Clark


>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160525/b0a726d8/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Wed May 25 08:45:43 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 10:45:43 +0200
Subject: [ExI] an ai wrote this script
In-Reply-To: <050401d1b60e$2a8dd2b0$7fa97810$@att.net>
References: <050401d1b60e$2a8dd2b0$7fa97810$@att.net>
Message-ID: <02f6ea78-ae26-af69-a2c7-4e09c12ec957@aleph.se>

Writing a script is fairly trivial if you use a fill-in-the-blanks 
approach: it will produce either a random story, or a cliche fest. 
Writing a *good* script requires conveying some emotions or thoughts in 
a nontrivial way, which is currently hard for AI. But I think one could 
do interesting things here.

Imagine a semantic network of concepts, trained on a large corpus of 
human data. Snow is connected to cold which is connected to loneliness, 
as well as xmas and snowball fights that are connected to childhood. You 
activate a few nodes to act as bias, and use the activation spread to 
generate associations.

Then you use the active part of the network as a value filter for 
"ideas" generated by a script generator: the script generator tries 
various characters, actions, scenes etc. and the network checks which 
ones fit the overall structure. This might be a hierarchical process: an 
overall story arch is tried, then parts made. For example, if the theme 
is loneliness the script might generate various things until it hits on 
"Protagonist X tries to join group Y but is rebuffed because of Z" which 
gets thumbs up from the network. The script now tries to fill in X, Y, Z 
and since the network will have the activations it might promote 
X=child, Y=xmas celebration, Z=snow. So we get a structure where a kid 
is refused to join a party because she is snowy (which a human will 
recognize is a rationalisation for some other social property).

I have a feeling this is quite doable, and might be really helpful in a 
semi-interactive way. The user sees the output, adds in the "foreign" 
trait to the protagonist child to give the social property, re-evaluates 
the script, and ends up with a short story about racism at xmas. Or a 
sad comedy about X's inability to handle snow.



On 2016-05-25 00:46, spike wrote:
>
> I now have an explanation for that video which enraged the 
> Presbyterian world and caused the attack on the American Embassy: it 
> was written by an AI.
>
> Or perhaps not, but I have seen videos written by humans weirder and 
> dumber than this one:
>
> http://singularityhub.com/2016/05/24/an-ai-wrote-this-short-film-and-its-surprisingly-entertaining/
>
> Those of you who played computer chess in the 1970s know how bad it 
> was and how some of its moves were so absurd it would leave you 
> howling with derisive laughter. The programmers failed to write an 
> embarrassment module and a hopelessness module into their software.  
> But even in those benighted times, the computer software could beat 
> some humans, assuming the humans were stoned and already sucked anyway.
>
> So now, we have computer-generated movie scripts.  For now, Aaron 
> Sorkin can rest with confidence that unemployment is not a near-term 
> threat.  But chess software improved.  It was playing a reasonable 
> game by the mid 1980s, and was getting good by 1990.  Deep Blue beat 
> Kasparov at his peak in 1997.
>
> So, will computers ever write a good movie script?
>
> 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/20160525/5006594a/attachment.html>

From wincat at swbell.net  Wed May 25 20:51:30 2016
From: wincat at swbell.net (Norman Jacobs)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 15:51:30 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Has the mystery of Dark Matter been solved?
In-Reply-To: <410e2e78-8ee7-aa4e-4c01-5f6882a98d5e@aleph.se>
References: <CAJPayv2H23CxAO4qP2U4iTySE-SJjTiXYkBUvPHY5rhX0eABLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <E602614E-C8B4-45BD-A144-B45E2540987A@gmu.edu>
 <410e2e78-8ee7-aa4e-4c01-5f6882a98d5e@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <00ae01d1b6c7$37747060$a65d5120$@net>

I would like to discuss with you please, if you have a moment or two
sometime.

 

Norman L. Jacobs

8715 Meadowcroft Drive

Unit No. 602

Houston, Texas 77063

 

Tel./Fax: +1 713 784 1388

Cell: +1 713 498 1424

Email: wincat at swbell.net

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf
Of Anders
Sent: May 25, 2016 3:33 AM
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Subject: Re: [ExI] Has the mystery of Dark Matter been solved?

 

Likely just to annoy John, there is a recent paper (
http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.08522 ) arguing the early supermassive holes could
be due to direct collapse of gas clouds. I cannot judge the likelihood of
this, but it will be interesting to see how it turns out.



On 2016-05-23 20:30, Robin D Hanson wrote:

Yes, this seems a very reasonable guess to me as well. 

 

On May 23, 2016, at 1:19 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

 

I would give  50% odds that the mystery of Dark Matter has been solved and
it will turn out not to be some new particle but will consist of Primordial
Black Holes. We know from the percentage of the  elements Hydrogen,
Deuterium, Helium and  Lithium  how much regular matter was around one
minute after the Big Bang when nucleosynthesis cooked up these elements, and
there is no room for Dark Matter. So the Black Holes that form the bulk of
the Dark Matter can't have come from the corpses of dead stars made of
regular matter; but maybe Black Holes formed long before nucleosynthesis
occurred when the universe was much less than one minute old and things were
too hot for even protons to exist much less elements.

Stephen Hawking proposed this explanation for Dark Matter some years ago but
the idea had fallen out of favor because it was largely (but not entirely)
ruled out by the data. We know that to account for all the Dark Matter the
Black Holes can't be larger than 100  solar masses because there would be
more gravitational microlensing than we observe. And we know that to account
for all the Dark Matter the Black Holes can't be smaller than 10 solar
masses because we'd see Black Hole explosions /evaporations (if they were
REALLY small) and the orbits of widely spaced binary stars would be
disrupted, but we don't see any of that.

 

There is still a window for Primordial Black Holes being Dark Matter that
the data hasn't excluded and it's between 10 and 100 solar masses, and
during its short engineering run that's just what LIGO discovered. It found
a 29 solar mass Black Hole merging with a 36 solar mass Black Hole in a
fifth of a second producing a 62 solar mass black hole and 3 solar masses of
energy in the form of Gravitational Waves.  Everybody was amazed they found
something that good so quickly when the instrument hadn't even reached its
design sensitivity yet, everybody thought it would take years of observing
to detect a thing like that. Maybe they just got extraordinarily lucky, or
maybe Black Holes are far far more common than had been previously thought.
Maybe 85% of all the matter in the universe is in the form of Primordial
Black Holes. The two LIGO detectors will get back online in September and
with greatly improved sensitivity and will be joined by a third detector,
VIRGO near Pisa in Italy. So we should know pretty soon if Dark Matter and
Black Holes are the same thing, if they are then the second greatest mystery
in physics will have been solved, but we'll still have the mystery of Dark
Energy.

 John K Clark

  

 

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

 

Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu 
Future of Humanity Inst., Oxford University
Assoc. Prof. Economics, George Mason University
See my new book: http://ageofem.com









 






_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

 



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160525/fb226eaa/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Thu May 26 02:32:21 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 22:32:21 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Cosmological Natural Selection
Message-ID: <CAJPayv3Bup-cEV1TU-Lz0yDdGdWG2-A+x+9j3ci_LJDSdnL7rQ@mail.gmail.com>

?It seems pretty clear that at the very least Black Holes ?are a lot more
common than previously though, so it might be a good time to take another
look at Lee Smolin's theory of Cosmological Natural Selection. Smolin said
that on the other side of the event horizon of every Black Hole is a new
universe that may have slightly different laws of physics from its parent
universe. The more Black Holes a universe has the more offspring universes
it has. So most of the universes in the Multiverse would have laws of
physics that maximize the production of Black Holes. If Black Holes are
Dark Matter and 85% of all matter in our universe is going into Black Holes
that must be pretty near the maximum, I don't think an observer could
expect to find himself in a universe where the laws of physics conspired to
produce a lot more Black Holes than that, after all you need at least a
little non-black hole matter to make planets and stars and life.

Just like Darwin's idea Smolin's idea is about reproduction mutation and
natural selection. Perhaps future historians will look back at Charles
Darwin not just as a great biologist but as a great cosmologist too.

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160525/4bdaddea/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Thu May 26 03:53:44 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 23:53:44 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Has the mystery of Dark Matter been solved?
In-Reply-To: <410e2e78-8ee7-aa4e-4c01-5f6882a98d5e@aleph.se>
References: <CAJPayv2H23CxAO4qP2U4iTySE-SJjTiXYkBUvPHY5rhX0eABLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <E602614E-C8B4-45BD-A144-B45E2540987A@gmu.edu>
 <410e2e78-8ee7-aa4e-4c01-5f6882a98d5e@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv2o8u9e-jfExX19MPKTzOpe3zCv9z5bDu7=jiLdezf33A@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 4:33 AM, Anders <anders at aleph.se> wrote:


?> ?
> Likely just to annoy John, there is a recent paper (
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.08522 ) arguing the early supermassive holes
> could be due to direct collapse of gas clouds. I cannot judge the
> likelihood of this, but it will be interesting to see how it turns out.
>


?Maybe early gas clouds did collapse to form Black Holes, but those types
of Black Holes can't be Dark matter because those gas clouds were made of
baryonic matter
? and we know from ?
nucleosynthesis
? that there was never nearly enough ?
baryonic matter
? to account for Dark Matter. And it's hard for me to believe that
baryonic matter
? can account for the Black Hole pair that LIGO found either.

?A

?Black Hole pair like the one LIGO found has
 existed for 13.8 billion years
?,?
 but it only made enough noise for LIGO to hear it for a fifth of a second,
and yet LIGO managed to hear such a pair after just a few weeks of
listening. And it had not even reached it's full sensitivity yet. Either
the LIGO people were extraordinarily lucky or there are one hell of a lot
of Black Holes out there, perhaps enough to account for Dark Matter. LIGO
goes back online in September
?(and will be joined by VIRGO) ?
so we should
?be able to straighten ?out what's going on
 before the end of the year.

?John K Clark ?

? ?







>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160525/5fe6c3ff/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Wed May 25 15:42:26 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 11:42:26 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Has the mystery of Dark Matter been solved?
In-Reply-To: <410e2e78-8ee7-aa4e-4c01-5f6882a98d5e@aleph.se>
References: <CAJPayv2H23CxAO4qP2U4iTySE-SJjTiXYkBUvPHY5rhX0eABLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <E602614E-C8B4-45BD-A144-B45E2540987A@gmu.edu>
 <410e2e78-8ee7-aa4e-4c01-5f6882a98d5e@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv3iJ-We7yrjVNHEjDMn4fAH-YRJGyy7uuMaXD9TKn=tQQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 4:33 AM, Anders <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

?> ?
> Likely just to annoy John, there is a recent paper (
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.08522 ) arguing the early supermassive holes
> could be due to direct collapse of gas clouds. I cannot judge the
> likelihood of this, but it will be interesting to see how it turns out.
>

?Maybe early gas clouds did collapse to form Black Holes, but those types
of Black Holes can't be Dark matter because those gas clouds were made of
baryonic matter
? and we know from ?
nucleosynthesis
? that there was never nearly enough ?
baryonic matter
? to account for Dark Matter. And it's hard for me to believe that
baryonic matter
? can account for the Black Hole pair that LIGO found either.

?A

?Black Hole pair like the one LIGO found has
 existed for 13.8 billion years
?,?
but it only made enough noise for LIGO to hear it for a fifth of a second,
and yet LIGO managed to hear such a pair after just a few weeks of
listening. And it had not even reached it's full sensitivity yet. Either
the LIGO people were extraordinarily lucky or there are one hell of a lot
of Black Holes out there, perhaps enough to account for Dark Matter. LIGO
goes back online in September
?(and will be joined by VIRGO) ?
so we should
?be able to straighten ?out what's going on
 before the end of the year.

?John K Clark ?

? ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160525/3a213b76/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Thu May 26 05:51:36 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 22:51:36 -0700
Subject: [ExI] 176,500 YA?
Message-ID: <EAD71605-A371-4A1A-BEF8-0AB0E2B5B35B@gmail.com>

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/05/the-astonishing-age-of-a-neanderthal-cave-construction-site/484070/

I reckon it shouldn't be that shocking.

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/20160525/770f1fb8/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Wed May 25 23:25:39 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 18:25:39 -0500
Subject: [ExI] an ai wrote this script
In-Reply-To: <02f6ea78-ae26-af69-a2c7-4e09c12ec957@aleph.se>
References: <050401d1b60e$2a8dd2b0$7fa97810$@att.net>
 <02f6ea78-ae26-af69-a2c7-4e09c12ec957@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEbLW86Z85OKY6-oCtdnHd-Ni0WRD50sxFYPs3Q629O8rg@mail.gmail.com>

I have a feeling this is quite doable, and might be really helpful in a
semi-interactive way. The user sees the output, adds in the "foreign" trait
to the protagonist child to give the social property, re-evaluates the
script, and ends up with a short story about racism at xmas. Or a sad
comedy about X's inability to handle snow.


anders


I read a few years ago about a computer that could compose write popular
music that was very listenable.  I did not follow it up because I am not
interested in popular.  (Of course in classical, you can find some that
seems to have been written by a random numbers table (1930s and
afterwards).  Ugly ugly 'music'. )


Is this an AI thing?  Anyone?


bill w

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 3:45 AM, Anders <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> Writing a script is fairly trivial if you use a fill-in-the-blanks
> approach: it will produce either a random story, or a cliche fest. Writing
> a *good* script requires conveying some emotions or thoughts in a
> nontrivial way, which is currently hard for AI. But I think one could do
> interesting things here.
>
> Imagine a semantic network of concepts, trained on a large corpus of human
> data. Snow is connected to cold which is connected to loneliness, as well
> as xmas and snowball fights that are connected to childhood. You activate a
> few nodes to act as bias, and use the activation spread to generate
> associations.
>
> Then you use the active part of the network as a value filter for "ideas"
> generated by a script generator: the script generator tries various
> characters, actions, scenes etc. and the network checks which ones fit the
> overall structure. This might be a hierarchical process: an overall story
> arch is tried, then parts made. For example, if the theme is loneliness the
> script might generate various things until it hits on "Protagonist X tries
> to join group Y but is rebuffed because of Z" which gets thumbs up from the
> network. The script now tries to fill in X, Y, Z and since the network will
> have the activations it might promote X=child, Y=xmas celebration, Z=snow.
> So we get a structure where a kid is refused to join a party because she is
> snowy (which a human will recognize is a rationalisation for some other
> social property).
>
> I have a feeling this is quite doable, and might be really helpful in a
> semi-interactive way. The user sees the output, adds in the "foreign" trait
> to the protagonist child to give the social property, re-evaluates the
> script, and ends up with a short story about racism at xmas. Or a sad
> comedy about X's inability to handle snow.
>
>
>
> On 2016-05-25 00:46, spike wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> I now have an explanation for that video which enraged the Presbyterian
> world and caused the attack on the American Embassy: it was written by an
> AI.
>
>
>
> Or perhaps not, but I have seen videos written by humans weirder and
> dumber than this one:
>
>
>
>
> http://singularityhub.com/2016/05/24/an-ai-wrote-this-short-film-and-its-surprisingly-entertaining/
>
>
>
> Those of you who played computer chess in the 1970s know how bad it was
> and how some of its moves were so absurd it would leave you howling with
> derisive laughter.  The programmers failed to write an embarrassment module
> and a hopelessness module into their software.  But even in those benighted
> times, the computer software could beat some humans, assuming the humans
> were stoned and already sucked anyway.
>
>
>
> So now, we have computer-generated movie scripts.  For now, Aaron Sorkin
> can rest with confidence that unemployment is not a near-term threat.  But
> chess software improved.  It was playing a reasonable game by the mid
> 1980s, and was getting good by 1990.  Deep Blue beat Kasparov at his peak
> in 1997.
>
>
>
> So, will computers ever write a good movie script?
>
>
>
> spike
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160525/e8426d8e/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Thu May 26 15:03:57 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 08:03:57 -0700
Subject: [ExI] an ai wrote this script
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEbLW86Z85OKY6-oCtdnHd-Ni0WRD50sxFYPs3Q629O8rg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <050401d1b60e$2a8dd2b0$7fa97810$@att.net>
 <02f6ea78-ae26-af69-a2c7-4e09c12ec957@aleph.se>
 <CAO+xQEbLW86Z85OKY6-oCtdnHd-Ni0WRD50sxFYPs3Q629O8rg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <70AF488A-A7BF-4FC4-91B8-27BD5BFA75EF@gmail.com>

On May 25, 2016, at 4:25 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I read a few years ago about a computer that could compose write popular music that was very listenable.  I did not follow it up because I am not interested in popular.  (Of course in classical, you can find some that seems to have been written by a random numbers table (1930s and afterwards).  Ugly ugly 'music'. )
> 
> 
> 
> Is this an AI thing?  Anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> bill w
> 

See http://www.jair.org/media/3908/live-3908-7454-jair.pdf

Algorithms can generate different styles of music now, including 'classical.' E.g., listen to this program that uses Fux's rules of counterpoint (strictly speaking, baroque music-like) to generate a piece:

https://youtu.be/6-GI0we1tBQ

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/20160526/6fb9bc6a/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Thu May 26 15:28:46 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 08:28:46 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Has the mystery of Dark Matter been solved?
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv3iJ-We7yrjVNHEjDMn4fAH-YRJGyy7uuMaXD9TKn=tQQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv2H23CxAO4qP2U4iTySE-SJjTiXYkBUvPHY5rhX0eABLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <E602614E-C8B4-45BD-A144-B45E2540987A@gmu.edu>
 <410e2e78-8ee7-aa4e-4c01-5f6882a98d5e@aleph.se>
 <CAJPayv3iJ-We7yrjVNHEjDMn4fAH-YRJGyy7uuMaXD9TKn=tQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00e101d1b763$4bb87480$e3295d80$@att.net>

 

 

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



>?LIGO goes back online in September 

?(and will be joined by VIRGO) ?

so we should 

?be able to straighten ?out what's going on

 before the end of the year.

?John K Clark 

 

 

Oh my evolution, is this a fun time to be alive or what?  

 

I can?t quite get past this comment I heard at the SLAC lecture: we already detected one pair of colliding black holes, but we only listened for a few days.  SETI has been all ears for years, decades, and we get a big goose egg, a NADA in all caps.  LIGO, we turn it on, and BOOM there it is, Merry Christmas and Happy New Insight to everyone who knows what that little chirp means and why this lecture packed a huge hall to standing room only and why this result just toe-curling screaming-orgasm cool.

 

Reason: we don?t just get that lucky.  I can?t imagine when we go back online it will take years to get the next hit.  It must be we get something like this about every? month?  Few weeks?  Couple months?  If so? we need to rethink our notions on why at least part of dark matter can?t be black holes.  I haven?t been so delightfully uncertain in several years.

 

spike

?

 

? ?

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160526/254dd9df/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Thu May 26 15:18:47 2016
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 16:18:47 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Should we teach Strong AI Ethics?
Message-ID: <CAL_armg5N_ehYijL6ZTYTVZfTUZv=OCPwuPrLpvTgr6Vtfa=xg@mail.gmail.com>

<http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4122>

Serious point though.
If we teach AI about ethical behaviour (for our own safety) what do we
expect the AI to do when it sees humans behaving unethically (to a
greater or lesser extent)?

Can a totally ethical AI even operate successfully among humans?

BillK


From foozler83 at gmail.com  Thu May 26 16:03:25 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 11:03:25 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Should we teach Strong AI Ethics?
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armg5N_ehYijL6ZTYTVZfTUZv=OCPwuPrLpvTgr6Vtfa=xg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armg5N_ehYijL6ZTYTVZfTUZv=OCPwuPrLpvTgr6Vtfa=xg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZHtRZ5Ze543k_cUjV0mM7HniKF8_uHbow=A0MSLR16VQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:18 AM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> <http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4122>
>
> Serious point though.
> If we teach AI about ethical behaviour (for our own safety) what do we
> expect the AI to do when it sees humans behaving unethically (to a
> greater or lesser extent)?
>
> Can a totally ethical AI even operate successfully among humans?
>
> BillK
>

?Would you write a code for an AI that told it to compare humans and AIs?
Do you really want to confuse it?  Put an AI in charge of censorship and
there goes civilization as we know it.

Of course I do not know the extent to which an AI can do or be programmed
to do, independent thinking, so maybe you will inform me.

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/20160526/4d8dca86/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Thu May 26 17:55:51 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 10:55:51 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Should we teach Strong AI Ethics?
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEZHtRZ5Ze543k_cUjV0mM7HniKF8_uHbow=A0MSLR16VQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armg5N_ehYijL6ZTYTVZfTUZv=OCPwuPrLpvTgr6Vtfa=xg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZHtRZ5Ze543k_cUjV0mM7HniKF8_uHbow=A0MSLR16VQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <17F982E8-3A8F-40F1-98BA-47C08E9E87C6@gmail.com>

On May 26, 2016, at 9:03 AM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:18 AM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
>> <http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4122>
>> 
>> Serious point though.
>> If we teach AI about ethical behaviour (for our own safety) what do we
>> expect the AI to do when it sees humans behaving unethically (to a
>> greater or lesser extent)?
>> 
>> Can a totally ethical AI even operate successfully among humans?
>> 
>> BillK
> 
> ?Would you write a code for an AI that told it to compare humans and AIs?  Do you really want to confuse it?  Put an AI in charge of censorship and there goes civilization as we know it.

Why would it be ethical to have censorship in the first place? It's like saying "Put an AI in charge of slavery..."

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/20160526/cead850b/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Thu May 26 21:20:49 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 23:20:49 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Should we teach Strong AI Ethics?
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armg5N_ehYijL6ZTYTVZfTUZv=OCPwuPrLpvTgr6Vtfa=xg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armg5N_ehYijL6ZTYTVZfTUZv=OCPwuPrLpvTgr6Vtfa=xg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3c75d495-c51b-962f-5349-30cd21da6704@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-26 17:18, BillK wrote:
> <http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4122>
>
> Serious point though.
> If we teach AI about ethical behaviour (for our own safety) what do we
> expect the AI to do when it sees humans behaving unethically (to a
> greater or lesser extent)?
>
> Can a totally ethical AI even operate successfully among humans?

What is "totally ethical"?

[Philosopher hat on!]

Normally when we say something like that, we mean somebody who follows 
the One True moral system perfectly. Or at least one moral system 
perfectly. There are no humans that do it, so we do not have reliable 
intuitions about what it would mean. Now, a caricature view  of moral 
perfection is somebody being a saintly wuss: super kind, but exploitable 
by imperfect and nasty actors.

But there is no reason to think this is the only choice. You could 
imagine a morally perfect Objectivist, following rules of enlightened 
selfishness. Or a perfect average utilitarian maximizing the average 
happiness of all entities in our future lightcone. Neither would be a 
pushover ("If I give you my wallet there will be less resources for my 
von Neumann probe program. So, no, I will not give it to you. In fact, I 
will now force you to give me your money - I see that this will enable a 
further quintillion minds. Thank you.") Convergent instrumental goal 
behavior likely tends to turn wussy nice agents non-wussy.

There is an interesting issue about what to do with imperfect moral 
agents if you are a perfect one. A Kantian agent would presumably 
respect their autonomy and try to guide them to see how to obey the 
categorical imperative. A consequentialist agent would try to manipulate 
them to behave better, but the means might be anything from incentives 
to persuation to brainwashing. A virtue agent might not care at all, 
just demonstrating its own excellence. A paperclip maximizing agent 
would find non-paperclip maximizers a waste of resources and work to 
remove them.

In fact, most pure moral systems are very bad at "live and let live". We 
humans tend to de facto behave like that because our power is about 
equal; entities that are orders of magnitude more powerful may not 
behave like that unless we get the value code just right.

-- 
Dr 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/20160526/3d37f4bc/attachment.html>

From col.hales at gmail.com  Thu May 26 23:07:59 2016
From: col.hales at gmail.com (Colin Hales)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 09:07:59 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Should we teach Strong AI Ethics?
In-Reply-To: <3c75d495-c51b-962f-5349-30cd21da6704@aleph.se>
References: <CAL_armg5N_ehYijL6ZTYTVZfTUZv=OCPwuPrLpvTgr6Vtfa=xg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3c75d495-c51b-962f-5349-30cd21da6704@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAGHyZJkrEO2-WhqFekbn8mq5QwVhUOkspL8qkcZc4_1FcgRTJQ@mail.gmail.com>

<http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4122>
<http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4122>

<sigh> The technical term 'strong AI', has reached its graveyard in the
popular lexicon. I read the first box "Strong AI invented" and saw
"{Hypothesis} invented". Interesting to watch Searle's terminology get bent
and broken by a crowd and ignorance. A bit like ethics, really.


On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> On 2016-05-26 17:18, BillK wrote:
>
> <http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4122> <http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4122>
>
> Serious point though.
> If we teach AI about ethical behaviour (for our own safety) what do we
> expect the AI to do when it sees humans behaving unethically (to a
> greater or lesser extent)?
>
> Can a totally ethical AI even operate successfully among humans?
>
>
> What is "totally ethical"?
>
> [Philosopher hat on!]
>
> Normally when we say something like that, we mean somebody who follows the
> One True moral system perfectly. Or at least one moral system perfectly.
> There are no humans that do it, so we do not have reliable intuitions about
> what it would mean. Now, a caricature view  of moral perfection is somebody
> being a saintly wuss: super kind, but exploitable by imperfect and nasty
> actors.
>
> But there is no reason to think this is the only choice. You could imagine
> a morally perfect Objectivist, following rules of enlightened selfishness.
> Or a perfect average utilitarian maximizing the average happiness of all
> entities in our future lightcone. Neither would be a pushover ("If I give
> you my wallet there will be less resources for my von Neumann probe
> program. So, no, I will not give it to you. In fact, I will now force you
> to give me your money - I see that this will enable a further quintillion
> minds. Thank you.") Convergent instrumental goal behavior likely tends to
> turn wussy nice agents non-wussy.
>
> There is an interesting issue about what to do with imperfect moral agents
> if you are a perfect one. A Kantian agent would presumably respect their
> autonomy and try to guide them to see how to obey the categorical
> imperative. A consequentialist agent would try to manipulate them to behave
> better, but the means might be anything from incentives to persuation to
> brainwashing. A virtue agent might not care at all, just demonstrating its
> own excellence. A paperclip maximizing agent would find non-paperclip
> maximizers a waste of resources and work to remove them.
>
> In fact, most pure moral systems are very bad at "live and let live". We
> humans tend to de facto behave like that because our power is about equal;
> entities that are orders of magnitude more powerful may not behave like
> that unless we get the value code just right.
>
> --
> Dr 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/20160527/e9582a8a/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Fri May 27 01:37:13 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 20:37:13 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Should we teach Strong AI Ethics?
In-Reply-To: <3c75d495-c51b-962f-5349-30cd21da6704@aleph.se>
References: <CAL_armg5N_ehYijL6ZTYTVZfTUZv=OCPwuPrLpvTgr6Vtfa=xg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3c75d495-c51b-962f-5349-30cd21da6704@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEYQt+hjOWVhzDs9faJLd8AMcrTHS9eDwGgx9=G8fdJvKQ@mail.gmail.com>

In fact, most pure moral systems are very bad at "live and let live". We
humans tend to de facto behave like that because our power is about equal;
entities that are orders of magnitude more powerful may not behave like
that unless we get the value code just right.   anders

I find that people who construct moral systems, as well as those who just
interpret them, are often less concerned about being right than with other
people being wrong/bad.

In the American South, sermons, of which I have heard hundreds, from
Baptist to Episcopalian, are full of fingerpointing, though sometimes at
oneself.  And the more vociferous (Baptist) the better for those who like
to hear about how bad the bad guys are (and by comparison how righteous we
are).  Or if you are listening to this and are a bad guy, you break down
emotionally and come forward to be saved and give your testimony.

It would be very easy to program an AI to sermonize like this.  Just get
books of sermons and have the AI scramble them, and perhaps use different
examples (something real preachers do all the time), and you could go into
business as a Dial a Sermon (ClickOn a Sermon perhaps?).

It would be hilarious (to us) and make tons of money.

I'll bet Spike has some ideas on the visuals.

bill w

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> On 2016-05-26 17:18, BillK wrote:
>
> <http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4122> <http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4122>
>
> Serious point though.
> If we teach AI about ethical behaviour (for our own safety) what do we
> expect the AI to do when it sees humans behaving unethically (to a
> greater or lesser extent)?
>
> Can a totally ethical AI even operate successfully among humans?
>
>
> What is "totally ethical"?
>
> [Philosopher hat on!]
>
> Normally when we say something like that, we mean somebody who follows the
> One True moral system perfectly. Or at least one moral system perfectly.
> There are no humans that do it, so we do not have reliable intuitions about
> what it would mean. Now, a caricature view  of moral perfection is somebody
> being a saintly wuss: super kind, but exploitable by imperfect and nasty
> actors.
>
> But there is no reason to think this is the only choice. You could imagine
> a morally perfect Objectivist, following rules of enlightened selfishness.
> Or a perfect average utilitarian maximizing the average happiness of all
> entities in our future lightcone. Neither would be a pushover ("If I give
> you my wallet there will be less resources for my von Neumann probe
> program. So, no, I will not give it to you. In fact, I will now force you
> to give me your money - I see that this will enable a further quintillion
> minds. Thank you.") Convergent instrumental goal behavior likely tends to
> turn wussy nice agents non-wussy.
>
> There is an interesting issue about what to do with imperfect moral agents
> if you are a perfect one. A Kantian agent would presumably respect their
> autonomy and try to guide them to see how to obey the categorical
> imperative. A consequentialist agent would try to manipulate them to behave
> better, but the means might be anything from incentives to persuation to
> brainwashing. A virtue agent might not care at all, just demonstrating its
> own excellence. A paperclip maximizing agent would find non-paperclip
> maximizers a waste of resources and work to remove them.
>
> In fact, most pure moral systems are very bad at "live and let live". We
> humans tend to de facto behave like that because our power is about equal;
> entities that are orders of magnitude more powerful may not behave like
> that unless we get the value code just right.
>
> --
> Dr 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/20160526/e6c8ef3f/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Thu May 26 14:40:38 2016
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 15:40:38 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Has the mystery of Dark Matter been solved?
In-Reply-To: <410e2e78-8ee7-aa4e-4c01-5f6882a98d5e@aleph.se>
References: <CAJPayv2H23CxAO4qP2U4iTySE-SJjTiXYkBUvPHY5rhX0eABLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <E602614E-C8B4-45BD-A144-B45E2540987A@gmu.edu>
 <410e2e78-8ee7-aa4e-4c01-5f6882a98d5e@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAL_armgkgfioRZo_88NBCWvEuBF9b8oXoXmd-V1RWbd118EZDg@mail.gmail.com>

On 25 May 2016 at 09:33, Anders wrote:
> Likely just to annoy John, there is a recent paper (
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.08522 ) arguing the early supermassive holes could
> be due to direct collapse of gas clouds. I cannot judge the likelihood of
> this, but it will be interesting to see how it turns out.
>
>

Ethan Siegel discusses why black holes = dark matter is unlikely.
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/05/26/black-holes-as-dark-matter-heres-why-the-idea-falls-apart/#687e2a006d7b>

Quote:
As soon as this idea was first suggested, it was recognized that there
were a number of restrictions on this possibility. Whenever a mass
passes between your line-of-sight and a distant object, that mass acts
like a gravitational lens, thanks to Einstein?s relativity. The effect
of a transiting dense, dark object ? known as microlensing ? has been
searched for at some length. While there is some microlensing seen due
to these compact masses in our galactic halo, they?ve been more useful
as far as constraining what fraction of the matter could be at the
larger end of these primordial black holes. In addition, if the black
holes are too small in mass, they?ll evaporate due to Hawking
radiation.

All told, observations of

the lack of Hawking radiation,
gamma-ray-burst microlensing,
neutron star capture in globular clusters,
traditional microlensing,
and the cosmic infrared and microwave backgrounds,

tell us that we can?t have primordial black holes make up the majority
of dark matter over a wide variety of mass ranges.
-------------


BillK



From spike66 at att.net  Fri May 27 05:04:26 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 22:04:26 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Has the mystery of Dark Matter been solved?
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armgkgfioRZo_88NBCWvEuBF9b8oXoXmd-V1RWbd118EZDg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv2H23CxAO4qP2U4iTySE-SJjTiXYkBUvPHY5rhX0eABLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <E602614E-C8B4-45BD-A144-B45E2540987A@gmu.edu>
 <410e2e78-8ee7-aa4e-4c01-5f6882a98d5e@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armgkgfioRZo_88NBCWvEuBF9b8oXoXmd-V1RWbd118EZDg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <001f01d1b7d5$3e6af8d0$bb40ea70$@att.net>


>... On Behalf Of BillK
Subject: Re: [ExI] Has the mystery of Dark Matter been solved?

On 25 May 2016 at 09:33, Anders wrote:
>>... Likely just to annoy John, there is a recent paper (
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.08522 ) arguing the early supermassive holes 
> could be due to direct collapse of gas clouds. I cannot judge the 
> likelihood of this, but it will be interesting to see how it turns out.
>
>

>...Ethan Siegel discusses why black holes = dark matter is unlikely.
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/05/26/black-holes-as-dark-matter-heres-why-the-idea-falls-apart/#687e2a006d7b>

...BillK

_______________________________________________


Ja, however... the best way to look at physics theories is to think of them as analogous to software.  Many or most of us here have written software and gotten it working, then later found it has something in it that isn't working right, some subtle remains bug somewhere, and good luck finding it.  I must allow the possibility that our current theories on the early universe might still have some subtle bug in there somewhere.  

Otherwise, our seeing a black hole merger just a few days after turning on LIGO was one hell of a stroke of luck.

Unless I misunderstood, LIGO has run a total of 18 days so far, and never with full instrumentation (it was a test synchronization with only partial capability running last September.)  LIGO isn't going on line at full capacity for a few months yet.  So... before I can assume our current model is completely correct, I want to wait for at least a couple years of data to come in.  My understanding of the abundance of black holes suggests we wouldn't be likely to see another event like that again very soon.  So what if we turn the thing on and see a merger like that one every couple months?  We will be reviewing our notions on early black hole formation.

spike




From msd001 at gmail.com  Thu May 26 23:58:20 2016
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 19:58:20 -0400
Subject: [ExI] an ai wrote this script
In-Reply-To: <02f6ea78-ae26-af69-a2c7-4e09c12ec957@aleph.se>
References: <050401d1b60e$2a8dd2b0$7fa97810$@att.net>
 <02f6ea78-ae26-af69-a2c7-4e09c12ec957@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAOJFdbL_6shOvtrx6D-PrbuoBBsuH-ZaSmR7L=SMZj0RrjqVYg@mail.gmail.com>

On May 25, 2016 5:25 PM, "Anders" <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> I have a feeling this is quite doable, and might be really helpful in a
semi-interactive way. The user sees the output, adds in the "foreign" trait
to the protagonist child to give the social property, re-evaluates the
script, and ends up with a short story about racism at xmas. Or a sad
comedy about X's inability to handle snow.

Isn't this what modern video games are approaching?  I have a very
intelligent coworker who freely admits that while at work he is thinking
about Fallout 4, but doesn't not think about work while playing Fallout 4.
These games are becoming so immersive that those who are susceptible to
this kind of addiction may soon be unable to escape.  I wouldn't be
surprised if VR eventually keeps this guy from ever coming back to work
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160526/0cec3cf4/attachment.html>

From sparge at gmail.com  Thu May 26 14:05:56 2016
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 10:05:56 -0400
Subject: [ExI] The fraudulent claims made by IBM about Watson and AI
Message-ID: <CAM5aL2etLiQmuYaSnFdCij4_3Tz=9a6OKPFrMeZ4BDpcG26O5w@mail.gmail.com>

http://www.rogerschank.com/fraudulent-claims-made-by-IBM-about-Watson-and-AI
They are not doing "cognitive computing" no matter how many times they say
they are

I was chatting with an old friend yesterday and he reminded me of a
conversation we had nearly 50 years ago. I tried to explain to him what I
did for living and he was trying to understand why getting computers to
understand was more complicated than key word analysis. I explained about
concepts underlying sentences and explained that sentences used words but
that people really didn?t use words in their minds except to get to the
underlying ideas and that computers were having a hard time with that.

Fifty years later, key words are still dominating the thoughts of people
who try to get computers to deal with language. But, this time, the key
word people have deceived the general public by making claims that this is
thinking, that AI is here, and that, by the way we should be very afraid,
or very excited, I forget which.

We were making some good progress on getting computers to understand
language but, in 1984, AI winter started. AI winter was a result of too
many promises about things AI could do that it really could not do. (This
was about promoting expert systems. Where are they now?). Funding dried up
and real work on natural language processing died too.

But still people promote key words because Google and others use it to do
"search". Search is all well and good when we are counting words, which is
what data analytics and machine learning are really all about. Of course,
once you count words you can do all kinds of correlations and users can
learn about what words often connect to each other and make use of that
information. But, users have learned to accommodate to Google not the other
way around. We know what kinds of things we can type into Google and what
we can?t and we keep our searches to things that Google is likely to help
with. We know we are looking for texts and not answers to start a
conversation with an entity that knows what we really need to talk about.
People learn from conversation and Google can?t have one. It can pretend to
have one using Siri but really those conversations tend to get tiresome
when you are past asking about where to eat.

But, I am not worried about Google. It works well enough for our needs.

What I am concerned about are the exaggerated claims being made by IBM
about their Watson program. Recently they ran an ad featuring Bob Dylan
which made laugh, or would have, if had made not me so angry. I will say it
clearly: Watson is a fraud. I am not saying that it can?t crunch words, and
there may well be value in that to some people. But the ads are fraudulent.

Here is something from Ad Week:

The computer brags it can read 800 million pages per second, identifying
key themes in Dylan's work, like "time passes" and "love fades."

Ann Rubin, IBM's vp of branded content and global creative, told Adweek
that the commercials were needed to help people understand the new world of
cognitive computing.

"We're focusing on the advertising here, but this is really more than an
advertising campaign," Rubin said. "It's a point of view that IBM has, and
it's going across all of our marketing, our internal communications, how we
engage sellers and our employees. It's really across everything that we do."

IBM says the latest series is meant to help a broader audience - companies,
decision makers and software developers - better understand how Watson
works. Unlike traditionally programmed computers, cognitive systems such as
Watson understand, reason, and learn. The company says industries such as
banking, insurance, healthcare and retail can all benefit.

Rubin said Watson's abilities "outthink" human brains in areas where
finding insights and connections can be difficult due to the abundance of
data.

"You can outthink cancer, outthink risk, outthink doubt, outthink
competitors if you embrace this idea of cognitive computing," she said.

Really? I am a child of the 60s? and I remember Dylan?s songs well enough.
Ask anyone from that era about Bob Dylan and no one will tell you his main
theme was "love fades". He was a protest singer, and a singer about the
hard knocks of life. He was part of the anti-war movement. Love fades? That
would be a dumb computer counting words. How would Watson see that many of
Dylan?s songs were part of the anti-war movement? Does he say anti-war a
lot? He probably never said it in a song.

This is from this site
<http://ultimateclassicrock.com/bob-dylan-protest-songs/?trackback=tsmclip>
:

In our No. 1 Bob Dylan protest song, 'The Times They Are a-Changin,' Dylan
went all out and combined the folk protest movement of the 1960's with the
civil rights movement. The shorter verses piled upon one another in a
powerful way, and lyrics like, "There's a battle outside and it is ragin' /
It?ll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls / For the times they
are a-changin'," are iconic Dylan statements that manage to transcend the
times.

But he doesn't mention Viet Nam or Civil Rights. So Watson wouldn't know
that he had anything to do with those issues. It is possible to talk about
something and have the words themselves not be very telling. Background
knowledge matters a lot. I asked a 20 something about Bob Dylan a few days
ago and he had never heard of him. He didn?t know much about the 60?s.
Neither does Watson. You can?t understand words if you don?t know their
context.

Suppose I told you that I heard a friend was buying a lot of sleeping pills
and I was worried. Would Watson say I hear you are thinking about suicide?
Would Watson suggest we hurry over and talk to our friend about their
problems? Of course not. People understand in context because they know
about the world and real issues in people's lives. They don't count words.

Here is more from another site:

Saying that Bob Dylan <http://ultimateclassicrock.com/tags/bob-dylan/> is
the father of folk music
<http://ultimateclassicrock.com/bob-dylans-newport-folk-festival-guitar-discovered/>
is probably overstepping a bit. However, saying that the vocalist is one of
the most prominent writers of anti-war and protest songs in the 20th
century is spot on, thus making him worthy of a Top 10 Bob Dylan Protest
Songs list. The singer did change his range from anti-establishment to
country to pop and back to folk again, *and he remains a seminal force*
<http://ultimateclassicrock.com/bob-dylan-rolling-stones-among-most-collectible-records-of-all-time/>
for those who rage against "The Man."

That was written by a human. How do I know? Because Watson can?t draw real
conclusions by counting words in 800 million pages of text.

Of course, what upsets me most is not Watson but what IBM actually says.
>From the quote above:

Unlike traditionally programmed computers, cognitive systems such as Watson
understand, reason, and learn.

Ann Rubin, IBM's vp of branded content and global creative, told Adweek
that the commercials were needed to help people understand the new world of
cognitive computing.

I wrote a book called The Cognitive Computer
<http://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Computer-Language-Artificial-Intelligence/dp/020106443X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1447943815&sr=8-1&keywords=cognitive+computer>
 in 1984:

I started a company called Cognitive Systems in 1981. The things I was
talking about then clearly have not been read by IBM (although they seem to
like the words I used.) Watson is not reasoning. You can only reason if you
have goals, plans, ways of attaining them, a comprehension of the beliefs
that others may have, and a knowledge of past experiences to reason from. A
point of view helps too. What is Watson?s view on ISIS for example?

Dumb question? Actual thinking entities have a point of view about ISIS.
Dog?s don?t but Watson isn't as smart as a dog either. (The dog knows how
to get my attention for example.)

I invented a field called Case Based Reasoning in the 80?s which was meant
to enable computers to compare new situations to old ones and then modify
what the computer knew as a result. We were able to build some useful
systems. And we learned a lot about human learning. Did I think we had
created computers that were now going to outthink people or soon become
conscious? Of course not. I thought we had begun to create computers that
would be more useful to people.

It would be nice if IBM would tone down the hype and let people know what
Watson can actually do and stop making up nonsense about love fading and
out thinking cancer. IBM is simply lying now and they need to stop.

AI winter is coming soon.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160526/c7540d5b/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Thu May 26 19:49:41 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 14:49:41 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Should we teach Strong AI Ethics?
In-Reply-To: <17F982E8-3A8F-40F1-98BA-47C08E9E87C6@gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armg5N_ehYijL6ZTYTVZfTUZv=OCPwuPrLpvTgr6Vtfa=xg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZHtRZ5Ze543k_cUjV0mM7HniKF8_uHbow=A0MSLR16VQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <17F982E8-3A8F-40F1-98BA-47C08E9E87C6@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEaWVP8ATmw9BbPaui6db4J9uhAeHQz4xCgzAqFLFOVHcg@mail.gmail.com>

Why would it be ethical to have censorship in the first place? It's like
saying "Put an AI in charge of slavery..."

Dan

Well Dan I hate to tell you this, but we have censorship now in TV, movies,
books and maybe more.  I read recently that about 40k books are published
every month and some one has the say-so about its going on sale somewhere
(where might be determined by its rating).

I can easily see an AI being used for some of the labor of digesting all
this material.  I also think an AI would never be in charge of actual
censorship, but the AI could kick out books, movies, that fudge certain
guidelines so that a human, or a committee, or the Supreme Court could
decide what to do with it.

Even with my level of ignorance I am sure an AI can do most of these things
now.  Eh?

Now whether there should BE any kind of censorship is an entirely different
question, one that could be debated in this group if it hasn't before (not
likely).  Great question for libertarians.  I'd start it off by stating
that most censorship for children is unfortunate and tries to hide aspects
of the adult world that they will eventually learn (and thus view their
parents and teachers as hypocrites at the least), and be unprepared for.
Not only sex:  George Washington stole property while he was a general.
Most famous people did bad things and we tell children only the good
things.  Why we should try to create an Eden for them, actually promote
their 'innocence', is a mystery to me.  As for sex. many poor children see
it on a daily basis in their homes and seem to survive the experience.

The other side of this coin is telling children about Santa and all the
rest of the fantasy world we have constructed for children, which we then
present as real.

Are we crazy?
bill w

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On May 26, 2016, at 9:03 AM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:18 AM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> <http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4122>
>>
>> Serious point though.
>> If we teach AI about ethical behaviour (for our own safety) what do we
>> expect the AI to do when it sees humans behaving unethically (to a
>> greater or lesser extent)?
>>
>> Can a totally ethical AI even operate successfully among humans?
>>
>> BillK
>>
>
> ?Would you write a code for an AI that told it to compare humans and AIs?
> Do you really want to confuse it?  Put an AI in charge of censorship and
> there goes civilization as we know it.
>
>
> Why would it be ethical to have censorship in the first place? It's like
> saying "Put an AI in charge of slavery..."
>
> 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/20160526/b6f7a631/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Fri May 27 07:21:57 2016
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 17:21:57 +1000
Subject: [ExI] The fraudulent claims made by IBM about Watson and AI
In-Reply-To: <CAM5aL2etLiQmuYaSnFdCij4_3Tz=9a6OKPFrMeZ4BDpcG26O5w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM5aL2etLiQmuYaSnFdCij4_3Tz=9a6OKPFrMeZ4BDpcG26O5w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH=2ypWNKrSm9OYrxFBkJOY6WmO-iaXXgtNGW-ud6vVbzdBc8w@mail.gmail.com>

On Friday, 27 May 2016, Dave Sill <sparge at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> http://www.rogerschank.com/fraudulent-claims-made-by-IBM-about-Watson-and-AI
> They are not doing "cognitive computing" no matter how many times they say
> they are
>
> I was chatting with an old friend yesterday and he reminded me of a
> conversation we had nearly 50 years ago. I tried to explain to him what I
> did for living and he was trying to understand why getting computers to
> understand was more complicated than key word analysis. I explained about
> concepts underlying sentences and explained that sentences used words but
> that people really didn?t use words in their minds except to get to the
> underlying ideas and that computers were having a hard time with that.
>
> Fifty years later, key words are still dominating the thoughts of people
> who try to get computers to deal with language. But, this time, the key
> word people have deceived the general public by making claims that this is
> thinking, that AI is here, and that, by the way we should be very afraid,
> or very excited, I forget which.
>
> We were making some good progress on getting computers to understand
> language but, in 1984, AI winter started. AI winter was a result of too
> many promises about things AI could do that it really could not do. (This
> was about promoting expert systems. Where are they now?). Funding dried up
> and real work on natural language processing died too.
>
> But still people promote key words because Google and others use it to do
> "search". Search is all well and good when we are counting words, which is
> what data analytics and machine learning are really all about. Of course,
> once you count words you can do all kinds of correlations and users can
> learn about what words often connect to each other and make use of that
> information. But, users have learned to accommodate to Google not the other
> way around. We know what kinds of things we can type into Google and what
> we can?t and we keep our searches to things that Google is likely to help
> with. We know we are looking for texts and not answers to start a
> conversation with an entity that knows what we really need to talk about.
> People learn from conversation and Google can?t have one. It can pretend to
> have one using Siri but really those conversations tend to get tiresome
> when you are past asking about where to eat.
>
> But, I am not worried about Google. It works well enough for our needs.
>
> What I am concerned about are the exaggerated claims being made by IBM
> about their Watson program. Recently they ran an ad featuring Bob Dylan
> which made laugh, or would have, if had made not me so angry. I will say it
> clearly: Watson is a fraud. I am not saying that it can?t crunch words, and
> there may well be value in that to some people. But the ads are fraudulent.
>
> Here is something from Ad Week:
>
> The computer brags it can read 800 million pages per second, identifying
> key themes in Dylan's work, like "time passes" and "love fades."
>
> Ann Rubin, IBM's vp of branded content and global creative, told Adweek
> that the commercials were needed to help people understand the new world of
> cognitive computing.
>
> "We're focusing on the advertising here, but this is really more than an
> advertising campaign," Rubin said. "It's a point of view that IBM has, and
> it's going across all of our marketing, our internal communications, how we
> engage sellers and our employees. It's really across everything that we do."
>
> IBM says the latest series is meant to help a broader audience -
> companies, decision makers and software developers - better understand how
> Watson works. Unlike traditionally programmed computers, cognitive systems
> such as Watson understand, reason, and learn. The company says industries
> such as banking, insurance, healthcare and retail can all benefit.
>
> Rubin said Watson's abilities "outthink" human brains in areas where
> finding insights and connections can be difficult due to the abundance of
> data.
>
> "You can outthink cancer, outthink risk, outthink doubt, outthink
> competitors if you embrace this idea of cognitive computing," she said.
>
> Really? I am a child of the 60s? and I remember Dylan?s songs well enough.
> Ask anyone from that era about Bob Dylan and no one will tell you his main
> theme was "love fades". He was a protest singer, and a singer about the
> hard knocks of life. He was part of the anti-war movement. Love fades? That
> would be a dumb computer counting words. How would Watson see that many of
> Dylan?s songs were part of the anti-war movement? Does he say anti-war a
> lot? He probably never said it in a song.
>
> This is from this site
> <http://ultimateclassicrock.com/bob-dylan-protest-songs/?trackback=tsmclip>
> :
>
> In our No. 1 Bob Dylan protest song, 'The Times They Are a-Changin,' Dylan
> went all out and combined the folk protest movement of the 1960's with the
> civil rights movement. The shorter verses piled upon one another in a
> powerful way, and lyrics like, "There's a battle outside and it is ragin' /
> It?ll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls / For the times they
> are a-changin'," are iconic Dylan statements that manage to transcend the
> times.
>
> But he doesn't mention Viet Nam or Civil Rights. So Watson wouldn't know
> that he had anything to do with those issues. It is possible to talk about
> something and have the words themselves not be very telling. Background
> knowledge matters a lot. I asked a 20 something about Bob Dylan a few days
> ago and he had never heard of him. He didn?t know much about the 60?s.
> Neither does Watson. You can?t understand words if you don?t know their
> context.
>
> Suppose I told you that I heard a friend was buying a lot of sleeping
> pills and I was worried. Would Watson say I hear you are thinking about
> suicide? Would Watson suggest we hurry over and talk to our friend about
> their problems? Of course not. People understand in context because they
> know about the world and real issues in people's lives. They don't count
> words.
>
> Here is more from another site:
>
> Saying that Bob Dylan <http://ultimateclassicrock.com/tags/bob-dylan/> is
> the father of folk music
> <http://ultimateclassicrock.com/bob-dylans-newport-folk-festival-guitar-discovered/>
> is probably overstepping a bit. However, saying that the vocalist is one of
> the most prominent writers of anti-war and protest songs in the 20th
> century is spot on, thus making him worthy of a Top 10 Bob Dylan Protest
> Songs list. The singer did change his range from anti-establishment to
> country to pop and back to folk again, *and he remains a seminal force*
> <http://ultimateclassicrock.com/bob-dylan-rolling-stones-among-most-collectible-records-of-all-time/>
> for those who rage against "The Man."
>
> That was written by a human. How do I know? Because Watson can?t draw real
> conclusions by counting words in 800 million pages of text.
>
> Of course, what upsets me most is not Watson but what IBM actually says.
> From the quote above:
>
> Unlike traditionally programmed computers, cognitive systems such as
> Watson understand, reason, and learn.
>
> Ann Rubin, IBM's vp of branded content and global creative, told Adweek
> that the commercials were needed to help people understand the new world of
> cognitive computing.
>
> I wrote a book called The Cognitive Computer
> <http://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Computer-Language-Artificial-Intelligence/dp/020106443X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1447943815&sr=8-1&keywords=cognitive+computer>
>  in 1984:
>
> I started a company called Cognitive Systems in 1981. The things I was
> talking about then clearly have not been read by IBM (although they seem to
> like the words I used.) Watson is not reasoning. You can only reason if you
> have goals, plans, ways of attaining them, a comprehension of the beliefs
> that others may have, and a knowledge of past experiences to reason from. A
> point of view helps too. What is Watson?s view on ISIS for example?
>
> Dumb question? Actual thinking entities have a point of view about ISIS.
> Dog?s don?t but Watson isn't as smart as a dog either. (The dog knows how
> to get my attention for example.)
>
> I invented a field called Case Based Reasoning in the 80?s which was meant
> to enable computers to compare new situations to old ones and then modify
> what the computer knew as a result. We were able to build some useful
> systems. And we learned a lot about human learning. Did I think we had
> created computers that were now going to outthink people or soon become
> conscious? Of course not. I thought we had begun to create computers that
> would be more useful to people.
>
> It would be nice if IBM would tone down the hype and let people know what
> Watson can actually do and stop making up nonsense about love fading and
> out thinking cancer. IBM is simply lying now and they need to stop.
>
> AI winter is coming soon.
>
To take just one of your examples, what would you say if Watson did
conclude that if your friend was buying a lot of sleeping pills suicide was
a possibility? Would that be evidence of understanding? Would *anything*
that Watson said be evidence of understanding?


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160527/e3bb2b7f/attachment.html>

From rocket at earthlight.com  Fri May 27 12:57:04 2016
From: rocket at earthlight.com (Re Rose)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 08:57:04 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Should we teach Strong AI Ethics?
Message-ID: <CAFVzX8ka5LtY7FrWYAJXWN=sS5a0oTDYmyEhwsQ4CJ9sC0y83A@mail.gmail.com>

AIs should not be "taught" ethics, or have someone's version of what is
ethical programmed into them in any way. This endeavor can be dangerous,
leading to unintended and potentially harmful consequences, and I find it
alarming that so many researchers in the field (and out of it as well!) are
seeking an "optimal" way to do this very thing. How could this goal be
reached? There is no single human system or theory of ethical behavior that
is entirely consistent (i.e., always leads to the same conclusion for the
same interaction or game), and there are, as Anders has pointed out, many
differing ideas of what is "ethical" anyway.

All human ethics originate from the practicalities (constraints) on
interactions as described by game theory. Game theory works because each
individual (or agent) acts in their own self-interest to maximize their own
payoff. Also to consider is that for any one agent and within a single,
local culture, that agent will necessarily be involved in many interacting
situations (or games) and the intersection of these would be non-linear
(and probably dynamic) combinations of all the game payoffs. This makes
prediction - and programming - of "correct" ethical behavior in such
situations impossible.

Future AGIs could and should be programmed - or simply allowed - to develop
their own ethics by acting as independent agents and maximizing their own
utility for a given situation. (Defining utility for an AGI - that's a
different topic!!) As far as weak AIs, such as Google self-driving cars,
programming them to, for example, drive off the road as opposed to hitting
the stray baby carriage in front of them, is not programming ethics but
building safety features.

--Regina




> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 16:18:47 +0100
> From: BillK <pharos at gmail.com>
> To: Extropy Chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: [ExI] Should we teach Strong AI Ethics?
> Message-ID:
>         <CAL_armg5N_ehYijL6ZTYTVZfTUZv=OCPwuPrLpvTgr6Vtfa=
> xg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> <http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4122>
>
> Serious point though.
> If we teach AI about ethical behaviour (for our own safety) what do we
> expect the AI to do when it sees humans behaving unethically (to a
> greater or lesser extent)?
>
> Can a totally ethical AI even operate successfully among humans?
>
> BillK
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160527/52bdb606/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Fri May 27 15:14:48 2016
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 16:14:48 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Should we teach Strong AI Ethics?
In-Reply-To: <CAFVzX8ka5LtY7FrWYAJXWN=sS5a0oTDYmyEhwsQ4CJ9sC0y83A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFVzX8ka5LtY7FrWYAJXWN=sS5a0oTDYmyEhwsQ4CJ9sC0y83A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAL_armhMf=+wprDrg2H+81p=542E4uj2n623JktbQGPOVyTCtg@mail.gmail.com>

On 27 May 2016 at 13:57, Re Rose wrote:
<snip>
> All human ethics originate from the practicalities (constraints) on
> interactions as described by game theory. Game theory works because each
> individual (or agent) acts in their own self-interest to maximize their own
> payoff. Also to consider is that for any one agent and within a single,
> local culture, that agent will necessarily be involved in many interacting
> situations (or games) and the intersection of these would be non-linear (and
> probably dynamic) combinations of all the game payoffs. This makes
> prediction - and programming - of "correct" ethical behavior in such
> situations impossible.
>
> Future AGIs could and should be programmed - or simply allowed - to develop
> their own ethics by acting as independent agents and maximizing their own
> utility for a given situation. (Defining utility for an AGI - that's a
> different topic!!) As far as weak AIs, such as Google self-driving cars,
> programming them to, for example, drive off the road as opposed to hitting
> the stray baby carriage in front of them, is not programming ethics but
> building safety features.
>

As Anders pointed out humans 'live and let live' different ethical
systems because everybody is roughly equal. Where they are not, the
unbelievers tend to get wiped out (or reduced to small enclaves).

I don't like the idea of an AGI using game theory to maximise its own
payoff. At least we should instruct it that 'might doesn't make
right'. Many humans could do with that instruction as well.

BillK


From anders at aleph.se  Fri May 27 08:10:29 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 10:10:29 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Censorship
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEaWVP8ATmw9BbPaui6db4J9uhAeHQz4xCgzAqFLFOVHcg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armg5N_ehYijL6ZTYTVZfTUZv=OCPwuPrLpvTgr6Vtfa=xg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZHtRZ5Ze543k_cUjV0mM7HniKF8_uHbow=A0MSLR16VQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <17F982E8-3A8F-40F1-98BA-47C08E9E87C6@gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEaWVP8ATmw9BbPaui6db4J9uhAeHQz4xCgzAqFLFOVHcg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d92c4717-3112-5bdb-6153-791d0833394b@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-26 21:49, William Flynn Wallace wrote:
> Why would it be ethical to have censorship in the first place? It's 
> like saying "Put an AI in charge of slavery..."
>
> Dan
>
> Well Dan I hate to tell you this, but we have censorship now in TV, 
> movies, books and maybe more.  I read recently that about 40k books 
> are published every month and some one has the say-so about its going 
> on sale somewhere (where might be determined by its rating).

No, that is not censorship. If you as a publisher tell me that you will 
not publish my book because it is crap/politically incorrect/will not 
sell/it is Friday that is your prerogative. There is no right to have 
stuff published. Censorship occurs is when a centralized power can 
decide to prevent publication because of content. (Some iffy definitions 
for post-publication action, but the core is prepublication approval).

> I can easily see an AI being used for some of the labor of digesting 
> all this material.  I also think an AI would never be in charge of 
> actual censorship, but the AI could kick out books, movies, that fudge 
> certain guidelines so that a human, or a committee, or the Supreme 
> Court could decide what to do with it.

In a sense this is happening with YouTube, where copyright infringing 
material is blocked - officially after a human has looked at what the 
algorithm found, but obviously often without any human oversight. For 
various sad, hilarious or rage-inducing examples, just search Boing 
Boing or Slashdot's archives.

>
> Now whether there should BE any kind of censorship is an entirely 
> different question, one that could be debated in this group if it 
> hasn't before (not likely).

As I have mentioned, I am starting to study information hazards ( 
http://www.nickbostrom.com/information-hazards.pdf ) Some of these may 
actually be serious enough that we rationally should want some form of 
censorship or control.

Others are not serious enough, but we may want to have systems that 
discourage them (libel law, boycotts, whatever).

But we have to be careful with that (e.g. 
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/04/the-automated-boycott/ ). I 
recently enjoyed reading a series of case studies showing how 
information concealment played an important role in many big disasters ( 
http://aleph.se/andart2/risk/the-hazard-of-concealing-risk/ ). 
Generally, limiting information cuts out the good with the bad, and we 
are not very skilled at distinguishing them a priori. Plus, management 
requires information: if the problem is an underlying structure or 
something concrete rather than bad information per se, then the agencies 
that manage - whether institutional or the open society - need to get 
that information to do something. Far too often censorship just looks 
for surface detail.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160527/3420b455/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Thu May 26 23:00:38 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 19:00:38 -0400
Subject: [ExI] segregation forever!!
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNRgszHbut-L4PUDFmckvXVqucoJJhJouF8A3z3S7sXfxw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEbyiuVU5QD37=ToSEAh63xDhr=y72ZcFsv0rX+g1KtP_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgoLBuhjpSeLorYHzeU3n7X-SCUB34_MNJbX07tXiOnwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEawveSyku6kNGQQggkZh_M2qzNyxi4zhf4C49qAjLbsbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgNSuYHF3kER=z3eCnQoU8pYSJRRGnPN-dRvRRx49QF7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEYbf9is44ty_2+APN0XLy46K9zTWYy4qMZqBVtNaWDgfw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgDS1ZzeKtAzm_7OoUWptVZ7uqdK3RAm0ayxkJTPUJ3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRgszHbut-L4PUDFmckvXVqucoJJhJouF8A3z3S7sXfxw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFgq3FEsdy++XyF_tFa_6g-O9di99faJmL98KVhGgF7u=Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:54 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
> rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ### Well, stopping welfare would assure there is no TV for those who
>> don't work.... The poor might actually think before having children... They
>> might learn to humbly ask for a job rather than angrily demand handouts...
>> Knowing that there is no welfare might induce some of them to value
>> schooling as a way of earning access to a job... And ending the war on
>> drugs might leave them no option but to make themselves useful...
>>
>
> That is a nice fantasy, but that's not the way they think.  If they're
> starving *RIGHT NOW* there's no time or energy for education...but there is
> to steal bread.  Assuming they do not wind up in the alternate welfare
> known as prison (or dead from an armed merchant, or etc.), they see what
> works and keep doing it.
>

### Before you "starve" there are warnings, hundreds and thousands of
warnings. There are years where every day you can make the right or the
wrong choices.

Being "poor" in America is a choice, and choices can be modified by
incentives.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160526/8ea9983a/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Fri May 27 19:03:00 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 12:03:00 -0700
Subject: [ExI] segregation forever!!
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFgq3FEsdy++XyF_tFa_6g-O9di99faJmL98KVhGgF7u=Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEbyiuVU5QD37=ToSEAh63xDhr=y72ZcFsv0rX+g1KtP_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgoLBuhjpSeLorYHzeU3n7X-SCUB34_MNJbX07tXiOnwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEawveSyku6kNGQQggkZh_M2qzNyxi4zhf4C49qAjLbsbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgNSuYHF3kER=z3eCnQoU8pYSJRRGnPN-dRvRRx49QF7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEYbf9is44ty_2+APN0XLy46K9zTWYy4qMZqBVtNaWDgfw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgDS1ZzeKtAzm_7OoUWptVZ7uqdK3RAm0ayxkJTPUJ3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRgszHbut-L4PUDFmckvXVqucoJJhJouF8A3z3S7sXfxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgq3FEsdy++XyF_tFa_6g-O9di99faJmL98KVhGgF7u=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNQY_wfGiBnG8e9dyyeDgm8XNE8QpRX7u0AypBbReU=7rQ@mail.gmail.com>

On May 27, 2016 11:13 AM, "Rafal Smigrodzki" <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Before you "starve" there are warnings, hundreds and thousands of
warnings. There are years where every day you can make the right or the
wrong choices.
>
> Being "poor" in America is a choice, and choices can be modified by
incentives.

It is a choice, on the child's part, to be born to parents who fail to
provide for their children?

It is a choice to be unaware of educational opportunities, and to have been
told all your life that education is somehow a bad thing/only used by the
enemy who oppresses you and your family?

It is a choice to have addictive, health-depleting drugs forced on you
before you are mentally capable of appreciating the dangers?

There are ways out of poverty.  But not all of the ways in are entirely
voluntary.  Some people wind up starving and must be dealt with on that
level, before they can be dealt with as rational people who can afford the
time to learn employable skills.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160527/27c911b3/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Fri May 27 20:00:12 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 13:00:12 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Has the mystery of Dark Matter been solved?
In-Reply-To: <001f01d1b7d5$3e6af8d0$bb40ea70$@att.net>
References: <CAJPayv2H23CxAO4qP2U4iTySE-SJjTiXYkBUvPHY5rhX0eABLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <E602614E-C8B4-45BD-A144-B45E2540987A@gmu.edu>
 <410e2e78-8ee7-aa4e-4c01-5f6882a98d5e@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armgkgfioRZo_88NBCWvEuBF9b8oXoXmd-V1RWbd118EZDg@mail.gmail.com>
 <001f01d1b7d5$3e6af8d0$bb40ea70$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNREhRaUhmGJB0_c_TBr9zNnEKZYUwobxHKwLEYFavQyCQ@mail.gmail.com>

On May 26, 2016 10:19 PM, "spike" <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> the best way to look at physics theories is to think of them as analogous
to software.

Indeed, are not our scientific theories essentially software running on our
collective minds?  They have versions, and the scientific method is all
about patching our current understanding when flaws (bugs) are discovered.
People fork pieces all the time, and problems often arise when two
incompatible forks attempt to run together or when one fork proves too
divergent from reality.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160527/b86d611e/attachment.html>

From hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu  Fri May 27 19:04:13 2016
From: hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu (Henry Rivera)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 15:04:13 -0400
Subject: [ExI] segregation forever!!
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFgq3FEsdy++XyF_tFa_6g-O9di99faJmL98KVhGgF7u=Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEbyiuVU5QD37=ToSEAh63xDhr=y72ZcFsv0rX+g1KtP_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgoLBuhjpSeLorYHzeU3n7X-SCUB34_MNJbX07tXiOnwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEawveSyku6kNGQQggkZh_M2qzNyxi4zhf4C49qAjLbsbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgNSuYHF3kER=z3eCnQoU8pYSJRRGnPN-dRvRRx49QF7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEYbf9is44ty_2+APN0XLy46K9zTWYy4qMZqBVtNaWDgfw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgDS1ZzeKtAzm_7OoUWptVZ7uqdK3RAm0ayxkJTPUJ3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRgszHbut-L4PUDFmckvXVqucoJJhJouF8A3z3S7sXfxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgq3FEsdy++XyF_tFa_6g-O9di99faJmL98KVhGgF7u=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D069F8B1-B919-4BD4-B90A-8C134F0A1E7F@alumni.virginia.edu>


> On May 26, 2016, at 7:00 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> ### Before you "starve" there are warnings, hundreds and thousands of warnings. There are years where every day you can make the right or the wrong choices.
> 
> Being "poor" in America is a choice, and choices can be modified by incentives.
> 

*Cough* bullshit. 

The system allows for oppression by those in power. Choice is significantly constrained or limited under oppressive conditions. 

-Henry


From pharos at gmail.com  Fri May 27 20:04:37 2016
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 21:04:37 +0100
Subject: [ExI] segregation forever!!
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNQY_wfGiBnG8e9dyyeDgm8XNE8QpRX7u0AypBbReU=7rQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEbyiuVU5QD37=ToSEAh63xDhr=y72ZcFsv0rX+g1KtP_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgoLBuhjpSeLorYHzeU3n7X-SCUB34_MNJbX07tXiOnwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEawveSyku6kNGQQggkZh_M2qzNyxi4zhf4C49qAjLbsbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgNSuYHF3kER=z3eCnQoU8pYSJRRGnPN-dRvRRx49QF7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEYbf9is44ty_2+APN0XLy46K9zTWYy4qMZqBVtNaWDgfw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgDS1ZzeKtAzm_7OoUWptVZ7uqdK3RAm0ayxkJTPUJ3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRgszHbut-L4PUDFmckvXVqucoJJhJouF8A3z3S7sXfxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgq3FEsdy++XyF_tFa_6g-O9di99faJmL98KVhGgF7u=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNQY_wfGiBnG8e9dyyeDgm8XNE8QpRX7u0AypBbReU=7rQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAL_armgB2L95tv2FDTrbz_Y0+rvC0NLXLGWi+czXpnkBwhr2+g@mail.gmail.com>

On 27 May 2016 at 20:03, Adrian Tymes  wrote:
> It is a choice, on the child's part, to be born to parents who fail to
> provide for their children?
>
> It is a choice to be unaware of educational opportunities, and to have been
> told all your life that education is somehow a bad thing/only used by the
> enemy who oppresses you and your family?
>
> It is a choice to have addictive, health-depleting drugs forced on you
> before you are mentally capable of appreciating the dangers?
>
> There are ways out of poverty.  But not all of the ways in are entirely
> voluntary.  Some people wind up starving and must be dealt with on that
> level, before they can be dealt with as rational people who can afford the
> time to learn employable skills.
>


In one factory in China Foxconn has just replaced 60,000 workers with robots.
<http://www.geek.com/news/foxconn-has-replaced-60000-workers-in-one-factory-with-robots-1656337/>

Perhaps the poor could be also replaced with robots?   ;)

BillK


From johnkclark at gmail.com  Fri May 27 20:11:49 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 16:11:49 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Has the mystery of Dark Matter been solved?
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armgkgfioRZo_88NBCWvEuBF9b8oXoXmd-V1RWbd118EZDg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv2H23CxAO4qP2U4iTySE-SJjTiXYkBUvPHY5rhX0eABLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <E602614E-C8B4-45BD-A144-B45E2540987A@gmu.edu>
 <410e2e78-8ee7-aa4e-4c01-5f6882a98d5e@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armgkgfioRZo_88NBCWvEuBF9b8oXoXmd-V1RWbd118EZDg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv3NSHb_E-oruJV4bRkFUHDPe83zn0Ld-E-4e1GAJnBa2g@mail.gmail.com>

Ethan Siegel discusses why black holes = dark matter is unlikely.
<
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/05/26/black-holes-as-dark-matter-heres-why-the-idea-falls-apart/#687e2a006d7b
>


?> ?
> All told, observations of
> ? ?
> the lack of Hawking radiation,
> ? ?
> gamma-ray-burst microlensing,
> ? ?
> neutron star capture in globular clusters,
> ? ?
> traditional microlensing,
> ? ?
> and the cosmic infrared and microwave backgrounds,
> ? ?
> tell us that we can?t have primordial black holes make up the majority
> ? ?
> of dark matter over a wide variety of mass ranges.
>


?That's true, ?

?all those things do rule out Black Holes being Dark Matter over a
wide variety of mass ranges
?,
 but not over all mass ranges. To be Dark Matter Black Holes can't be
smaller than 10 solar masses and they can't be larger than 100. But LIGO
found a 29, a 36, and a 62 solar mass Black Hole almost as soon as it was
turned on.

  John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160527/770a88c4/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Fri May 27 20:19:10 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 15:19:10 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Censorship
In-Reply-To: <d92c4717-3112-5bdb-6153-791d0833394b@aleph.se>
References: <CAL_armg5N_ehYijL6ZTYTVZfTUZv=OCPwuPrLpvTgr6Vtfa=xg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZHtRZ5Ze543k_cUjV0mM7HniKF8_uHbow=A0MSLR16VQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <17F982E8-3A8F-40F1-98BA-47C08E9E87C6@gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEaWVP8ATmw9BbPaui6db4J9uhAeHQz4xCgzAqFLFOVHcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <d92c4717-3112-5bdb-6153-791d0833394b@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEasrp5q4Jwk1C+-XGkkAy84WSAEJqr3E2yfAde2qy-jmA@mail.gmail.com>

Well Dan I hate to tell you this, but we have censorship now in TV, movies,
books and maybe more.  I read recently that about 40k books are published
every month and some one has the say-so about its going on sale somewhere
(where might be determined by its rating).


No, that is not censorship. If you as a publisher tell me that you will not
publish my book because it is crap/politically incorrect/will not sell/it
is Friday that is your prerogative. There is no right to have stuff
published. Censorship occurs is when a centralized power can decide to
prevent publication because of content. (Some iffy definitions for
post-publication action, but the core is prepublication approval).
?anders

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other
information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive,
politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media
outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.  dictionary

I don't want to quibble about words, but what I wrote is well within the
definition above.  Certainly the type Anders mentioned is far more
dangerous and threatening.  This has nothing to do with free speech.  Of
course Anders
is right that no one has the right to have his stuff published anywhere.
College newspaper editors found that out for sure a few years ago in a
court case.  Not letting a college writer put his stuff in a campus
newspaper is not a violation of free speech, but it is censorship.

bill w
?


On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 3:10 AM, Anders <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> On 2016-05-26 21:49, William Flynn Wallace wrote:
>
> Why would it be ethical to have censorship in the first place? It's like
> saying "Put an AI in charge of slavery..."
>
> Dan
>
> Well Dan I hate to tell you this, but we have censorship now in TV,
> movies, books and maybe more.  I read recently that about 40k books are
> published every month and some one has the say-so about its going on sale
> somewhere (where might be determined by its rating).
>
>
> No, that is not censorship. If you as a publisher tell me that you will
> not publish my book because it is crap/politically incorrect/will not
> sell/it is Friday that is your prerogative. There is no right to have stuff
> published. Censorship occurs is when a centralized power can decide to
> prevent publication because of content. (Some iffy definitions for
> post-publication action, but the core is prepublication approval).
>
> I can easily see an AI being used for some of the labor of digesting all
> this material.  I also think an AI would never be in charge of actual
> censorship, but the AI could kick out books, movies, that fudge certain
> guidelines so that a human, or a committee, or the Supreme Court could
> decide what to do with it.
>
>
> In a sense this is happening with YouTube, where copyright infringing
> material is blocked - officially after a human has looked at what the
> algorithm found, but obviously often without any human oversight. For
> various sad, hilarious or rage-inducing examples, just search Boing Boing
> or Slashdot's archives.
>
>
> Now whether there should BE any kind of censorship is an entirely
> different question, one that could be debated in this group if it hasn't
> before (not likely).
>
>
> As I have mentioned, I am starting to study information hazards (
> http://www.nickbostrom.com/information-hazards.pdf ) Some of these may
> actually be serious enough that we rationally should want some form of
> censorship or control.
>
> Others are not serious enough, but we may want to have systems that
> discourage them (libel law, boycotts, whatever).
>
> But we have to be careful with that (e.g.
> http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/04/the-automated-boycott/ ). I
> recently enjoyed reading a series of case studies showing how information
> concealment played an important role in many big disasters (
> http://aleph.se/andart2/risk/the-hazard-of-concealing-risk/ ). Generally,
> limiting information cuts out the good with the bad, and we are not very
> skilled at distinguishing them a priori. Plus, management requires
> information: if the problem is an underlying structure or something
> concrete rather than bad information per se, then the agencies that manage
> - whether institutional or the open society - need to get that information
> to do something. Far too often censorship just looks for surface detail.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160527/77b8e200/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Fri May 27 20:26:22 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 15:26:22 -0500
Subject: [ExI] segregation forever!!
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armgB2L95tv2FDTrbz_Y0+rvC0NLXLGWi+czXpnkBwhr2+g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEbyiuVU5QD37=ToSEAh63xDhr=y72ZcFsv0rX+g1KtP_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgoLBuhjpSeLorYHzeU3n7X-SCUB34_MNJbX07tXiOnwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEawveSyku6kNGQQggkZh_M2qzNyxi4zhf4C49qAjLbsbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgNSuYHF3kER=z3eCnQoU8pYSJRRGnPN-dRvRRx49QF7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEYbf9is44ty_2+APN0XLy46K9zTWYy4qMZqBVtNaWDgfw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgDS1ZzeKtAzm_7OoUWptVZ7uqdK3RAm0ayxkJTPUJ3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRgszHbut-L4PUDFmckvXVqucoJJhJouF8A3z3S7sXfxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgq3FEsdy++XyF_tFa_6g-O9di99faJmL98KVhGgF7u=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNQY_wfGiBnG8e9dyyeDgm8XNE8QpRX7u0AypBbReU=7rQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armgB2L95tv2FDTrbz_Y0+rvC0NLXLGWi+czXpnkBwhr2+g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZS4uf27j_M5PFwePBEHsWLxFnQd9KLw9WOgqfgaLcB2g@mail.gmail.com>

There are ways out of poverty.  But not all of the ways in are entirely
> voluntary.  Some people wind up starving and must be dealt with on that
> level, before they can be dealt with as rational people who can afford the
> time to learn employable skills.

I wonder if statistics exist which show how many unemployed people with job
skills don't have jobs waiting for them.  Hard to criticize their poverty
if this is the case.

 (As an aside, I think gov employment agencies could find jobs for people
but in different areas, which then the potential worker would have to move
to.  If he refused, he'd lose benefits.  It might be possible to help them
move and get set up and ensure their employment for a certain period of
time.  So - move the people where the jobs are.)

In any case, you feed people who are hungry no matter what the cause until
they can get on their feet.  If they can't get on their feet they have to
be declared unable to work or lose benefits.  Children get fed.  Period.

bill w

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 3:04 PM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 27 May 2016 at 20:03, Adrian Tymes  wrote:
> > It is a choice, on the child's part, to be born to parents who fail to
> > provide for their children?
> >
> > It is a choice to be unaware of educational opportunities, and to have
> been
> > told all your life that education is somehow a bad thing/only used by the
> > enemy who oppresses you and your family?
> >
> > It is a choice to have addictive, health-depleting drugs forced on you
> > before you are mentally capable of appreciating the dangers?
> >
> > There are ways out of poverty.  But not all of the ways in are entirely
> > voluntary.  Some people wind up starving and must be dealt with on that
> > level, before they can be dealt with as rational people who can afford
> the
> > time to learn employable skills.
> >
>
>
> In one factory in China Foxconn has just replaced 60,000 workers with
> robots.
> <
> http://www.geek.com/news/foxconn-has-replaced-60000-workers-in-one-factory-with-robots-1656337/
> >
>
> Perhaps the poor could be also replaced with robots?   ;)
>
> 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/20160527/b060e51e/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Fri May 27 20:37:29 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 15:37:29 -0500
Subject: [ExI] moral reasoning
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZ4BNO5n-My+6F+wS8DqJN8+oN7zdrWWB8Os2kwDGDP4g@mail.gmail.com>

excerpt from link below:

If our thoughts and decisions are all unconscious, as the ISA theory
implies, then moral philosophers have a lot of work to do. For we tend to
think that people can?t be held responsible for their unconscious
attitudes. Accepting the ISA theory might not mean giving up on
responsibility, but it will mean radically rethinking it.

https://aeon.co/ideas/whatever-you-think-you-don-t-necessarily-know-your-own-mind?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=13a95dde3e-Weekly_Newsletter_27_May_20165_27_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-13a95dde3e-68993993

bill w
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160527/3b61b20b/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Fri May 27 16:45:17 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 12:45:17 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Has the mystery of Dark Matter been solved?
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armgkgfioRZo_88NBCWvEuBF9b8oXoXmd-V1RWbd118EZDg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv2H23CxAO4qP2U4iTySE-SJjTiXYkBUvPHY5rhX0eABLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <E602614E-C8B4-45BD-A144-B45E2540987A@gmu.edu>
 <410e2e78-8ee7-aa4e-4c01-5f6882a98d5e@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armgkgfioRZo_88NBCWvEuBF9b8oXoXmd-V1RWbd118EZDg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv1Fb0MsvYjfyS2S_mtFCPWjosu+f-Eebn7Xzh4gfGRZwg@mail.gmail.com>

Ethan Siegel discusses why black holes = dark matter is unlikely.
<
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/05/26/black-holes-as-dark-matter-heres-why-the-idea-falls-apart/#687e2a006d7b
>


?> ?
> All told, observations of
> ? ?
> the lack of Hawking radiation,
> ? ?
> gamma-ray-burst microlensing,
> ? ?
> neutron star capture in globular clusters,
> ? ?
> traditional microlensing,
> ? ?
> and the cosmic infrared and microwave backgrounds,
> ? ?
> tell us that we can?t have primordial black holes make up the majority
> ? ?
> of dark matter over a wide variety of mass ranges.
>


?That's true, ?

?all those things do rule out Black Holes being Dark Matter over a
wide variety of mass ranges
?,
 but not over all mass ranges. To be Dark Matter Black Holes can't be
smaller than 10 solar masses and they can't be larger than 100. But LIGO
found a 29, a 36, and a 62 solar mass Black Hole almost as soon as it was
turned on.

  John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160527/401975b8/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Fri May 27 20:48:35 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 13:48:35 -0700
Subject: [ExI] segregation forever!!
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armgB2L95tv2FDTrbz_Y0+rvC0NLXLGWi+czXpnkBwhr2+g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEbyiuVU5QD37=ToSEAh63xDhr=y72ZcFsv0rX+g1KtP_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgoLBuhjpSeLorYHzeU3n7X-SCUB34_MNJbX07tXiOnwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEawveSyku6kNGQQggkZh_M2qzNyxi4zhf4C49qAjLbsbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgNSuYHF3kER=z3eCnQoU8pYSJRRGnPN-dRvRRx49QF7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEYbf9is44ty_2+APN0XLy46K9zTWYy4qMZqBVtNaWDgfw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgDS1ZzeKtAzm_7OoUWptVZ7uqdK3RAm0ayxkJTPUJ3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRgszHbut-L4PUDFmckvXVqucoJJhJouF8A3z3S7sXfxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgq3FEsdy++XyF_tFa_6g-O9di99faJmL98KVhGgF7u=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNQY_wfGiBnG8e9dyyeDgm8XNE8QpRX7u0AypBbReU=7rQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armgB2L95tv2FDTrbz_Y0+rvC0NLXLGWi+czXpnkBwhr2+g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <019601d1b859$23c8b010$6b5a1030$@att.net>



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



>...In one factory in China Foxconn has just replaced 60,000 workers with
robots.
<http://www.geek.com/news/foxconn-has-replaced-60000-workers-in-one-factory-
with-robots-1656337/>

>...Perhaps the poor could be also replaced with robots?   ;)  ...BillK
_______________________________________________


They already have!  All my own robots are poor as all hell; they don't have
a damn thing.

spike



From spike66 at att.net  Fri May 27 20:55:22 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 13:55:22 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Has the mystery of Dark Matter been solved?
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv1Fb0MsvYjfyS2S_mtFCPWjosu+f-Eebn7Xzh4gfGRZwg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv2H23CxAO4qP2U4iTySE-SJjTiXYkBUvPHY5rhX0eABLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <E602614E-C8B4-45BD-A144-B45E2540987A@gmu.edu>
 <410e2e78-8ee7-aa4e-4c01-5f6882a98d5e@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armgkgfioRZo_88NBCWvEuBF9b8oXoXmd-V1RWbd118EZDg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv1Fb0MsvYjfyS2S_mtFCPWjosu+f-Eebn7Xzh4gfGRZwg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <019901d1b85a$16674890$4335d9b0$@att.net>

 

 

?>?That's true, ?all those things do rule out Black Holes being Dark Matter over a 

wide variety of mass ranges, but not over all mass ranges. To be Dark Matter Black Holes can't be smaller than 10 solar masses and they can't be larger than 100. But LIGO found a 29, a 36, and a 62 solar mass Black Hole almost as soon as it was turned on?John K Clark

 

 

Ja noticed that.  We always vaguely dismissed the possibility because we couldn?t think of a plausible reason why a lot of black holes should be right in that one (kinda oddball) order of magnitude.  But hey, maybe we just missed something, and there was some reason why the usual exponential model fails us and there are a lot of black holes in the 10-100 range, a kind of huge evolutionary practical joke of some kind, something kinda odd, analogous to why the beach has so many grains of sand right in the 0.2 - 2 mm range.

 

Hell maybe we really did just fumble and miss something obvious or have a huge collective face-palm moment in our near future.  We can hope, ja?

 

spike

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160527/f07aecc9/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Fri May 27 21:22:52 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 17:22:52 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Has the mystery of Dark Matter been solved?
In-Reply-To: <001f01d1b7d5$3e6af8d0$bb40ea70$@att.net>
References: <CAJPayv2H23CxAO4qP2U4iTySE-SJjTiXYkBUvPHY5rhX0eABLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <E602614E-C8B4-45BD-A144-B45E2540987A@gmu.edu>
 <410e2e78-8ee7-aa4e-4c01-5f6882a98d5e@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armgkgfioRZo_88NBCWvEuBF9b8oXoXmd-V1RWbd118EZDg@mail.gmail.com>
 <001f01d1b7d5$3e6af8d0$bb40ea70$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv3nojERTR=uLMOnqvE1Vkt+XuqUF=gE-dvtiSbyUSxVtg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 1:04 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
?> ?
> Unless I misunderstood, LIGO has run a total of 18 days so far, and never
> with full instrumentation


?
And about the time the 2 LIGO detectors come back online and at increased
power (around September) it should be
? ?
joined by a third detector, Virgo in Italy. Gravity waves are sort of
opposite to light, with light it's easy to tell the direction the photon
came from but hard to tell how far it has traveled, but with gravity waves
it's easy to tell how far they have come but hard to tell from what
direction; but with 3 detectors we can use triangulation to figure out
where to point our optical telescopes
?,?
and
?that ?
could help us figure out if the Black Holes came from dead stars or were
primordial. I
?f?
they come from dead stars then there may gas and dust nearby that will get
heated to incandescence
?by the gravity waves ?
that our optical telescopes can see, but if they're
? ?
primordial then there is a better chance
? ?
they're in the cosmic boondocks between galaxies with no gas or dust nearby
?to heat up ?
and our
?
 telescopes
? will see no optical counterpart. ?


A cool thing is if it can find them at all it should be able to hear
gravitational waves over a vast distance because LIGO doesn't detect the
energy in the
gravitational??
waves
?,?
it detects how much they alter the distance between a LASER and a mirror
?,?
and that alteration only decrease linearly with distance; telescopes work
with light intensity and that decreases with the square of distance not
linearly.

It doesn't seem possible to tell when the distance between a LASER and a
mirror 4 kilometers away changes by one ten thousandths the diameter of the
nucleus of a atom ( equivalent to telling when the distance between Earth
and  Alpha Centauri changes by the width of a human hair)
?,?
but incredibly they can. But as you point out as good as experimenters have
become they still aren't good enough to find ET. Or ESP.
?  Maybe because there is nothing to find.

  John K Clark?

>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160527/bf0137f1/attachment.html>

From protokol2020 at gmail.com  Fri May 27 08:04:24 2016
From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 10:04:24 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Has the mystery of Dark Matter been solved?
In-Reply-To: <001f01d1b7d5$3e6af8d0$bb40ea70$@att.net>
References: <CAJPayv2H23CxAO4qP2U4iTySE-SJjTiXYkBUvPHY5rhX0eABLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <E602614E-C8B4-45BD-A144-B45E2540987A@gmu.edu>
 <410e2e78-8ee7-aa4e-4c01-5f6882a98d5e@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armgkgfioRZo_88NBCWvEuBF9b8oXoXmd-V1RWbd118EZDg@mail.gmail.com>
 <001f01d1b7d5$3e6af8d0$bb40ea70$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CALMrAFTRfgb_WaeX5Hj5PwBYkHjEij3y5Tq2t=TMk2D_KaxDOw@mail.gmail.com>

> our seeing a black hole merger just a few days after turning on LIGO was
one hell of a stroke of luck.

As I said before. Black holes are raining down to black holes all the time.

Why?

We have at least one billion supermassive black holes around. Each has
already swallowed many million to billion of stars (black holes) just to be
as massive as it is.

It's less than 10^18 seconds since the Big Bang. So one such event per 1000
or there about seconds on average.

It's a question for me however, if there was a detection by LIGO, at all. I
am quite certain that those colliding events are frequent. Much less
certain that we observed one.

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 7:04 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
> >... On Behalf Of BillK
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Has the mystery of Dark Matter been solved?
>
> On 25 May 2016 at 09:33, Anders wrote:
> >>... Likely just to annoy John, there is a recent paper (
> > http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.08522 ) arguing the early supermassive holes
> > could be due to direct collapse of gas clouds. I cannot judge the
> > likelihood of this, but it will be interesting to see how it turns out.
> >
> >
>
> >...Ethan Siegel discusses why black holes = dark matter is unlikely.
> <
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/05/26/black-holes-as-dark-matter-heres-why-the-idea-falls-apart/#687e2a006d7b
> >
>
> ...BillK
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> Ja, however... the best way to look at physics theories is to think of
> them as analogous to software.  Many or most of us here have written
> software and gotten it working, then later found it has something in it
> that isn't working right, some subtle remains bug somewhere, and good luck
> finding it.  I must allow the possibility that our current theories on the
> early universe might still have some subtle bug in there somewhere.
>
> Otherwise, our seeing a black hole merger just a few days after turning on
> LIGO was one hell of a stroke of luck.
>
> Unless I misunderstood, LIGO has run a total of 18 days so far, and never
> with full instrumentation (it was a test synchronization with only partial
> capability running last September.)  LIGO isn't going on line at full
> capacity for a few months yet.  So... before I can assume our current model
> is completely correct, I want to wait for at least a couple years of data
> to come in.  My understanding of the abundance of black holes suggests we
> wouldn't be likely to see another event like that again very soon.  So what
> if we turn the thing on and see a merger like that one every couple
> months?  We will be reviewing our notions on early black hole formation.
>
> spike
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160527/e5d3ed59/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Sat May 28 00:53:40 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 17:53:40 -0700
Subject: [ExI] segregation forever!!
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNQY_wfGiBnG8e9dyyeDgm8XNE8QpRX7u0AypBbReU=7rQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEbyiuVU5QD37=ToSEAh63xDhr=y72ZcFsv0rX+g1KtP_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgoLBuhjpSeLorYHzeU3n7X-SCUB34_MNJbX07tXiOnwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEawveSyku6kNGQQggkZh_M2qzNyxi4zhf4C49qAjLbsbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgNSuYHF3kER=z3eCnQoU8pYSJRRGnPN-dRvRRx49QF7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEYbf9is44ty_2+APN0XLy46K9zTWYy4qMZqBVtNaWDgfw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgDS1ZzeKtAzm_7OoUWptVZ7uqdK3RAm0ayxkJTPUJ3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRgszHbut-L4PUDFmckvXVqucoJJhJouF8A3z3S7sXfxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgq3FEsdy++XyF_tFa_6g-O9di99faJmL98KVhGgF7u=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNQY_wfGiBnG8e9dyyeDgm8XNE8QpRX7u0AypBbReU=7rQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <201C79F8-DC82-4CA5-893D-95B0D6C0EA2A@gmail.com>

On May 27, 2016, at 12:03 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 27, 2016 11:13 AM, "Rafal Smigrodzki" <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Before you "starve" there are warnings, hundreds and thousands of warnings. There are years where every day you can make the right or the wrong choices.
> >
> > Being "poor" in America is a choice, and choices can be modified by incentives.
> 
> It is a choice, on the child's part, to be born to parents who fail to provide for their children?
> 
> It is a choice to be unaware of educational opportunities, and to have been told all your life that education is somehow a bad thing/only used by the enemy who oppresses you and your family?
> 
> It is a choice to have addictive, health-depleting drugs forced on you before you are mentally capable of appreciating the dangers?
> 
> There are ways out of poverty.  But not all of the ways in are entirely voluntary.  Some people wind up starving and must be dealt with on that level, before they can be dealt with as rational people who can afford the time to learn employable skills.
> 

Just to be sure, Do you believe anything is really open to choice? And, if so, can people who make the wrong choices be, in some sense, judged for making the wrong ones? The reason I'm bringing this up is because it's certainly possible to excuse all bad choices made on some factor outside an agent's control.

And, for the record, I'm not denying the obvious handicaps of being born into a poor family with bad habits.

I also don't deny structural problems in the US with regard to poverty. Most of these of legally enforced IMO. And the originators and enforcers of such policies should be exiled to my sector for final processing, but, regardless, the policies need to be changed.

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/20160527/66a64b9e/attachment.html>

From atymes at gmail.com  Sat May 28 01:33:09 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 18:33:09 -0700
Subject: [ExI] segregation forever!!
In-Reply-To: <201C79F8-DC82-4CA5-893D-95B0D6C0EA2A@gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEbyiuVU5QD37=ToSEAh63xDhr=y72ZcFsv0rX+g1KtP_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgoLBuhjpSeLorYHzeU3n7X-SCUB34_MNJbX07tXiOnwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEawveSyku6kNGQQggkZh_M2qzNyxi4zhf4C49qAjLbsbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgNSuYHF3kER=z3eCnQoU8pYSJRRGnPN-dRvRRx49QF7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEYbf9is44ty_2+APN0XLy46K9zTWYy4qMZqBVtNaWDgfw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgDS1ZzeKtAzm_7OoUWptVZ7uqdK3RAm0ayxkJTPUJ3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRgszHbut-L4PUDFmckvXVqucoJJhJouF8A3z3S7sXfxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgq3FEsdy++XyF_tFa_6g-O9di99faJmL98KVhGgF7u=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNQY_wfGiBnG8e9dyyeDgm8XNE8QpRX7u0AypBbReU=7rQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <201C79F8-DC82-4CA5-893D-95B0D6C0EA2A@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNSCZeqbmp+1XG4xpfPP9u+Er-G+BtkF_7LMQy_hupMN_A@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Just to be sure, Do you believe anything is really open to choice?
>

Me or Rafal?


> And, if so, can people who make the wrong choices be, in some sense,
> judged for making the wrong ones?
>

If you mean me: there are usually but not always choices to be made - but
the information available when one person makes a choice is not always the
information that is available when someone else makes a choice.  Further,
the circumstances between two similar choices can vary dramatically, such
that what may be a simple and consequence-free choice for most people on
this list might be a choice between life or death - and thus, not really a
choice at all - for a far more impoverished person.

One is responsible for making the best choice given the information and
capabilities available when the choice is made.  At the same time, one is
ultimately responsible for one's own choices, not someone else's.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160527/d4f1766e/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Sat May 28 02:34:04 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 22:34:04 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Has the mystery of Dark Matter been solved?
In-Reply-To: <CALMrAFTRfgb_WaeX5Hj5PwBYkHjEij3y5Tq2t=TMk2D_KaxDOw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv2H23CxAO4qP2U4iTySE-SJjTiXYkBUvPHY5rhX0eABLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <E602614E-C8B4-45BD-A144-B45E2540987A@gmu.edu>
 <410e2e78-8ee7-aa4e-4c01-5f6882a98d5e@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armgkgfioRZo_88NBCWvEuBF9b8oXoXmd-V1RWbd118EZDg@mail.gmail.com>
 <001f01d1b7d5$3e6af8d0$bb40ea70$@att.net>
 <CALMrAFTRfgb_WaeX5Hj5PwBYkHjEij3y5Tq2t=TMk2D_KaxDOw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv2Us_Opb8jpxei1cfJysmiBOGZRZobZYqy8tpF0GnT0dA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 4:04 AM, Tomaz Kristan <protokol2020 at gmail.com>
wrote:

?> ?
> We have at least one billion supermassive black holes around.
>

?
?
Supermassive black holes
? with billions of solar masses are of trivial importance in cosmology,
?the important ones are Black Holes larger than 10 and less that 100 solar
masses because they could make up 85% of all matter in the universe.


> ?> ?
> Each has already swallowed many million to billion of stars (black holes)
> just to be as massive as it is.
>

?And LIGO can't even detect what ?
supermassive Black Holes are doing because the frequency of the
gravitational  waves they make would be too low.? LIGO is deaf to Black
Holes larger than a few hundred solar masses.
And a Black Hole of any size in isolation that's just sitting there minding
its own business doesn't make an
?y?
gravitational waves at all.

?> ?
> It's less than 10^18 seconds since the Big Bang. So one such event per
> 1000 or there about seconds on average.
>

?I don't know where you got that figure. In the ?
10^18 seconds
? that a pair of orbiting Black Holes exist they only make enough noise for
LIGO to detect it for a fifth of a second, and ?yet LIGO heard such a pair
in just 18 days.


> ?> ?
> I am quite certain that those colliding events are frequent.


?Apparently they ?
?are. Unless they LIGO people were astronomically lucky they are far more
frequent than anybody predicted. Most thought it would be decades before
they heard anything that good, and some thought they never would.


> ?> ?
> It's a question for me however, if there was a detection by LIGO, at all.
>

?Long ago people used General Relativity and computers to simulate what the
?
?merger of two ?30 solar mass black holes would look like, and the match
with what LIGO found couldn't be more perfect. Pure textbook.

 John K Clark



>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160527/624adc96/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Sat May 28 02:55:57 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 19:55:57 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Has the mystery of Dark Matter been solved?
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv2Us_Opb8jpxei1cfJysmiBOGZRZobZYqy8tpF0GnT0dA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJPayv2H23CxAO4qP2U4iTySE-SJjTiXYkBUvPHY5rhX0eABLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <E602614E-C8B4-45BD-A144-B45E2540987A@gmu.edu>
 <410e2e78-8ee7-aa4e-4c01-5f6882a98d5e@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armgkgfioRZo_88NBCWvEuBF9b8oXoXmd-V1RWbd118EZDg@mail.gmail.com>
 <001f01d1b7d5$3e6af8d0$bb40ea70$@att.net>
 <CALMrAFTRfgb_WaeX5Hj5PwBYkHjEij3y5Tq2t=TMk2D_KaxDOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2Us_Opb8jpxei1cfJysmiBOGZRZobZYqy8tpF0GnT0dA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <028801d1b88c$75a784a0$60f68de0$@att.net>

 

 

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

 

?

 

>?Apparently they ?

?are. Unless they LIGO people were astronomically lucky they are far more frequent than anybody predicted. Most thought it would be decades before they heard anything that good, and some thought they never would?  John K Clark

 

 

 

I never participated in the debates a few years ago over whether LIGO would be worth building, but I was quietly cheering for the LIGOers.  Being a space guy, I always like to see orbiting observatories, and I admit that ground-based stuff just isn?t sexy.  But I also think it is worthwhile to always check theoretical predictions at every opportunity.  Good thing we did this time, ja?

 

To find that chirp in such a short time fills me with hope that our notions on black hole formation are baloney.  It is so exciting to learn that something we always took for granted is screwed.  Progress!

 

It makes me really focus on the question:  if we turn on the LIGO in the fall and find one of these merger events every couple months, why would the BB have given us so many black holes in the 10 to 100 solar mass range?  What fundamental black hole formation mechanism did we systematically overlook, and noooobody caught it?

 

spike

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160527/66ad5528/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Sat May 28 07:56:28 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 08:56:28 +0100
Subject: [ExI] segregation forever!!
In-Reply-To: <019601d1b859$23c8b010$6b5a1030$@att.net>
References: <CAO+xQEbyiuVU5QD37=ToSEAh63xDhr=y72ZcFsv0rX+g1KtP_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgoLBuhjpSeLorYHzeU3n7X-SCUB34_MNJbX07tXiOnwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEawveSyku6kNGQQggkZh_M2qzNyxi4zhf4C49qAjLbsbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgNSuYHF3kER=z3eCnQoU8pYSJRRGnPN-dRvRRx49QF7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEYbf9is44ty_2+APN0XLy46K9zTWYy4qMZqBVtNaWDgfw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgDS1ZzeKtAzm_7OoUWptVZ7uqdK3RAm0ayxkJTPUJ3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRgszHbut-L4PUDFmckvXVqucoJJhJouF8A3z3S7sXfxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgq3FEsdy++XyF_tFa_6g-O9di99faJmL98KVhGgF7u=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNQY_wfGiBnG8e9dyyeDgm8XNE8QpRX7u0AypBbReU=7rQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armgB2L95tv2FDTrbz_Y0+rvC0NLXLGWi+czXpnkBwhr2+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <019601d1b859$23c8b010$6b5a1030$@att.net>
Message-ID: <57494F2C.7060804@aleph.se>

Slate Star Codex has as always an interesting and thoughtful look at 
these problems:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/05/23/three-great-articles-on-poverty-and-why-i-disagree-with-all-of-them/


On 2016-05-27 21:48, spike wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf
> Of BillK
>
>
>
>> ...In one factory in China Foxconn has just replaced 60,000 workers with
> robots.
> <http://www.geek.com/news/foxconn-has-replaced-60000-workers-in-one-factory-
> with-robots-1656337/>
>
>> ...Perhaps the poor could be also replaced with robots?   ;)  ...BillK
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> They already have!  All my own robots are poor as all hell; they don't have
> a damn thing.
>
> spike
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


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



From anders at aleph.se  Sat May 28 08:08:40 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 09:08:40 +0100
Subject: [ExI] moral reasoning
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEZ4BNO5n-My+6F+wS8DqJN8+oN7zdrWWB8Os2kwDGDP4g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEZ4BNO5n-My+6F+wS8DqJN8+oN7zdrWWB8Os2kwDGDP4g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57495208.6020106@aleph.se>

I think he is stretching the theory too far. That our ability to 
introspect doesn't cover 100% of our minds, nor is 100% perfect doesn't 
mean there are no detectable thoughts or beliefs. These exceptions do 
not have to be minor "limited exceptions". Similarly, that we might use 
a mindreading system inwards does not mean it is limited by sensory 
input: contents of working memory clearly seem accessible to it.

The "new" view that the mind is fairly opaque, embodied, and has a lot 
of biases *is* a challenge to a lot of moral philosophy. My colleagues 
are happily scanning brains and arguing how integrated mental subsystems 
have to be before we can properly say that a person is responsible (or 
that there is a person there, as in minimally conscious states). The old 
view of perfect rationality and perfect introspection is pretty clearly 
not a good model for how people actually act and think morally.

The next question is how to enhance it. Just because a moral system 
might not be implementable in a current human brain might not mean it is 
not morally better than the implementable ones, and if we could update 
ourselves to be able to follow it we should.



On 2016-05-27 21:37, William Flynn Wallace wrote:
> excerpt from link below:
>
> If our thoughts and decisions are all unconscious, as the ISA theory 
> implies, then moral philosophers have a lot of work to do. For we tend 
> to think that people can?t be held responsible for their unconscious 
> attitudes. Accepting the ISA theory might not mean giving up on 
> responsibility, but it will mean radically rethinking it.
>
>
> https://aeon.co/ideas/whatever-you-think-you-don-t-necessarily-know-your-own-mind?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=13a95dde3e-Weekly_Newsletter_27_May_20165_27_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-13a95dde3e-68993993
>
> bill w
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


-- 
Dr 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/20160528/baf2d0a3/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Sat May 28 08:30:13 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 09:30:13 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Censorship
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEasrp5q4Jwk1C+-XGkkAy84WSAEJqr3E2yfAde2qy-jmA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armg5N_ehYijL6ZTYTVZfTUZv=OCPwuPrLpvTgr6Vtfa=xg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZHtRZ5Ze543k_cUjV0mM7HniKF8_uHbow=A0MSLR16VQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <17F982E8-3A8F-40F1-98BA-47C08E9E87C6@gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEaWVP8ATmw9BbPaui6db4J9uhAeHQz4xCgzAqFLFOVHcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <d92c4717-3112-5bdb-6153-791d0833394b@aleph.se>
 <CAO+xQEasrp5q4Jwk1C+-XGkkAy84WSAEJqr3E2yfAde2qy-jmA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57495715.20008@aleph.se>

I actually think this kind of quibbling is hamstringing the conversation 
about censorship. Legally, we may want clear definitions (but in 
countries where censorship is a big problem the law is often part of the 
problem). But when trying to come up with solutions and improvements 
things often descend into a morass of semantics.

The essence of censorship is that group A prevents group B from 
communicating something to society, based on it originating in group B 
(suppressing their power) or containing something A doesn't like. One 
can construct legitimate cases, both in the sense that group A is 
legitimately appointed and that the suppression is for a legitimate 
reason. The problem is that a lot of cases are not legitimate, either 
formally - nobody appointed A as the moral guardians - or from a moral 
standpoint - the reasons for suppression are not valid.

There are lots of intermediate levels. Nobody appointed parents, yet 
they might have a legitimate say in how conversations are held in their 
family. The publisher that refuses to print a book is legitimate in 
their decision, yet they might have a morally bad reason (maybe they 
didn't like the race of the author). Most of these cases can be dealt 
with by the various local rules we have about families, companies and 
the like.

The key ones, the ones I think we *need* to get right, are the ones that 
have society-wide reach. If the censorship affects everybody, then it is 
everybody's problem. In particular, it interferes with the key 
functioning of an open society: that anything is open for criticism, and 
if the members think the criticism is valid, the thing can be changed 
through collective decisions. If certain things cannot be critiqued or 
if it is not possible to have a debate about whether they should be 
changed, then society is not open. Hence censorship by powers that can 
affect all of society is deeply problematic, and legitimate censorship 
needs to be kept on a very tight leash.

One interesting issue is how to handle the emergence of new, globalised 
platforms of power. In the past this rarely happened and most thinking 
about how to handle censorship was based on states. However, Facebook, 
Apple and Google certainly perform censorship within their domains, yet 
their domains are often so wide that they can be said to exert 
society-wide effects. Does that mean we need to have a global oversight 
over their activity? Things get even trickier since the global realm 
includes non-open societies.


On 2016-05-27 21:19, William Flynn Wallace wrote:
>> Well Dan I hate to tell you this, but we have censorship now in TV, 
>> movies, books and maybe more.  I read recently that about 40k books 
>> are published every month and some one has the say-so about its going 
>> on sale somewhere (where might be determined by its rating).
>
> No, that is not censorship. If you as a publisher tell me that you 
> will not publish my book because it is crap/politically incorrect/will 
> not sell/it is Friday that is your prerogative. There is no right to 
> have stuff published. Censorship occurs is when a centralized power 
> can decide to prevent publication because of content. (Some iffy 
> definitions for post-publication action, but the core is 
> prepublication approval).
> ? anders
>
> Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other 
> information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, 
> politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, 
> media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.  dictionary
>
> I don't want to quibble about words, but what I wrote is well within 
> the definition above. Certainly the type Anders mentioned is far more 
> dangerous and threatening. This has nothing to do with free speech.  
> Of course Anders
> is right that no one has the right to have his stuff published 
> anywhere. College newspaper editors found that out for sure a few 
> years ago in a court case. Not letting a college writer put his stuff 
> in a campus newspaper is not a violation of free speech, but it is 
> censorship.
>
> bill w
> ?
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 3:10 AM, Anders <anders at aleph.se 
> <mailto:anders at aleph.se>> wrote:
>
>     On 2016-05-26 21:49, William Flynn Wallace wrote:
>>     Why would it be ethical to have censorship in the first place?
>>     It's like saying "Put an AI in charge of slavery..."
>>
>>     Dan
>>
>>     Well Dan I hate to tell you this, but we have censorship now in
>>     TV, movies, books and maybe more.  I read recently that about 40k
>>     books are published every month and some one has the say-so about
>>     its going on sale somewhere (where might be determined by its
>>     rating).
>
>     No, that is not censorship. If you as a publisher tell me that you
>     will not publish my book because it is crap/politically
>     incorrect/will not sell/it is Friday that is your prerogative.
>     There is no right to have stuff published. Censorship occurs is
>     when a centralized power can decide to prevent publication because
>     of content. (Some iffy definitions for post-publication action,
>     but the core is prepublication approval).
>
>>     I can easily see an AI being used for some of the labor of
>>     digesting all this material.  I also think an AI would never be
>>     in charge of actual censorship, but the AI could kick out books,
>>     movies, that fudge certain guidelines so that a human, or a
>>     committee, or the Supreme Court could decide what to do with it.
>
>     In a sense this is happening with YouTube, where copyright
>     infringing material is blocked - officially after a human has
>     looked at what the algorithm found, but obviously often without
>     any human oversight. For various sad, hilarious or rage-inducing
>     examples, just search Boing Boing or Slashdot's archives.
>
>>
>>     Now whether there should BE any kind of censorship is an entirely
>>     different question, one that could be debated in this group if it
>>     hasn't before (not likely).
>
>     As I have mentioned, I am starting to study information hazards (
>     http://www.nickbostrom.com/information-hazards.pdf ) Some of these
>     may actually be serious enough that we rationally should want some
>     form of censorship or control.
>
>     Others are not serious enough, but we may want to have systems
>     that discourage them (libel law, boycotts, whatever).
>
>     But we have to be careful with that (e.g.
>     http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/04/the-automated-boycott/ ).
>     I recently enjoyed reading a series of case studies showing how
>     information concealment played an important role in many big
>     disasters (
>     http://aleph.se/andart2/risk/the-hazard-of-concealing-risk/ ).
>     Generally, limiting information cuts out the good with the bad,
>     and we are not very skilled at distinguishing them a priori. Plus,
>     management requires information: if the problem is an underlying
>     structure or something concrete rather than bad information per
>     se, then the agencies that manage - whether institutional or the
>     open society - need to get that information to do something. Far
>     too often censorship just looks for surface detail.
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     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


-- 
Dr 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/20160528/344fe582/attachment.html>

From protokol2020 at gmail.com  Sat May 28 09:02:43 2016
From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan)
Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 11:02:43 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Has the mystery of Dark Matter been solved?
In-Reply-To: <028801d1b88c$75a784a0$60f68de0$@att.net>
References: <CAJPayv2H23CxAO4qP2U4iTySE-SJjTiXYkBUvPHY5rhX0eABLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <E602614E-C8B4-45BD-A144-B45E2540987A@gmu.edu>
 <410e2e78-8ee7-aa4e-4c01-5f6882a98d5e@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armgkgfioRZo_88NBCWvEuBF9b8oXoXmd-V1RWbd118EZDg@mail.gmail.com>
 <001f01d1b7d5$3e6af8d0$bb40ea70$@att.net>
 <CALMrAFTRfgb_WaeX5Hj5PwBYkHjEij3y5Tq2t=TMk2D_KaxDOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2Us_Opb8jpxei1cfJysmiBOGZRZobZYqy8tpF0GnT0dA@mail.gmail.com>
 <028801d1b88c$75a784a0$60f68de0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CALMrAFR8vH4O==iJ1qnd9gPsay6cryWQOqxmexy9wpdiRPRGMg@mail.gmail.com>

We made our positions quite clear, for the second time already.

In September, we will probably see who is (more) right. If it will be you,
I'll be prepared to read some more of your views about this.

If it will be me, I already have explanations where you are wrong and I'll
write them down here on this list - then.

On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 4:55 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On
> Behalf Of *John Clark
> *?*
>
>
>
> ?
>
>
>
> >?Apparently they ?
>
> ?are. Unless they LIGO people were astronomically lucky they are far more
> frequent than anybody predicted. Most thought it would be decades before
> they heard anything that good, and some thought they never would?  John K
> Clark
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I never participated in the debates a few years ago over whether LIGO
> would be worth building, but I was quietly cheering for the LIGOers.  Being
> a space guy, I always like to see orbiting observatories, and I admit that
> ground-based stuff just isn?t sexy.  But I also think it is worthwhile to
> always check theoretical predictions at every opportunity.  Good thing we
> did this time, ja?
>
>
>
> To find that chirp in such a short time fills me with hope that our
> notions on black hole formation are baloney.  It is so exciting to learn
> that something we always took for granted is screwed.  Progress!
>
>
>
> It makes me really focus on the question:  if we turn on the LIGO in the
> fall and find one of these merger events every couple months, why would the
> BB have given us so many black holes in the 10 to 100 solar mass range?
> What fundamental black hole formation mechanism did we systematically
> overlook, and noooobody caught it?
>
>
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160528/1021496c/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sat May 28 09:43:52 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 05:43:52 -0400
Subject: [ExI] segregation forever!!
In-Reply-To: <57494F2C.7060804@aleph.se>
References: <CAO+xQEbyiuVU5QD37=ToSEAh63xDhr=y72ZcFsv0rX+g1KtP_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgoLBuhjpSeLorYHzeU3n7X-SCUB34_MNJbX07tXiOnwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEawveSyku6kNGQQggkZh_M2qzNyxi4zhf4C49qAjLbsbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgNSuYHF3kER=z3eCnQoU8pYSJRRGnPN-dRvRRx49QF7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEYbf9is44ty_2+APN0XLy46K9zTWYy4qMZqBVtNaWDgfw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgDS1ZzeKtAzm_7OoUWptVZ7uqdK3RAm0ayxkJTPUJ3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNRgszHbut-L4PUDFmckvXVqucoJJhJouF8A3z3S7sXfxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAc1gFgq3FEsdy++XyF_tFa_6g-O9di99faJmL98KVhGgF7u=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNQY_wfGiBnG8e9dyyeDgm8XNE8QpRX7u0AypBbReU=7rQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armgB2L95tv2FDTrbz_Y0+rvC0NLXLGWi+czXpnkBwhr2+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <019601d1b859$23c8b010$6b5a1030$@att.net>
 <57494F2C.7060804@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFj8VP60GF6f8jtfRCSnoW_xjOn9HbM_xJokuRUEgv+MaA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 3:56 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> Slate Star Codex has as always an interesting and thoughtful look at these
> problems:
>
> http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/05/23/three-great-articles-on-poverty-and-why-i-disagree-with-all-of-them/
>
>
### Search through the comments for "Rafal".

Tell me what do you think it about the modest proposal I made there :)

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160528/848bc31d/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Sat May 28 14:29:50 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 09:29:50 -0500
Subject: [ExI] moral reasoning
In-Reply-To: <57495208.6020106@aleph.se>
References: <CAO+xQEZ4BNO5n-My+6F+wS8DqJN8+oN7zdrWWB8Os2kwDGDP4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <57495208.6020106@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZHFXA3mrsAuawPp3k36sV3GOVPdh=3CPJBednARMq5Jw@mail.gmail.com>

The old view of perfect rationality and perfect introspection is pretty
clearly not a good model for how people actually act and think morally.
 anders

Exactly so.  If that idea is not dead yet it is high time it is.

In some moral experiments a hypothetical dilemma is presented and the
person picks an action he would take.  Similar dilemmas are presented later
to get some idea of the reliability of answers.

Reliability is never found to be perfect.  In fact, if you change the
dilemma a bit you can get entirely different answers.  This challenges the
idea that there is some fixed moral system in a person.  Going even
further, change the externals:  put the same dilemma in a less personal or
more personal situation and you can find that the situation changes the
behavior.  This is an old problem:  the causes of behavior stem from both
external and internal variables.

Thus this is a possibility:  a person who has committed murder would not
have done so earlier or later in the day, if they had not been angry, or
drunk, or had just come from another frustrating experience.  Is this
person a 'murderer', implying a personality that would do the same thing
even if circumstances were different?  Or is this a person who would commit
murder only in the circumstance he faced?

We have to look outward as well as inward to understand morality.  If we
get unreliability of answers to moral questions, then it could be that the
measurements are unreliable and we need to better them.  It could also be
that the thing being measured is not, in fact, unchangeable, and the
unreliability of the measurements reflects the unreliability of the thing
itself.  In fact, it could be so unreliable that it is a mistake to call it
a thing.

bill w

On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 3:08 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> I think he is stretching the theory too far. That our ability to
> introspect doesn't cover 100% of our minds, nor is 100% perfect doesn't
> mean there are no detectable thoughts or beliefs. These exceptions do not
> have to be minor "limited exceptions". Similarly, that we might use a
> mindreading system inwards does not mean it is limited by sensory input:
> contents of working memory clearly seem accessible to it.
>
> The "new" view that the mind is fairly opaque, embodied, and has a lot of
> biases *is* a challenge to a lot of moral philosophy. My colleagues are
> happily scanning brains and arguing how integrated mental subsystems have
> to be before we can properly say that a person is responsible (or that
> there is a person there, as in minimally conscious states). The old view of
> perfect rationality and perfect introspection is pretty clearly not a good
> model for how people actually act and think morally.
>
> The next question is how to enhance it. Just because a moral system might
> not be implementable in a current human brain might not mean it is not
> morally better than the implementable ones, and if we could update
> ourselves to be able to follow it we should.
>
>
>
> On 2016-05-27 21:37, William Flynn Wallace wrote:
>
> excerpt from link below:
>
> If our thoughts and decisions are all unconscious, as the ISA theory
> implies, then moral philosophers have a lot of work to do. For we tend to
> think that people can?t be held responsible for their unconscious
> attitudes. Accepting the ISA theory might not mean giving up on
> responsibility, but it will mean radically rethinking it.
>
>
> https://aeon.co/ideas/whatever-you-think-you-don-t-necessarily-know-your-own-mind?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=13a95dde3e-Weekly_Newsletter_27_May_20165_27_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-13a95dde3e-68993993
>
> bill w
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing listextropy-chat at lists.extropy.orghttp://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
>
> --
> Dr 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/20160528/76792792/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Sat May 28 14:35:58 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 09:35:58 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Censorship
In-Reply-To: <57495715.20008@aleph.se>
References: <CAL_armg5N_ehYijL6ZTYTVZfTUZv=OCPwuPrLpvTgr6Vtfa=xg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZHtRZ5Ze543k_cUjV0mM7HniKF8_uHbow=A0MSLR16VQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <17F982E8-3A8F-40F1-98BA-47C08E9E87C6@gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEaWVP8ATmw9BbPaui6db4J9uhAeHQz4xCgzAqFLFOVHcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <d92c4717-3112-5bdb-6153-791d0833394b@aleph.se>
 <CAO+xQEasrp5q4Jwk1C+-XGkkAy84WSAEJqr3E2yfAde2qy-jmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <57495715.20008@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEas0H8_jU+AZuagUid6bn=z6JVp4XmaL8EDsG1SDK=SMw@mail.gmail.com>

I actually think this kind of quibbling is hamstringing the conversation
about censorship. Legally, we may want clear definitions (but in countries
where censorship is a big problem the law is often part of the problem).
But when trying to come up with solutions and improvements things often
descend into a morass of semantics. anders

My example still fits the dictionary definition, but apparently it does not
fit yours.  Yes, it is all semantics - every discussion depends on a shared
definition of terms.
I see nothing derogatory about calling something semantics.

If my example is not censorship, then just what is it?  It is a given that
your definition will not agree with the dictionary one, so who is confusing
the discussion, you or me?  Over to you, sir.

bill w


On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 3:30 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> I actually think this kind of quibbling is hamstringing the conversation
> about censorship. Legally, we may want clear definitions (but in countries
> where censorship is a big problem the law is often part of the problem).
> But when trying to come up with solutions and improvements things often
> descend into a morass of semantics.
>
> The essence of censorship is that group A prevents group B from
> communicating something to society, based on it originating in group B
> (suppressing their power) or containing something A doesn't like. One can
> construct legitimate cases, both in the sense that group A is legitimately
> appointed and that the suppression is for a legitimate reason. The problem
> is that a lot of cases are not legitimate, either formally - nobody
> appointed A as the moral guardians - or from a moral standpoint - the
> reasons for suppression are not valid.
>
> There are lots of intermediate levels. Nobody appointed parents, yet they
> might have a legitimate say in how conversations are held in their family.
> The publisher that refuses to print a book is legitimate in their decision,
> yet they might have a morally bad reason (maybe they didn't like the race
> of the author). Most of these cases can be dealt with by the various local
> rules we have about families, companies and the like.
>
> The key ones, the ones I think we *need* to get right, are the ones that
> have society-wide reach. If the censorship affects everybody, then it is
> everybody's problem. In particular, it interferes with the key functioning
> of an open society: that anything is open for criticism, and if the members
> think the criticism is valid, the thing can be changed through collective
> decisions. If certain things cannot be critiqued or if it is not possible
> to have a debate about whether they should be changed, then society is not
> open. Hence censorship by powers that can affect all of society is deeply
> problematic, and legitimate censorship needs to be kept on a very tight
> leash.
>
> One interesting issue is how to handle the emergence of new, globalised
> platforms of power. In the past this rarely happened and most thinking
> about how to handle censorship was based on states. However, Facebook,
> Apple and Google certainly perform censorship within their domains, yet
> their domains are often so wide that they can be said to exert society-wide
> effects. Does that mean we need to have a global oversight over their
> activity? Things get even trickier since the global realm includes non-open
> societies.
>
>
> On 2016-05-27 21:19, William Flynn Wallace wrote:
>
> Well Dan I hate to tell you this, but we have censorship now in TV,
> movies, books and maybe more.  I read recently that about 40k books are
> published every month and some one has the say-so about its going on sale
> somewhere (where might be determined by its rating).
>
>
> No, that is not censorship. If you as a publisher tell me that you will
> not publish my book because it is crap/politically incorrect/will not
> sell/it is Friday that is your prerogative. There is no right to have
> stuff published. Censorship occurs is when a centralized power can decide
> to prevent publication because of content. (Some iffy definitions for
> post-publication action, but the core is prepublication approval).
> ? anders
>
> Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other
> information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive,
> politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media
> outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.  dictionary
>
> I don't want to quibble about words, but what I wrote is well within the
> definition above.  Certainly the type Anders mentioned is far more
> dangerous and threatening.  This has nothing to do with free speech.  Of
> course Anders
> is right that no one has the right to have his stuff published anywhere.
> College newspaper editors found that out for sure a few years ago in a
> court case.  Not letting a college writer put his stuff in a campus
> newspaper is not a violation of free speech, but it is censorship.
>
> bill w
> ?
>
>
> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 3:10 AM, Anders <anders at aleph.se> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-05-26 21:49, William Flynn Wallace wrote:
>>
>> Why would it be ethical to have censorship in the first place? It's like
>> saying "Put an AI in charge of slavery..."
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> Well Dan I hate to tell you this, but we have censorship now in TV,
>> movies, books and maybe more.  I read recently that about 40k books are
>> published every month and some one has the say-so about its going on sale
>> somewhere (where might be determined by its rating).
>>
>>
>> No, that is not censorship. If you as a publisher tell me that you will
>> not publish my book because it is crap/politically incorrect/will not
>> sell/it is Friday that is your prerogative. There is no right to have stuff
>> published. Censorship occurs is when a centralized power can decide to
>> prevent publication because of content. (Some iffy definitions for
>> post-publication action, but the core is prepublication approval).
>>
>> I can easily see an AI being used for some of the labor of digesting all
>> this material.  I also think an AI would never be in charge of actual
>> censorship, but the AI could kick out books, movies, that fudge certain
>> guidelines so that a human, or a committee, or the Supreme Court could
>> decide what to do with it.
>>
>>
>> In a sense this is happening with YouTube, where copyright infringing
>> material is blocked - officially after a human has looked at what the
>> algorithm found, but obviously often without any human oversight. For
>> various sad, hilarious or rage-inducing examples, just search Boing Boing
>> or Slashdot's archives.
>>
>>
>> Now whether there should BE any kind of censorship is an entirely
>> different question, one that could be debated in this group if it hasn't
>> before (not likely).
>>
>>
>> As I have mentioned, I am starting to study information hazards (
>> http://www.nickbostrom.com/information-hazards.pdf ) Some of these may
>> actually be serious enough that we rationally should want some form of
>> censorship or control.
>>
>> Others are not serious enough, but we may want to have systems that
>> discourage them (libel law, boycotts, whatever).
>>
>> But we have to be careful with that (e.g.
>> <http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/04/the-automated-boycott/>
>> http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/04/the-automated-boycott/ ). I
>> recently enjoyed reading a series of case studies showing how information
>> concealment played an important role in many big disasters (
>> http://aleph.se/andart2/risk/the-hazard-of-concealing-risk/ ).
>> Generally, limiting information cuts out the good with the bad, and we are
>> not very skilled at distinguishing them a priori. Plus, management requires
>> information: if the problem is an underlying structure or something
>> concrete rather than bad information per se, then the agencies that manage
>> - whether institutional or the open society - need to get that information
>> to do something. Far too often censorship just looks for surface detail.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing listextropy-chat at lists.extropy.orghttp://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
>
> --
> Dr 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/20160528/62592ca6/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Sat May 28 14:46:22 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 10:46:22 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Censorship
In-Reply-To: <d92c4717-3112-5bdb-6153-791d0833394b@aleph.se>
References: <CAL_armg5N_ehYijL6ZTYTVZfTUZv=OCPwuPrLpvTgr6Vtfa=xg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZHtRZ5Ze543k_cUjV0mM7HniKF8_uHbow=A0MSLR16VQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <17F982E8-3A8F-40F1-98BA-47C08E9E87C6@gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEaWVP8ATmw9BbPaui6db4J9uhAeHQz4xCgzAqFLFOVHcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <d92c4717-3112-5bdb-6153-791d0833394b@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv1Ydc=pGRi7oFU-QF5pnUguiWMVy2GYDiJbmBbWjGiQpA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 4:10 AM, Anders <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

>  If you as a publisher tell me that you will not publish my book because
> it is crap/politically incorrect/will not sell/it is Friday that is your
> prerogative. There is no right to have stuff published.


?That is absolutely true.

?> ?
> Censorship occurs is when a centralized power can decide to prevent
> publication because of content.


?Yes, and Donald Trump thinks the world needs more censorship. Trump wants
to get Bill Gates to "close up parts of the internet" to prevent radical ?
?speech. Trump also wants to make the libel laws much stronger, he wants to
authorize the state to take your property if you say something the state
deems you shouldn't say.  It seems utterly bizarre to me that so many
libertarians are perfectly OK with this idea of Trump's; but then it also
seems utterly bizarre that so many libertarians are OK with Trump's hatred
of free markets and free trade.

If that is now normal positions for a libertarian to take then I guess I'm
no longer a libertarian because I hate censorship and I love free markets
and free trade.

 John K Clark    ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160528/3ae42cb7/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Sat May 28 15:05:01 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 11:05:01 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Censorship
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEas0H8_jU+AZuagUid6bn=z6JVp4XmaL8EDsG1SDK=SMw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armg5N_ehYijL6ZTYTVZfTUZv=OCPwuPrLpvTgr6Vtfa=xg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZHtRZ5Ze543k_cUjV0mM7HniKF8_uHbow=A0MSLR16VQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <17F982E8-3A8F-40F1-98BA-47C08E9E87C6@gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEaWVP8ATmw9BbPaui6db4J9uhAeHQz4xCgzAqFLFOVHcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <d92c4717-3112-5bdb-6153-791d0833394b@aleph.se>
 <CAO+xQEasrp5q4Jwk1C+-XGkkAy84WSAEJqr3E2yfAde2qy-jmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <57495715.20008@aleph.se>
 <CAO+xQEas0H8_jU+AZuagUid6bn=z6JVp4XmaL8EDsG1SDK=SMw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv1wCd6YQ-sB7c+aWZSGnAqhNYCa-P0dENGOadyQ5tfbRA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 10:35 AM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com
> wrote:

> If my example is not censorship, then just what is it?


?You have the right to write anything you like and preventing you from
doing so would be censorship, but my refusal to read what you write is not
censorship.
 You have the right to write a book about anything you like
? and preventing you from doing so would be censorship
, but
?my refusal to use my own money to get your book published is not
censorship.

 John ?K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160528/6790e7ac/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Sat May 28 15:23:28 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 08:23:28 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Censorship
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv1Ydc=pGRi7oFU-QF5pnUguiWMVy2GYDiJbmBbWjGiQpA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armg5N_ehYijL6ZTYTVZfTUZv=OCPwuPrLpvTgr6Vtfa=xg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZHtRZ5Ze543k_cUjV0mM7HniKF8_uHbow=A0MSLR16VQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <17F982E8-3A8F-40F1-98BA-47C08E9E87C6@gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEaWVP8ATmw9BbPaui6db4J9uhAeHQz4xCgzAqFLFOVHcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <d92c4717-3112-5bdb-6153-791d0833394b@aleph.se>
 <CAJPayv1Ydc=pGRi7oFU-QF5pnUguiWMVy2GYDiJbmBbWjGiQpA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <004d01d1b8f4$e315e910$a941bb30$@att.net>

 

 

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

 

>?If that is now normal positions for a libertarian to take then I guess I'm no longer a libertarian because I hate censorship and I love free markets and free trade?John K Clark

 

 

I see that Gary Johnson is pulling in 10% at the informal polls against Trump and Clinton.  Progress!

 

spike

   ?



 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160528/7094206b/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Sat May 28 15:37:55 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 11:37:55 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Has the mystery of Dark Matter been solved?
In-Reply-To: <028801d1b88c$75a784a0$60f68de0$@att.net>
References: <CAJPayv2H23CxAO4qP2U4iTySE-SJjTiXYkBUvPHY5rhX0eABLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <E602614E-C8B4-45BD-A144-B45E2540987A@gmu.edu>
 <410e2e78-8ee7-aa4e-4c01-5f6882a98d5e@aleph.se>
 <CAL_armgkgfioRZo_88NBCWvEuBF9b8oXoXmd-V1RWbd118EZDg@mail.gmail.com>
 <001f01d1b7d5$3e6af8d0$bb40ea70$@att.net>
 <CALMrAFTRfgb_WaeX5Hj5PwBYkHjEij3y5Tq2t=TMk2D_KaxDOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2Us_Opb8jpxei1cfJysmiBOGZRZobZYqy8tpF0GnT0dA@mail.gmail.com>
 <028801d1b88c$75a784a0$60f68de0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv1FGYWO-ydkvWP0fdgzPdfs_=a9CS0CtdK=YzRLje5z=A@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 10:55 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:


>
> ?> ?
> why would the BB have given us so many black holes in the 10 to 100 solar
> mass range?  What fundamental black hole formation mechanism did we
> systematically overlook, and noooobody caught it?
>
>
?I
t's not really anybody's fault
? they weren't predicted?
,
?if they exist primordial Black Holes?
 must have been made less than a thousandth of a second
?after the Big Bang?
 and perhaps much less. To have predicted it you'd have to understand the
chaotic dynamics of the universe when it was many millions of trillions of
times denser than it is now and many millions of trillions of times hotter
and when there was only one fundamental physical force not 4 as there were
one second later and as there are now. We need a quantum theory of gravity
and we don't have one, but maybe this will give us a clue to help us figure
one
? out?
.

? John K Clark?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160528/2db0753e/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Sat May 28 15:52:48 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 08:52:48 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Censorship
In-Reply-To: <004d01d1b8f4$e315e910$a941bb30$@att.net>
References: <CAL_armg5N_ehYijL6ZTYTVZfTUZv=OCPwuPrLpvTgr6Vtfa=xg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZHtRZ5Ze543k_cUjV0mM7HniKF8_uHbow=A0MSLR16VQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <17F982E8-3A8F-40F1-98BA-47C08E9E87C6@gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEaWVP8ATmw9BbPaui6db4J9uhAeHQz4xCgzAqFLFOVHcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <d92c4717-3112-5bdb-6153-791d0833394b@aleph.se>
 <CAJPayv1Ydc=pGRi7oFU-QF5pnUguiWMVy2GYDiJbmBbWjGiQpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <004d01d1b8f4$e315e910$a941bb30$@att.net>
Message-ID: <4D3968A8-6AD3-4B3D-A374-9439F873BEF7@gmail.com>

On May 28, 2016, at 8:23 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote: 
> I see that Gary Johnson is pulling in 10% at the informal polls against Trump and Clinton.  Progress!

However:

http://reason.com/blog/2016/05/27/three-reasons-the-libertarian-party-coul

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/20160528/136f65a7/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Sat May 28 17:11:26 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 12:11:26 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Censorship
In-Reply-To: <4D3968A8-6AD3-4B3D-A374-9439F873BEF7@gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armg5N_ehYijL6ZTYTVZfTUZv=OCPwuPrLpvTgr6Vtfa=xg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZHtRZ5Ze543k_cUjV0mM7HniKF8_uHbow=A0MSLR16VQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <17F982E8-3A8F-40F1-98BA-47C08E9E87C6@gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEaWVP8ATmw9BbPaui6db4J9uhAeHQz4xCgzAqFLFOVHcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <d92c4717-3112-5bdb-6153-791d0833394b@aleph.se>
 <CAJPayv1Ydc=pGRi7oFU-QF5pnUguiWMVy2GYDiJbmBbWjGiQpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <004d01d1b8f4$e315e910$a941bb30$@att.net>
 <4D3968A8-6AD3-4B3D-A374-9439F873BEF7@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEan+ODZYgF8vLJD_VBsNOAx=D-atcfymYNFYOFvrT26Kg@mail.gmail.com>

You have the right to write anything you like and preventing you from doing
so would be censorship, but my refusal to read what you write is not
censorship.
 You have the right to write a book about anything you like
? and preventing you from doing so would be censorship
, but
?my refusal to use my own money to get your book published is not
censorship.

 John ?K Clark


I don't know what Anders is going to say, but this is completely correct.

bill w

On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On May 28, 2016, at 8:23 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
> I see that Gary Johnson is pulling in 10% at the informal polls against
> Trump and Clinton.  Progress!
>
>
> However:
>
> http://reason.com/blog/2016/05/27/three-reasons-the-libertarian-party-coul
>
> 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/20160528/c8b6640d/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Sat May 28 17:25:29 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 13:25:29 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Censorship
In-Reply-To: <004d01d1b8f4$e315e910$a941bb30$@att.net>
References: <CAL_armg5N_ehYijL6ZTYTVZfTUZv=OCPwuPrLpvTgr6Vtfa=xg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZHtRZ5Ze543k_cUjV0mM7HniKF8_uHbow=A0MSLR16VQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <17F982E8-3A8F-40F1-98BA-47C08E9E87C6@gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEaWVP8ATmw9BbPaui6db4J9uhAeHQz4xCgzAqFLFOVHcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <d92c4717-3112-5bdb-6153-791d0833394b@aleph.se>
 <CAJPayv1Ydc=pGRi7oFU-QF5pnUguiWMVy2GYDiJbmBbWjGiQpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <004d01d1b8f4$e315e910$a941bb30$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv3FvWD3ohYQmwDwYqfRGesDLqNPngv4oEDi_-qnqg-eKA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 11:23 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:



> ?> ?
> I see that Gary Johnson is pulling in 10% at the informal polls against
> Trump and Clinton.  Progress!
>
>
?
I'm glad Johnson is in the race because he's syphoning off votes from
people who would otherwise go for Trump. Apparently there is a split among
libertarians between Trump and Johnson.
? ?
Bill Maher had Wayne Allyn Root
? ?
on his HBO show yesterday
? ?
and he's
?an?
?
enthusiastic
? ?
Trump supporter
?; Root was a longtime libertarian party member but recently resigned so he
could go with Trump.? A
nd that nitwit made me ashamed I'd ever called myself a libertarian.

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160528/d198ff0f/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Sat May 28 19:21:06 2016
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan)
Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 12:21:06 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Censorship
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv3FvWD3ohYQmwDwYqfRGesDLqNPngv4oEDi_-qnqg-eKA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armg5N_ehYijL6ZTYTVZfTUZv=OCPwuPrLpvTgr6Vtfa=xg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZHtRZ5Ze543k_cUjV0mM7HniKF8_uHbow=A0MSLR16VQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <17F982E8-3A8F-40F1-98BA-47C08E9E87C6@gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEaWVP8ATmw9BbPaui6db4J9uhAeHQz4xCgzAqFLFOVHcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <d92c4717-3112-5bdb-6153-791d0833394b@aleph.se>
 <CAJPayv1Ydc=pGRi7oFU-QF5pnUguiWMVy2GYDiJbmBbWjGiQpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <004d01d1b8f4$e315e910$a941bb30$@att.net>
 <CAJPayv3FvWD3ohYQmwDwYqfRGesDLqNPngv4oEDi_-qnqg-eKA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACB7g27vQ62sXwLzbTrp-DXO-nXHMn_+kLm_ZO=XVBSwjN=i3A@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 10:25 AM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm glad Johnson is in the race because he's syphoning off votes from
> people who would otherwise go for Trump. Apparently there is a split
> among libertarians between Trump and Johnson.

There's a bigger (and longer lasting) split amongst libertarians between
voting and not voting. But that isn't much on the radar of mainstream
reporting.

> Bill Maher had Wayne Allyn Root
> on his HBO show yesterday
> and he's an enthusiastic
> Trump supporter ; Root was a longtime libertarian party member but
> recently resigned so he could go with Trump. And that nitwit made
> me ashamed I'd ever called myself a libertarian.

Many libertarians have opted for the term voluntaryist -- well, from my
reading, since the 1980s at least. That only applies to anarchists though
-- if the term is being used as originally coined. (Again, if my reading is
correct here.)

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/20160528/60387c59/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Sun May 29 11:50:45 2016
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sun, 29 May 2016 12:50:45 +0100
Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?How_Technology_Hijacks_People=E2=80=99s_Minds?=
Message-ID: <CAL_armgtSWVPse0Mop-B8B2+W4ONgSgefpukzTF+4PhFOUQOPg@mail.gmail.com>

How Technology Hijacks People?s Minds???from a Magician and Google?s
Design Ethicist
Tristan Harris May 18, 2016

<https://medium.com/swlh/how-technology-hijacks-peoples-minds-from-a-magician-and-google-s-design-ethicist-56d62ef5edf3>

Quotes:
I?m an expert on how technology hijacks our psychological
vulnerabilities. That?s why I spent the last three years as a Design
Ethicist at Google caring about how to design things in a way that
defends a billion people?s minds from getting hijacked.

When using technology, we often focus optimistically on all the things
it does for us. But I want to show you where it might do the opposite.
Where does technology exploit our minds? weaknesses?

Hijack #1: If You Control the Menu, You Control the Choices
(What's not on the menu?)

Hijack #2: Put a Slot Machine In a Billion Pockets
If you?re an app, how do you keep people hooked? Turn yourself into a
slot machine.
The average person checks their phone 150 times a day. Why do we do this?

One major reason why is the #1 psychological ingredient in slot
machines: intermittent variable rewards.

If you want to maximize addictiveness, all tech designers need to do
is link a user?s action (like pulling a lever) with a variable reward.
You pull a lever and immediately receive either an enticing reward (a
match, a prize!) or nothing. Addictiveness is maximized when the rate
of reward is most variable.

Does this effect really work on people? Yes. Slot machines make more
money in the United States than baseball, movies, and theme parks
combined.


And so on..........
------------------------------


The more 'social' your devices become, the less of your mind belongs to you.


BillK



From rocket at earthlight.com  Sun May 29 15:34:53 2016
From: rocket at earthlight.com (Re Rose)
Date: Sun, 29 May 2016 11:34:53 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Should we teach Strong AI Ethics?
Message-ID: <CAFVzX8=c8USNic+Hh2u9xagQNFPodiJzy+G-n1BcJpt_xG31Ww@mail.gmail.com>

Well, small, new humans learn ethics using game theory, supplanted by
parental and social inculcation of local culture. I propose the safest way
for AGI's to develop a sense of ethics is the same way - and that's
certainly a safer approach than imagining that we could program
something better.

My concern is due to current discussions both in the media and at
professional conferences of programming AGI's with some form
of altruism towards humans. The unintended consequences of this could be
devastating - this has been known (and parodied) for decades already. Yet
people still talk about, and champion, this altruistic design as a goal.
It's just not a good idea.

Early UNIX system designs had all sorts of weak security measures back in
the day - out-of-the-box open ports, sendmail bugs,
clear-text password files, the ability to delete admin log files, etc etc
etc. Because when UNIX was designed, no one thought how it might one day
used so widely. Fixing these security flaws has been very expensive and
very time-consuming. Let's not play around with programming ethics while
we are still in the dark as to how to even define ethics - and have it turn
out to be likewise very expensive and difficult to redesign 20 years from
now.

--Regina


On 27 May 2016 at 13:57, Re Rose wrote:
<snip>
> All human ethics originate from the practicalities (constraints) on
> interactions as described by game theory. Game theory works because each
> individual (or agent) acts in their own self-interest to maximize their
own
> payoff. Also to consider is that for any one agent and within a single,
> local culture, that agent will necessarily be involved in many interacting
> situations (or games) and the intersection of these would be non-linear
(and
> probably dynamic) combinations of all the game payoffs. This makes
> prediction - and programming - of "correct" ethical behavior in such
> situations impossible.
>
> Future AGIs could and should be programmed - or simply allowed - to
develop
> their own ethics by acting as independent agents and maximizing their own
> utility for a given situation. (Defining utility for an AGI - that's a
> different topic!!) As far as weak AIs, such as Google self-driving cars,
> programming them to, for example, drive off the road as opposed to hitting
> the stray baby carriage in front of them, is not programming ethics but
> building safety features.
>

As Anders pointed out humans 'live and let live' different ethical
systems because everybody is roughly equal. Where they are not, the
unbelievers tend to get wiped out (or reduced to small enclaves).

I don't like the idea of an AGI using game theory to maximise its own
payoff. At least we should instruct it that 'might doesn't make
right'. Many humans could do with that instruction as well.

BillK
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160529/2fad3839/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Mon May 30 17:44:47 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 10:44:47 -0700
Subject: [ExI] goodbye voyager...
Message-ID: <000201d1ba9a$f631be00$e2953a00$@att.net>

 

 

We knew it was going to happen eventually.  Still sad:

 

 

 

http://www.theonion.com/article/voyager-probe-badly-damaged-after-smashing-e
nd-uni-52996

 

 

Voyager Probe Badly Damaged After Smashing Into End Of Universe 

 

 

NEWS IN BRIEF 

 May 26, 2016  

 

Vol 52 Issue 20     

 News  .  Science  .  Space  .  Nasa   

 

 

PASADENA, CA-Confirming that several components had broken off the craft and
that most of its scientific instruments were no longer operational,
officials from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory announced that Voyager 1,
the pioneering space probe launched in 1977, had been severely damaged
Thursday after crashing into the end of the universe. "It appears that, at
approximately 8:20 this morning, Voyager struck the edge of the universe
head-on at a speed of 38,000 miles per hour, resulting in significant
structural damage to the spacecraft," said Voyager project scientist Ed
Stone, noting that the force of the impact with the outer border of the
cosmos had bent the probe's main antenna dish and completely snapped off its
low-field magnetometer. "While we're receiving only intermittent signals
from Voyager now, incoming data indicate that, in addition to nearly
totaling the craft's thermoelectric generator, the collision left a
significant dent in the end of the universe as well." 

 

JPL scientists added that Voyager 1 now appears to be moving laterally,
scraping its left side along the universe's outer edge, and that it is
expected to continue doing so for the next 50 or 60 years until the
remaining fragments of the probe eventually come to rest in the bottom-right
corner of outer space.

 

 

C Copyright 2016 Onion Inc. All rights reserved. 

   

 

 

.heeeeeehehehehheheeeee.

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160530/8f04d611/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Mon May 30 20:34:45 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 15:34:45 -0500
Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?How_Technology_Hijacks_People=E2=80=99s_Minds?=
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armgtSWVPse0Mop-B8B2+W4ONgSgefpukzTF+4PhFOUQOPg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armgtSWVPse0Mop-B8B2+W4ONgSgefpukzTF+4PhFOUQOPg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEao3COTSJT97aNUQcceSEX8OdWLg09zNks3d8FM+Ot1Ag@mail.gmail.com>

If you want to maximize addictiveness, all tech designers need to do
is link a user?s action (like pulling a lever) with a variable reward.
You pull a lever and immediately receive either an enticing reward (a
match, a prize!) or nothing. Addictiveness is maximized when the rate
of reward is most variable.

Does this effect really work on people? Yes. Slot machines make more
money in the United States than baseball, movies, and theme parks
combined

The more 'social' your devices become, the less of your mind belongs to you.

BillK

Well well, the resurrection of B F Skinner.  I do wonder if the schedule is
a variable ratio or a variable interval one?  Difference:  the ratio one
depends on the number of responses (which of course is variable).  The
interval one depends on the passage of time (which is variable).  I am
guessing Variable Ratio, or VR.

Yes, it's very powerful, but you cannot increase the variability
indefinitely.  What you can do is to stretch the ratio - say starting with
VR 3 - every third response on the average gets a reward, then VR 5, VR 10,
and so on.  Ratios of hundreds required for a reward has been achieved with
lab animals, particularly pigeons, since they can respond so rapidly.

Now why don't we all know this?  Skinner not taught?  ???  What these early
learning people did, from Pavlov on, has never been found invalid or
unreliable.  So they are facts of life underlying all learning, from a rat
pressing a bar to the most involved cognitive functioning (but see the
history of insight learning).

Bill w

On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 6:50 AM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> How Technology Hijacks People?s Minds ? from a Magician and Google?s
> Design Ethicist
> Tristan Harris May 18, 2016
>
> <
> https://medium.com/swlh/how-technology-hijacks-peoples-minds-from-a-magician-and-google-s-design-ethicist-56d62ef5edf3
> >
>
> Quotes:
> I?m an expert on how technology hijacks our psychological
> vulnerabilities. That?s why I spent the last three years as a Design
> Ethicist at Google caring about how to design things in a way that
> defends a billion people?s minds from getting hijacked.
>
> When using technology, we often focus optimistically on all the things
> it does for us. But I want to show you where it might do the opposite.
> Where does technology exploit our minds? weaknesses?
>
> Hijack #1: If You Control the Menu, You Control the Choices
> (What's not on the menu?)
>
> Hijack #2: Put a Slot Machine In a Billion Pockets
> If you?re an app, how do you keep people hooked? Turn yourself into a
> slot machine.
> The average person checks their phone 150 times a day. Why do we do this?
>
> One major reason why is the #1 psychological ingredient in slot
> machines: intermittent variable rewards.
>
> If you want to maximize addictiveness, all tech designers need to do
> is link a user?s action (like pulling a lever) with a variable reward.
> You pull a lever and immediately receive either an enticing reward (a
> match, a prize!) or nothing. Addictiveness is maximized when the rate
> of reward is most variable.
>
> Does this effect really work on people? Yes. Slot machines make more
> money in the United States than baseball, movies, and theme parks
> combined.
>
>
> And so on..........
> ------------------------------
>
>
> The more 'social' your devices become, the less of your mind belongs to
> you.
>
>
> 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/20160530/04fe2554/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Mon May 30 21:08:05 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 14:08:05 -0700
Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?How_Technology_Hijacks_People=E2=80=99s_Minds?=
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEao3COTSJT97aNUQcceSEX8OdWLg09zNks3d8FM+Ot1Ag@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armgtSWVPse0Mop-B8B2+W4ONgSgefpukzTF+4PhFOUQOPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEao3COTSJT97aNUQcceSEX8OdWLg09zNks3d8FM+Ot1Ag@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <004201d1bab7$5c5f0e50$151d2af0$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2016 1:35 PM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] How Technology Hijacks People?s Minds

 

>>?If you want to maximize addictiveness, all tech designers need to do
is link a user?s action (like pulling a lever) with a variable reward?.BillK

 

>?Well well, the resurrection of B F Skinner.  I do wonder if the schedule is a variable ratio or a variable interval one?  Difference:  the ratio one depends on the number of responses (which of course is variable).  The interval one depends on the passage of time (which is variable).  I am guessing Variable Ratio, or VR?Bill w

 

 

A variable-interval-variable-reward (VIVR) situation somehow hijacks the mammalian brain?s pattern recognition routines.  Perhaps some psychology hipster can educate me on it.  Why is it that human brains vary so much on that?  Why do some brains really like VIVR systems (commission sales?) and others do not (salary guys?) 

 

The variation is extreme in my own family: my father in law finds slot-machine style gambling so pleasurable as to be addictive if he allowed himself to do it (his religion strictly forbids all gambling.)  I find all forms of gambling in general unpleasant and anxiety-producing, even though my atheism cares not.  I will do it under duress, such as someone offers me 20 to 1 odds where I estimate about 5 to 1.  (Atheism is like that, so apathetic on so many things.)  My bride is indifferent to gambling, finding it causes no particular emotion, positive or negative.

 

Doesn?t that seem odd that VIVR situations would be irresistible to some, distasteful to others and neutral to the rest?  Who are the normal ones?

 

spike

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160530/f0576eb6/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Mon May 30 23:26:00 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 18:26:00 -0500
Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?How_Technology_Hijacks_People=E2=80=99s_Minds?=
In-Reply-To: <004201d1bab7$5c5f0e50$151d2af0$@att.net>
References: <CAL_armgtSWVPse0Mop-B8B2+W4ONgSgefpukzTF+4PhFOUQOPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEao3COTSJT97aNUQcceSEX8OdWLg09zNks3d8FM+Ot1Ag@mail.gmail.com>
 <004201d1bab7$5c5f0e50$151d2af0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEb7k+OPyoTWRpxBaJSFU05Coa3EASeiz+v0=E5Cg_99Ag@mail.gmail.com>

Doesn?t that seem odd that VIVR situations would be irresistible to some,
distasteful to others and neutral to the rest?  Who are the normal ones?
spike

While you are at it, you might as well ask the true name of God.

A few variables suggest themselves to me:

security (salary far more secure; conservatives more motivated by fear,;
probably many more 'types' here seeking security);

 introversion/extroversion; (extroverts seek stimulation and winning or
even losing generates that - introverts can be easily overstimulated;  some
gamblers say that it is the most exciting thing they do - introverted
neurotics too afraid; extroverted neurotics love any high level of
stimulation, even killing;

 variation in release of endorphins (everything else is variable, why not
this?);

 superstition ("I am on a roll";  "i have my lucky charm" and so on -
oddly, superstitions persist in the absence of winning -variable reward
working here);

ignorance (only one game in casinos can be beaten - 21; why do people think
they can beat the odds?  hope?  superstition?)

poverty - (personally I could not afford to gamble)

status - (people who win are thought of as better, more abler people than
losers, so some will gamble to look good - John Daly, the golfer, bragged
that he has lost more than 50 million dollars gambling - now you and I
would be ashamed of that, but not big John - big time gamblers get all
sorts of goodies from casinos)

I am sure my mind will think of more  bill w

On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 4:08 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:* Monday, May 30, 2016 1:35 PM
> *To:* ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] How Technology Hijacks People?s Minds
>
>
>
> >>?If you want to maximize addictiveness, all tech designers need to do
> is link a user?s action (like pulling a lever) with a variable reward?.
> BillK
>
>
>
> >?Well well, the resurrection of B F Skinner.  I do wonder if the
> schedule is a variable ratio or a variable interval one?  Difference:  the
> ratio one depends on the number of responses (which of course is
> variable).  The interval one depends on the passage of time (which is
> variable).  I am guessing Variable Ratio, or VR?Bill w
>
>
>
>
>
> A variable-interval-variable-reward (VIVR) situation somehow hijacks the
> mammalian brain?s pattern recognition routines.  Perhaps some psychology
> hipster can educate me on it.  Why is it that human brains vary so much on
> that?  Why do some brains really like VIVR systems (commission sales?) and
> others do not (salary guys?)
>
>
>
> The variation is extreme in my own family: my father in law finds
> slot-machine style gambling so pleasurable as to be addictive if he allowed
> himself to do it (his religion strictly forbids all gambling.)  I find all
> forms of gambling in general unpleasant and anxiety-producing, even though
> my atheism cares not.  I will do it under duress, such as someone offers me
> 20 to 1 odds where I estimate about 5 to 1.  (Atheism is like that, so
> apathetic on so many things.)  My bride is indifferent to gambling, finding
> it causes no particular emotion, positive or negative.
>
>
>
> Doesn?t that seem odd that VIVR situations would be irresistible to some,
> distasteful to others and neutral to the rest?  Who are the normal ones?
>
>
>
> 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/20160530/ae17334c/attachment.html>

From sparge at gmail.com  Tue May 31 01:48:56 2016
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 21:48:56 -0400
Subject: [ExI] The fraudulent claims made by IBM about Watson and AI
In-Reply-To: <CAH=2ypWNKrSm9OYrxFBkJOY6WmO-iaXXgtNGW-ud6vVbzdBc8w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM5aL2etLiQmuYaSnFdCij4_3Tz=9a6OKPFrMeZ4BDpcG26O5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH=2ypWNKrSm9OYrxFBkJOY6WmO-iaXXgtNGW-ud6vVbzdBc8w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM5aL2fw9dPx4oWJV8GCkrpZ=ufW+2K+7BnBwoX+HJ5zjihfJw@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 3:21 AM, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> To take just one of your examples, what would you say if Watson did
> conclude that if your friend was buying a lot of sleeping pills suicide was
> a possibility? Would that be evidence of understanding? Would *anything*
> that Watson said be evidence of understanding?
>

To be clear, that article was written by Roger Schank, not me. One
run-of-the-mill "insight" like that wouldn't be very convincing to me. If I
could have a conversation with Watson and see that it was an actual insight
and not just a lucky Google hit that would be pretty impressive. When/if
real artificial intelligence does come along, some people are going to
believe it immediately, some people will never believe it, but the vast
majority will accept it over time.

The fact that we're playing "what if" games about behaviors that Watson
doesn't exhibit kind of confirms Schank's point that it's not there yet.

-Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160530/ff0705d4/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Tue May 31 01:48:05 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 18:48:05 -0700
Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?How_Technology_Hijacks_People=E2=80=99s_Minds?=
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEb7k+OPyoTWRpxBaJSFU05Coa3EASeiz+v0=E5Cg_99Ag@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armgtSWVPse0Mop-B8B2+W4ONgSgefpukzTF+4PhFOUQOPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEao3COTSJT97aNUQcceSEX8OdWLg09zNks3d8FM+Ot1Ag@mail.gmail.com>
 <004201d1bab7$5c5f0e50$151d2af0$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEb7k+OPyoTWRpxBaJSFU05Coa3EASeiz+v0=E5Cg_99Ag@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <008801d1bade$7c53ae60$74fb0b20$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2016 4:26 PM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] How Technology Hijacks People?s Minds

 

>>?Doesn?t that seem odd that VIVR situations would be irresistible to some, distasteful to others and neutral to the rest?  Who are the normal ones?

spike

 

 

>?A few variables suggest themselves to me:  

 

>?security (salary far more secure; conservatives more motivated by fear,; probably many more 'types' here seeking security); ? of that, but not big John - big time gamblers get all sorts of goodies from casinos)

 

>?I am sure my mind will think of more  bill w

 

 

Ja there are all these, but more still.  Winning at any kind of personal bet makes me feel I have caused pain to whoever lost.  Since I would be with friends, winning would cause me to hurt, so? I don?t do it.  My own bet with John Clark is not one I would have sought under any circumstances: it hurts me to cause hurt.  Were I a woman, I would make a terrible dominatrix.  My whips would be made of noodles, my chains of paper.  I would sooo get fired.

 

Odd angle on this: back when Robin Hanson gave us play money ideas futures, we had a blast with that.  I had so much fun, won a lot of ?money? (almost all of it on predicting discovery intervals for Mersenne primes) and we just had a rollicking good time.  But when real money ideas futures showed up, I was disappointed, for I realized most of the participants would rather play real money ideas futures.  To this day, I have refused to play that game.  I get little pleasure in winning and none in losing.  None of this is explained by BillW?s list: I don?t fear loss, have no religion or superstitions, don?t have any security issues, wouldn?t miss a few bucks I might lose on PredictIt.  

 

Paradoxically, I loooove competition, even if it causes the loser to be disappointed.  Somehow if there is no money involved it just feels OK to me.  In a car race, every participant pays a ton of money just to play, and only one guy gets the checkered flag.  But that Indy500 is nothing but fun to me, love it.  I will even play poker, for funsies.  But I don?t like casino games.  Seems like a contradiction, ja?

 

spike 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160530/673d3089/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Tue May 31 02:36:05 2016
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 22:36:05 -0400
Subject: [ExI] The fraudulent claims made by IBM about Watson and AI
In-Reply-To: <CAM5aL2fw9dPx4oWJV8GCkrpZ=ufW+2K+7BnBwoX+HJ5zjihfJw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM5aL2etLiQmuYaSnFdCij4_3Tz=9a6OKPFrMeZ4BDpcG26O5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH=2ypWNKrSm9OYrxFBkJOY6WmO-iaXXgtNGW-ud6vVbzdBc8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2fw9dPx4oWJV8GCkrpZ=ufW+2K+7BnBwoX+HJ5zjihfJw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv1t=Nf6YMNw7O47afyQP9ZZfB-CZCk84jpcaohWL2WGrg@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 9:48 PM, Dave Sill <sparge at gmail.com> wrote:


> ?>?
> If I could have a conversation with Watson and see that it was an actual
> insight and not just a lucky Google hit that would be pretty impressive.
> When/if real artificial intelligence does come along, some people are going
> to believe it immediately, some people will never believe it, but the vast
> majority will accept it over time. The fact that we're playing "what if"
> games about behaviors that Watson doesn't exhibit kind of confirms Schank's
> point that it's not there yet.
>

?Granted computers aren't smart ?about everything, but then people aren't
either. But c
omputers already show greater than human intelligence in playing Chess and
Go and ?Jeopardy and in finding the websites that tell you what you want to
know. And if
"?
actual insight
?" isn't needed to do that then
"?
actual insight
?" isn't very important.

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160530/4be3997c/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Tue May 31 04:04:26 2016
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 00:04:26 -0400
Subject: [ExI] The fraudulent claims made by IBM about Watson and AI
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv1t=Nf6YMNw7O47afyQP9ZZfB-CZCk84jpcaohWL2WGrg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM5aL2etLiQmuYaSnFdCij4_3Tz=9a6OKPFrMeZ4BDpcG26O5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH=2ypWNKrSm9OYrxFBkJOY6WmO-iaXXgtNGW-ud6vVbzdBc8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM5aL2fw9dPx4oWJV8GCkrpZ=ufW+2K+7BnBwoX+HJ5zjihfJw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv1t=Nf6YMNw7O47afyQP9ZZfB-CZCk84jpcaohWL2WGrg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFihCGtfLBZpz_qaCtwXdKeyTR68H_Sk=OfeRcqMDAb60g@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 10:36 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> ?Granted computers aren't smart ?about everything, but then people aren't
> either. But c
> omputers already show greater than human intelligence in playing Chess and
> Go and ?Jeopardy and in finding the websites that tell you what you want to
> know. And if
> "?
> actual insight
> ?" isn't needed to do that then
> "?
> actual insight
> ?" isn't very important.
>
> ### I'd rather say, actual insight is present, in some way, whenever any
question is answered with above-random precision. It may be just echoes of
the real world encoded in word frequencies and word associations but still
there is insight. An emmett knows her queen's desires. A self-driving car
or a legged robot have insight into the physics of moving objects, however
limited. A bean stalk knows light from darkness. Watson has an inchoate
understanding of the world, however unimaginative. Of course, the go
program has insight into what moves win in go.

One might claim that "true" insight is given only to a device that holds a
quantitative and predictive true model of everything in the world that can
be modeled. No human has ever had anything close to that godlike power and
no AI ever will. Still, even a tiny amount of insight, a most meagre
predictive model of the world, are crumbs of truth.

Rafa?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160531/a073a5d9/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Tue May 31 12:44:47 2016
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 13:44:47 +0100
Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?How_Technology_Hijacks_People=E2=80=99s_Minds?=
In-Reply-To: <008801d1bade$7c53ae60$74fb0b20$@att.net>
References: <CAL_armgtSWVPse0Mop-B8B2+W4ONgSgefpukzTF+4PhFOUQOPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEao3COTSJT97aNUQcceSEX8OdWLg09zNks3d8FM+Ot1Ag@mail.gmail.com>
 <004201d1bab7$5c5f0e50$151d2af0$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEb7k+OPyoTWRpxBaJSFU05Coa3EASeiz+v0=E5Cg_99Ag@mail.gmail.com>
 <008801d1bade$7c53ae60$74fb0b20$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAL_armgFpWjMjkTLwe0pEUiL22bt65BdtPMqMoGrkNne2X+PhA@mail.gmail.com>

On 31 May 2016 at 02:48, spike  wrote:
> Odd angle on this: back when Robin Hanson gave us play money ideas futures,
> we had a blast with that.  I had so much fun, won a lot of ?money? (almost
> all of it on predicting discovery intervals for Mersenne primes) and we just
> had a rollicking good time.  But when real money ideas futures showed up, I
> was disappointed, for I realized most of the participants would rather play
> real money ideas futures.  To this day, I have refused to play that game.  I
> get little pleasure in winning and none in losing.  None of this is
> explained by BillW?s list: I don?t fear loss, have no religion or
> superstitions, don?t have any security issues, wouldn?t miss a few bucks I
> might lose on PredictIt.
>
> Paradoxically, I loooove competition, even if it causes the loser to be
> disappointed.  Somehow if there is no money involved it just feels OK to me.
> In a car race, every participant pays a ton of money just to play, and only
> one guy gets the checkered flag.  But that Indy500 is nothing but fun to me,
> love it.  I will even play poker, for funsies.  But I don?t like casino
> games.  Seems like a contradiction, ja?
>


Variable reward is only one of the psychological tricks used to
manipulate people using smart devices.
The !0 techniques he explains in the article are:

#1: If You Control the Menu, You Control the Choices

#2: Put a Slot Machine In a Billion Pockets (i.e.VIVR)

#3: Fear of Missing Something Important (FOMSI)

#4: Social Approval

#5: Social Reciprocity (Tit-for-tat)

#6: Bottomless bowls, Infinite Feeds, and Autoplay

#7: Instant Interruption vs. ?Respectful? Delivery

#8: Bundling Your Reasons with Their Reasons

#9: Inconvenient Choices

#10: Forecasting Errors, ?Foot in the Door? strategies

Summary And How We Can Fix This

Are you upset that technology hijacks your agency? I am too. I?ve
listed a few techniques but there are literally thousands. Imagine
whole bookshelves, seminars, workshops and trainings that teach
aspiring tech entrepreneurs techniques like these. Imagine hundreds of
engineers whose job every day is to invent new ways to keep you
hooked.

The ultimate freedom is a free mind, and we need technology that?s on
our team to help us live, feel, think and act freely.
-----------------


Basically if VIVR doesn't grab you, then one of the many, many other
tricks will.
That's why people become addicted to their smartphone without
realising how their mind has been changed.

BillK



From foozler83 at gmail.com  Tue May 31 15:31:04 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 10:31:04 -0500
Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?How_Technology_Hijacks_People=E2=80=99s_Minds?=
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armgFpWjMjkTLwe0pEUiL22bt65BdtPMqMoGrkNne2X+PhA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armgtSWVPse0Mop-B8B2+W4ONgSgefpukzTF+4PhFOUQOPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEao3COTSJT97aNUQcceSEX8OdWLg09zNks3d8FM+Ot1Ag@mail.gmail.com>
 <004201d1bab7$5c5f0e50$151d2af0$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEb7k+OPyoTWRpxBaJSFU05Coa3EASeiz+v0=E5Cg_99Ag@mail.gmail.com>
 <008801d1bade$7c53ae60$74fb0b20$@att.net>
 <CAL_armgFpWjMjkTLwe0pEUiL22bt65BdtPMqMoGrkNne2X+PhA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEZf1yNc4Vh8sSYixh4UPwH6yJpKPEygeuZ5x7Lk+Mimwg@mail.gmail.com>

Paradoxically, I loooove competition, even if it causes the loser to be
disappointed.  Somehow if there is no money involved it just feels OK to
me.  In a car race, every participant pays a ton of money just to play, and
only one guy gets the checkered flag.  But that Indy500 is nothing but fun
to me, love it.  I will even play poker, for funsies.  But I don?t like
casino games.  Seems like a contradiction, ja?
spike

I would have to get out my resources to remember all the types, but here
are a few:  people who thrive on competition (won't even let their child
win at something); people who don't like competing with others; people
whose only competition is with themselves ("Did I perform to my best?");
people, like my wife, who are concerned more with other people's happiness
than their own (ideal volunteers at the Special Olympics) and don't like to
be singled out by winning something;  and there's the classic Type A
personality - love competition and Type B who doesn't;  there's more

from bill k

Are you upset that technology hijacks your agency? I am too. I?ve
listed a few techniques but there are literally thousands. Imagine
whole bookshelves, seminars, workshops and trainings that teach
aspiring tech entrepreneurs techniques like these. Imagine hundreds of
engineers whose job every day is to invent new ways to keep you
hooked.

The ultimate freedom is a free mind, and we need technology that?s on
our team to help us live, feel, think and act freely.
-----------------
Are you upset that marketers of other products and services study
psychology hard to sell you their offerings?  Madison Avenue or its like
have been around a very long time and with the progress of psychology they
have gotten better and better.  They want to make you want what they are
selling.  As old as selling.  Can sales techniques and marketing be immoral
or even illegal?  What if it's subliminal?

bill w

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 7:44 AM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 31 May 2016 at 02:48, spike  wrote:
> > Odd angle on this: back when Robin Hanson gave us play money ideas
> futures,
> > we had a blast with that.  I had so much fun, won a lot of ?money?
> (almost
> > all of it on predicting discovery intervals for Mersenne primes) and we
> just
> > had a rollicking good time.  But when real money ideas futures showed
> up, I
> > was disappointed, for I realized most of the participants would rather
> play
> > real money ideas futures.  To this day, I have refused to play that
> game.  I
> > get little pleasure in winning and none in losing.  None of this is
> > explained by BillW?s list: I don?t fear loss, have no religion or
> > superstitions, don?t have any security issues, wouldn?t miss a few bucks
> I
> > might lose on PredictIt.
> >
> > Paradoxically, I loooove competition, even if it causes the loser to be
> > disappointed.  Somehow if there is no money involved it just feels OK to
> me.
> > In a car race, every participant pays a ton of money just to play, and
> only
> > one guy gets the checkered flag.  But that Indy500 is nothing but fun to
> me,
> > love it.  I will even play poker, for funsies.  But I don?t like casino
> > games.  Seems like a contradiction, ja?
> >
>
>
> Variable reward is only one of the psychological tricks used to
> manipulate people using smart devices.
> The !0 techniques he explains in the article are:
>
> #1: If You Control the Menu, You Control the Choices
>
> #2: Put a Slot Machine In a Billion Pockets (i.e.VIVR)
>
> #3: Fear of Missing Something Important (FOMSI)
>
> #4: Social Approval
>
> #5: Social Reciprocity (Tit-for-tat)
>
> #6: Bottomless bowls, Infinite Feeds, and Autoplay
>
> #7: Instant Interruption vs. ?Respectful? Delivery
>
> #8: Bundling Your Reasons with Their Reasons
>
> #9: Inconvenient Choices
>
> #10: Forecasting Errors, ?Foot in the Door? strategies
>
> Summary And How We Can Fix This
>
> Are you upset that technology hijacks your agency? I am too. I?ve
> listed a few techniques but there are literally thousands. Imagine
> whole bookshelves, seminars, workshops and trainings that teach
> aspiring tech entrepreneurs techniques like these. Imagine hundreds of
> engineers whose job every day is to invent new ways to keep you
> hooked.
>
> The ultimate freedom is a free mind, and we need technology that?s on
> our team to help us live, feel, think and act freely.
> -----------------
>
>
> Basically if VIVR doesn't grab you, then one of the many, many other
> tricks will.
> That's why people become addicted to their smartphone without
> realising how their mind has been changed.
>
> 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/20160531/f2465a28/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Tue May 31 17:30:08 2016
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 10:30:08 -0700
Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?How_Technology_Hijacks_People=E2=80=99s_Minds?=
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEZf1yNc4Vh8sSYixh4UPwH6yJpKPEygeuZ5x7Lk+Mimwg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armgtSWVPse0Mop-B8B2+W4ONgSgefpukzTF+4PhFOUQOPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEao3COTSJT97aNUQcceSEX8OdWLg09zNks3d8FM+Ot1Ag@mail.gmail.com>
 <004201d1bab7$5c5f0e50$151d2af0$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEb7k+OPyoTWRpxBaJSFU05Coa3EASeiz+v0=E5Cg_99Ag@mail.gmail.com>
 <008801d1bade$7c53ae60$74fb0b20$@att.net>
 <CAL_armgFpWjMjkTLwe0pEUiL22bt65BdtPMqMoGrkNne2X+PhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZf1yNc4Vh8sSYixh4UPwH6yJpKPEygeuZ5x7Lk+Mimwg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <008601d1bb62$148318a0$3d8949e0$@att.net>

 

 

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

>?Are you upset that marketers of other products and services study psychology hard to sell you their offerings?

 

Nah, not at all.  I see the fields of psychology and marketing has having merged in a sense.  Back in the long time agos, the 1970s, it was hip to have a psychologist.  It was sort of a status symbol.  We saw the Bob Newhart show which was one of the funnier ones of its day doing subtle parodies on people who didn?t need a psychologist for anything other than status.

 

>? Madison Avenue or its like have been around a very long time and with the progress of psychology they have gotten better and better?

 

Well, OK.  If they make me want their stuff, then we both win in a sense.  They get paid and I buy their product.

 

>?They want to make you want what they are selling.  As old as selling?

 

Ja.  It is one of those cases of legal yes.  Ethical: maybe.  Plenty of yellow flags in the ethics department.  I would think marketing would be a fun job, but I wouldn?t go there because of the ethical dilemmas when your job is to sell stuff you know is crap.

 

>?Can sales techniques and marketing be immoral or even illegal?

 

Sure, but mostly when it is aimed at kids, who cannot reason.  Those who were children in the 1960s (not hippies, I mean were actual elementary school children then) may have fond memories of cartoons and how they incessantly hammered the sugary breakfast cereal with about as much nutritional value as the colorful ad-filled box it came in.  Those who were hip kids knew the stuff was nutritionally worthless.  Some of us could feel a difference when we stayed with our own grandparents who didn?t eat that stuff and didn?t have it in their houses.  They ate actual food in the morning.

 

What about entertainment-linked marketing?  60s children, do you remember when Underdog was getting his ass kicked, he would say in a weary defeated Wally Cox-ish voice ?The secret compartment of my ring I fill with an Underdog super energy pill.?  He eats one, boom, whoops everybody?s ass.

 

OK so we see little plastic rings with a compartment marked with a U and several sugar pills.  Fair game?  Well hard to say.  Copyright infringement.  Possibly disappointed kids who found they couldn?t fly after eating one, but most kids would know it was just a toy.

 

I would have fun doing beer commercials and ads aimed at guys.  Women?  I would suck.  Kids?  I wouldn?t go there.

 

>? What if it's subliminal?  bill w

 

BillW, do you remember when the notion of ?subliminal seduction? was all the rage back in about the 70s?  I did object to that at the time.  I made it clear that I didn?t want any of that subliminal jazz; I wanted to be seduced the old fashioned external literal physical way only.

 

spike

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160531/f960c9c7/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Tue May 31 18:21:21 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 13:21:21 -0500
Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?How_Technology_Hijacks_People=E2=80=99s_Minds?=
In-Reply-To: <008601d1bb62$148318a0$3d8949e0$@att.net>
References: <CAL_armgtSWVPse0Mop-B8B2+W4ONgSgefpukzTF+4PhFOUQOPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEao3COTSJT97aNUQcceSEX8OdWLg09zNks3d8FM+Ot1Ag@mail.gmail.com>
 <004201d1bab7$5c5f0e50$151d2af0$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEb7k+OPyoTWRpxBaJSFU05Coa3EASeiz+v0=E5Cg_99Ag@mail.gmail.com>
 <008801d1bade$7c53ae60$74fb0b20$@att.net>
 <CAL_armgFpWjMjkTLwe0pEUiL22bt65BdtPMqMoGrkNne2X+PhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZf1yNc4Vh8sSYixh4UPwH6yJpKPEygeuZ5x7Lk+Mimwg@mail.gmail.com>
 <008601d1bb62$148318a0$3d8949e0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEY=jqbPe=R-6ubZHP-YLr-Jt-vtaHhPH-errOkQLniQ6Q@mail.gmail.com>

BillW, do you remember when the notion of ?subliminal seduction? was all
the rage back in about the 70s?  I did object to that at the time.  I made
it clear that I didn?t want any of that subliminal jazz; I wanted to be
seduced the old fashioned external literal physical way only.
spike

Actually, I missed that - darn.  Well, married at the time anyway.

I think what we may be missing is an ocean and we are concentrating on a
bay.

Is all the self-improvement stuff just crap designed to make you into a
phony?  What about How to Win Friends and Influence People, which is making
a comeback?  We deceive people all the time with fibs and little white lies
and other deceptions.  We market ourselves and don't fool yourself that we
don't.

We see a rebounding of subliminal ads, in experiments, that do work.  And
what about product placement?  You may notice the Coke bottle and you may
not but your unconscious saw it in all likelihood.

As for kids, there is no really workable way to protect them except
teaching by parents/guardians etc. We'd like for them to know that they
can't trust anything on TV, movies, ads anywhere.  But these are the same
parents who sell their kids the idea of Santa and the Easter Bunny, not to
mention all the religious ideas.  They are urged to believe without any
kind of proof other than somebody said so.  There are even adults who
believe that no one can put something on TV unless it's true.

It's kind of funny - you say that kids cannot reason, which is somewhat
right, somewhat wrong, but clearly they are not adults, though you could
say that about 18 year olds too.  In Revolutionary times people thought of
children as just small adults (who had to learn everything because of the
Blank Slate idea of John Locke that influenced our constitution).

Where did you go, Bill K?  Rejoin us, please.  Would you prevent tech
people from doing the same kind of marketing everyone else is doing?  After
all, this is a product that sells itself for the most part.  As for trying
to make something trendy, it usually doesn't work.  Find a secret that
ensures trendiness and you'll own the world.

bill w



On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:30 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On
> Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace
> *?*
> -----------------
>
> >?Are you upset that marketers of other products and services study
> psychology hard to sell you their offerings?
>
>
>
> Nah, not at all.  I see the fields of psychology and marketing has having
> merged in a sense.  Back in the long time agos, the 1970s, it was hip to
> have a psychologist.  It was sort of a status symbol.  We saw the Bob
> Newhart show which was one of the funnier ones of its day doing subtle
> parodies on people who didn?t need a psychologist for anything other than
> status.
>
>
>
> >? Madison Avenue or its like have been around a very long time and with
> the progress of psychology they have gotten better and better?
>
>
>
> Well, OK.  If they make me want their stuff, then we both win in a sense.
> They get paid and I buy their product.
>
>
>
> >?They want to make you want what they are selling.  As old as selling?
>
>
>
> Ja.  It is one of those cases of legal yes.  Ethical: maybe.  Plenty of
> yellow flags in the ethics department.  I would think marketing would be a
> fun job, but I wouldn?t go there because of the ethical dilemmas when your
> job is to sell stuff you know is crap.
>
>
>
> >?Can sales techniques and marketing be immoral or even illegal?
>
>
>
> Sure, but mostly when it is aimed at kids, who cannot reason.  Those who
> were children in the 1960s (not hippies, I mean were actual elementary
> school children then) may have fond memories of cartoons and how they
> incessantly hammered the sugary breakfast cereal with about as much
> nutritional value as the colorful ad-filled box it came in.  Those who were
> hip kids knew the stuff was nutritionally worthless.  Some of us could feel
> a difference when we stayed with our own grandparents who didn?t eat that
> stuff and didn?t have it in their houses.  They ate actual food in the
> morning.
>
>
>
> What about entertainment-linked marketing?  60s children, do you remember
> when Underdog was getting his ass kicked, he would say in a weary defeated
> Wally Cox-ish voice ?The secret compartment of my ring I fill with an
> Underdog super energy pill.?  He eats one, boom, whoops everybody?s ass.
>
>
>
> OK so we see little plastic rings with a compartment marked with a U and
> several sugar pills.  Fair game?  Well hard to say.  Copyright
> infringement.  Possibly disappointed kids who found they couldn?t fly after
> eating one, but most kids would know it was just a toy.
>
>
>
> I would have fun doing beer commercials and ads aimed at guys.  Women?  I
> would suck.  Kids?  I wouldn?t go there.
>
>
>
> >? What if it's subliminal?  bill w
>
>
>
> BillW, do you remember when the notion of ?subliminal seduction? was all
> the rage back in about the 70s?  I did object to that at the time.  I made
> it clear that I didn?t want any of that subliminal jazz; I wanted to be
> seduced the old fashioned external literal physical way only.
>
>
>
> 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/20160531/d8bf0e01/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Tue May 31 19:19:27 2016
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 20:19:27 +0100
Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?How_Technology_Hijacks_People=E2=80=99s_Minds?=
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEY=jqbPe=R-6ubZHP-YLr-Jt-vtaHhPH-errOkQLniQ6Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armgtSWVPse0Mop-B8B2+W4ONgSgefpukzTF+4PhFOUQOPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEao3COTSJT97aNUQcceSEX8OdWLg09zNks3d8FM+Ot1Ag@mail.gmail.com>
 <004201d1bab7$5c5f0e50$151d2af0$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEb7k+OPyoTWRpxBaJSFU05Coa3EASeiz+v0=E5Cg_99Ag@mail.gmail.com>
 <008801d1bade$7c53ae60$74fb0b20$@att.net>
 <CAL_armgFpWjMjkTLwe0pEUiL22bt65BdtPMqMoGrkNne2X+PhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZf1yNc4Vh8sSYixh4UPwH6yJpKPEygeuZ5x7Lk+Mimwg@mail.gmail.com>
 <008601d1bb62$148318a0$3d8949e0$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEY=jqbPe=R-6ubZHP-YLr-Jt-vtaHhPH-errOkQLniQ6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAL_armhuwhTRaq=AC6ZvSBEbnsUtLqeRSNMHkCE5JhP=d7R82A@mail.gmail.com>

On 31 May 2016 at 19:21, William Flynn Wallace  wrote:
> I think what we may be missing is an ocean and we are concentrating on a
> bay.
>
> Is all the self-improvement stuff just crap designed to make you into a
> phony?  What about How to Win Friends and Influence People, which is making
> a comeback?  We deceive people all the time with fibs and little white lies
> and other deceptions.  We market ourselves and don't fool yourself that we
> don't.
>
> We see a rebounding of subliminal ads, in experiments, that do work.  And
> what about product placement?  You may notice the Coke bottle and you may
> not but your unconscious saw it in all likelihood.
<snip>
> Where did you go, Bill K?  Rejoin us, please.  Would you prevent tech people
> from doing the same kind of marketing everyone else is doing?  After all,
> this is a product that sells itself for the most part.  As for trying to
> make something trendy, it usually doesn't work.  Find a secret that ensures
> trendiness and you'll own the world.
>
>

I think what I mostly object to is 'hidden' sales techniques that prey
on the unwary / less smart.

I don't mind adverts, as they can be ignored. (Half the work my
computer does is deleting adverts and cleaning up the websites before
I see the webpage). If people had been told that buying a smartphone
would mean a life spent staring at a small screen, oblivious to their
surroundings, would they still have gone down that route?

About 10% of the 18-25 generation text *during* sex. Not before or
after, - during!

Persuading people to do / buy things they don't really want almost
amounts to coercion / theft.
If these techniques are used to persuade a majority to vote Trump into
power, is that OK? After all, people voted for him and they
(supposedly) had a free choice.
I remember reading Vance Packard's The Hidden Persuaders (pub.1957).
He was shocked by the techniques used then. What would he think
nowadays?

BillK


From atymes at gmail.com  Tue May 31 19:36:47 2016
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 12:36:47 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Censorship
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNTKkYY-6HEJPOd0nYsi2q5PcZ_prUSFEgREmuna7QLvxQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armg5N_ehYijL6ZTYTVZfTUZv=OCPwuPrLpvTgr6Vtfa=xg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZHtRZ5Ze543k_cUjV0mM7HniKF8_uHbow=A0MSLR16VQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <17F982E8-3A8F-40F1-98BA-47C08E9E87C6@gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEaWVP8ATmw9BbPaui6db4J9uhAeHQz4xCgzAqFLFOVHcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <d92c4717-3112-5bdb-6153-791d0833394b@aleph.se>
 <CAO+xQEasrp5q4Jwk1C+-XGkkAy84WSAEJqr3E2yfAde2qy-jmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <57495715.20008@aleph.se>
 <CALAdGNTKkYY-6HEJPOd0nYsi2q5PcZ_prUSFEgREmuna7QLvxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNTrJrozG0eore6BOPripPWFvO_QCL3oVKDv4tc1Euv5wA@mail.gmail.com>

On May 28, 2016 1:31 AM, "Anders Sandberg" <anders at aleph.se> wrote:
> if it is not possible to have a debate about whether they should be
changed, then society is not open.

Does this include where the opponents of change simply refuse to engage in
honest debate, making up facts to support their position?  That is
something that said opponents can not usually be forced to change or
concede.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160531/1fcd6fb6/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Tue May 31 22:55:15 2016
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 17:55:15 -0500
Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?How_Technology_Hijacks_People=E2=80=99s_Minds?=
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armhuwhTRaq=AC6ZvSBEbnsUtLqeRSNMHkCE5JhP=d7R82A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armgtSWVPse0Mop-B8B2+W4ONgSgefpukzTF+4PhFOUQOPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEao3COTSJT97aNUQcceSEX8OdWLg09zNks3d8FM+Ot1Ag@mail.gmail.com>
 <004201d1bab7$5c5f0e50$151d2af0$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEb7k+OPyoTWRpxBaJSFU05Coa3EASeiz+v0=E5Cg_99Ag@mail.gmail.com>
 <008801d1bade$7c53ae60$74fb0b20$@att.net>
 <CAL_armgFpWjMjkTLwe0pEUiL22bt65BdtPMqMoGrkNne2X+PhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZf1yNc4Vh8sSYixh4UPwH6yJpKPEygeuZ5x7Lk+Mimwg@mail.gmail.com>
 <008601d1bb62$148318a0$3d8949e0$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEY=jqbPe=R-6ubZHP-YLr-Jt-vtaHhPH-errOkQLniQ6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armhuwhTRaq=AC6ZvSBEbnsUtLqeRSNMHkCE5JhP=d7R82A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEY1bNdTkt3MzJXPdodPX+qZtrSQ7mxWaPuFR=w0B1G8Kg@mail.gmail.com>

Persuading people to do / buy things they don't really want almost
amounts to coercion / theft.
If these techniques are used to persuade a majority to vote Trump into
power, is that OK? After all, people voted for him and they
(supposedly) had a free choice.
I remember reading Vance Packard's The Hidden Persuaders (pub.1957).
He was shocked by the techniques used then. What would he think
nowadays?  bill k

Do you think that the phone users or victims, as you would seem to have it,
are acting out of free will?  If not, then they are addicted?

Trends come and go, often very fast.  Hula hoops, Beanie Babies, Deely
Bobbers.  Gotta have the latest thing.

My problem with looking at some marketing strategy as coercion is a problem
of definition:  when do we call coercion?  When do we call it against their
will?  When they don't really want it?  I suspect if you ask people they
will tell you they do want it and mind your own business.

>From my perspective, looking at a smartphone, which I don't have, 150 times
a days is just pathetic and stupid.  But it's not my time they are wasting
with the often inane texts.

"Wait, there's more...." has proved a remarkably effective selling
technique.  The more effective the more coercive?

Maybe we are dealing with something kind of like the difference between
education and indoctrination, and I find that very hard to differentiate.
We don't teach kids bad things about our country.  Is that indoctrination?
Propaganda?  Conforming to one's peers is a very powerful force - maybe the
best selling point of all.  "The silent majority is with us."

Is our view of the sales technique influenced by what is being sold?

bill w

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:19 PM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 31 May 2016 at 19:21, William Flynn Wallace  wrote:
> > I think what we may be missing is an ocean and we are concentrating on a
> > bay.
> >
> > Is all the self-improvement stuff just crap designed to make you into a
> > phony?  What about How to Win Friends and Influence People, which is
> making
> > a comeback?  We deceive people all the time with fibs and little white
> lies
> > and other deceptions.  We market ourselves and don't fool yourself that
> we
> > don't.
> >
> > We see a rebounding of subliminal ads, in experiments, that do work.  And
> > what about product placement?  You may notice the Coke bottle and you may
> > not but your unconscious saw it in all likelihood.
> <snip>
> > Where did you go, Bill K?  Rejoin us, please.  Would you prevent tech
> people
> > from doing the same kind of marketing everyone else is doing?  After all,
> > this is a product that sells itself for the most part.  As for trying to
> > make something trendy, it usually doesn't work.  Find a secret that
> ensures
> > trendiness and you'll own the world.
> >
> >
>
> I think what I mostly object to is 'hidden' sales techniques that prey
> on the unwary / less smart.
>
> I don't mind adverts, as they can be ignored. (Half the work my
> computer does is deleting adverts and cleaning up the websites before
> I see the webpage). If people had been told that buying a smartphone
> would mean a life spent staring at a small screen, oblivious to their
> surroundings, would they still have gone down that route?
>
> About 10% of the 18-25 generation text *during* sex. Not before or
> after, - during!
>
> Persuading people to do / buy things they don't really want almost
> amounts to coercion / theft.
> If these techniques are used to persuade a majority to vote Trump into
> power, is that OK? After all, people voted for him and they
> (supposedly) had a free choice.
> I remember reading Vance Packard's The Hidden Persuaders (pub.1957).
> He was shocked by the techniques used then. What would he think
> nowadays?
>
> 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/20160531/915102af/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Tue May 31 20:16:39 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 21:16:39 +0100
Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?How_Technology_Hijacks_People=E2=80=99s_Minds?=
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEao3COTSJT97aNUQcceSEX8OdWLg09zNks3d8FM+Ot1Ag@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armgtSWVPse0Mop-B8B2+W4ONgSgefpukzTF+4PhFOUQOPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEao3COTSJT97aNUQcceSEX8OdWLg09zNks3d8FM+Ot1Ag@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a59fe555-d3e0-02d4-8719-cdc0d1eb0e8a@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-30 21:34, William Flynn Wallace wrote:
> Now why don't we all know this?  Skinner not taught?  ???  What these 
> early learning people did, from Pavlov on, has never been found 
> invalid or unreliable.  So they are facts of life underlying all 
> learning, from a rat pressing a bar to the most involved cognitive 
> functioning (but see the history of insight learning).

People often throw out the behaviorist with the bathwater. While 
classical and operant conditioning is a mainstay of psych 101 courses, 
most people who know about the topic tend to assume that behaviorism is 
dead. Which is true, but the behaviorist findings remain true even if 
the methodology and theory are pretty dead.

I met a colleague writing a book on how to train your husband, and it 
was all based on behaviorist theories. She remarked that she couldn't 
name them as behaviorism (mostly because readers did not want any fancy 
terminology), but it was straight out of psych 101.

-- 
Dr 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/20160531/6623dc60/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Tue May 31 20:12:07 2016
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders)
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 21:12:07 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Censorship
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNTrJrozG0eore6BOPripPWFvO_QCL3oVKDv4tc1Euv5wA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armg5N_ehYijL6ZTYTVZfTUZv=OCPwuPrLpvTgr6Vtfa=xg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEZHtRZ5Ze543k_cUjV0mM7HniKF8_uHbow=A0MSLR16VQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <17F982E8-3A8F-40F1-98BA-47C08E9E87C6@gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEaWVP8ATmw9BbPaui6db4J9uhAeHQz4xCgzAqFLFOVHcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <d92c4717-3112-5bdb-6153-791d0833394b@aleph.se>
 <CAO+xQEasrp5q4Jwk1C+-XGkkAy84WSAEJqr3E2yfAde2qy-jmA@mail.gmail.com>
 <57495715.20008@aleph.se>
 <CALAdGNTKkYY-6HEJPOd0nYsi2q5PcZ_prUSFEgREmuna7QLvxQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNTrJrozG0eore6BOPripPWFvO_QCL3oVKDv4tc1Euv5wA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <de74f56d-ba48-5a6f-3f93-0f8dddeb0dd0@aleph.se>

On 2016-05-31 20:36, Adrian Tymes wrote:
>
> On May 28, 2016 1:31 AM, "Anders Sandberg" <anders at aleph.se 
> <mailto:anders at aleph.se>> wrote:
> > if it is not possible to have a debate about whether they should be 
> changed, then society is not open.
>
> Does this include where the opponents of change simply refuse to 
> engage in honest debate, making up facts to support their position?  
> That is something that said opponents can not usually be forced to 
> change or concede.
>

Sometimes. But if the proponents of change have a compelling narrative 
that can attract people, then the lack of honest debate from one side 
can become counterproductive for them in the end.

-- 
Dr 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/20160531/1ef6e9f4/attachment.html>