From: "S. Arsheesh" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,comp.ai,comp.ai.alife,talk.politics.theory,comp.theory.cell-automata
Subject: Re: Relativity ??
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 18:45:02 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Brian Perrine wrote:
> Which brings me to this question: why are some of you so intent on
> trying to disprove it?  I would gamble that many of you are not
> physicists or mathematicians and would therefore lack the ability to
> actually work these theories(at least GR)

As any good salesman will tell you, "Disagreement is a request
for more information."  Not always true of course, but it gives
the salesman the will to carry on, despite obvious negativity.
If you find that you cannot explain your view simply or easily
then either you do not fully understand it yourself or there are
some serious problems with your view.  THAT is why it is important
to keep not only your mouth (or in this case, your fingers) open,
but your ears (or eyes) as well.

> Hell, I once read an awfully convincing theory on Darksuckers.  It seems
> that scientists have been mistaken for quite some time.  Light bulbs
> don't actually emit light, but suck dark.  Dark pervades everything.
> Darksuckers simply suck out this darkness, though their ability to do so
> diminishes with distance...

As good an explanation as any. Why do we define matter as the
existance of something rather than the absence of something?
For example, there is a certain hacksaw pattern in Conway's
Game of Life in which one emitter shoots out one particle:
http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~callahan/patterns/hacksaw.html
But as the particle gets further away from the emitter, it
gets larger.  If organisms in this world define light as
the absence of particles, then indeed it would get darker
as the distance from the "light source" increases.
----------
Every intelligent society eventually runs simulations and
experiments to explain its own creation, creating new intelligent
societies in the process. God isn't dead. God is just away from
his keyboard.

7.6.97 To model their own evolution.

From: "G. Eliot" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,alt.society.labor-unions,sci.econ,can.politics,alt.politics.economics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.atheism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: religion
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 15:25:39 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Paul D. Lanier wrote:
> > The Ape squealed in rage and terror: "Take him away. Take him
> > away. Take him where he cannot hear us, nor we hear him. There
> > tie him to a tree. I will - I mean, Aslan will - do justice
> > to him later."
> I think right now I'll just note that the quote taken from the Last Battle
> by CS Lewis is painting what an anti-Christ will do, the ape (Shift) being
> the mastermind of a plan to fool the masses that he the apoe is in control
> (Puzzle the donkey doing the play acting as Aslan/God) but God/Aslan
> breaks up the plans of the ape anyway.

Very good. If a set of "truths" cannot be questioned, then it is
impossible to ever know if they really are true. The difference
between a leader that seeks self-glorification and one that does
not is how often she teaches others everything she has learned.
History's "leaders" failed because they were too intent on self-
glorification, and once these "leaders" died, so did their secrets.
At least it left thousands of new generations to try to rediscover
these secrets, and make themselves feel useful in the process.
-------
Conquer fear. Question faith. Humor distraction.
Thou shalt not make any graven image,
or bow down before any creation in heaven or on earth.

From: "S. Arsheesh" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,alt.society.labor-unions,can.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.atheism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: religion
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 17:23:03 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Paul D. Lanier wrote:
> I have immense respect for the Objectivist philosophy that Ayn Rand
> guided the formulation of.  But I disagree with her that belief in God is
> irrational.
> "I am that I am" is the total self-declaration of God, found in Exodus
> where God speaks to Moses.  This implies God needs no other to exist; He
> exists of His own accord, by His own power.
>   (Humans exist for external causes, such as they need to breathe, eat, be
> given birth to. Of course, the human mind is able to make its own thoughts
> and carry the ideas out into the world by using the human body to apply to
> the thoughts to the human's surroundings.)

God, in terms of interaction, comes in many levels. In terms of
decision making, God is Communication and Observation. Human
communication is rational, although always misinformed. In terms
of observation, that includes our entire environment, from the air
we breathe, to gravity from distant stars.  Thus, God is indeed
all of the universe. We exist as part of that as much as our lung
cells exist as part of us.

The question of what entity directly created life on earth
is a different issue. It could well be that one or more alien
species brought life to this planet in order to model their own
evolution, quite like how we grow plants, study ant colonies, or
run computer similations of artificial life. Who created these
aliens or this computer similation we call the Universe?  That
of course is irrelevant to religion.  What religion is primarily
concerned with is Eternal Life and Morality. Morality we can
easily control with laws. Whether we can achieve eternal life or
if alien races or the scientist in charge of this particular
instance of the universe can grant Eternal Life As We Want
It (TM) is a different matter.
-------
The Ape squealed in rage and terror: "Take him away. Take him
away. Take him where he cannot hear us, nor we hear him. There
tie him to a tree. I will - I mean, Aslan will - do justice
to him later."

7.6.97 Corporate democracy with economic autocracy.
17.6.97 Resimulate the past.

From: "G. Eliot" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.philosophy.objectivism,comp.ai.alife,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,sci.econ,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A Defense of Socialism Against the Writings of John Boston
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 17:06:29 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Paul D. Lanier wrote:
> What if some were chosen to escape burning when the similution ends, and
> not by the totalitarian society that built the simulations?  And what
> makes people so confident that Calvinism is Capitalism?  It isn't.

Many simulations may have already ended, but the simulated
life just gets moved around into new simulations, for nothing
more than the self-education of those running the simulations.
But's that is beside the point.  The realization that human
behavior is deterministic gave Jesus the rationale behind
forgiveness.  There are two ways societies deal with crimes
of want. Organized punishment and organized charity. Selfish
bastards don't fight charity nearly as hard as selfish bastards
fight their own punishment.
-----------
Once ... in the wilds of Afghanistan, I lost my corkscrew, and we were
forced to live on nothing but food and water for days.
                -- W. C. Fields, "My Little Chickadee"

From: "G. Eliot" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.philosophy.objectivism,comp.ai.alife,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,sci.econ,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A Defense of Socialism Against the Writings of John Boston
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 20:36:41 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

G*rd*n wrote:
> You are in no danger from socialists; there are very few of
> them about.  The capitalist woods are full of Calvinists,
> however, so be careful.

And maybe all Calvinist capitalists, Calvinist tyrants, and
Calvinist murderers are destined to burn... or simply disappear
into nothingness, except to be held up as examples of stupidity
for future generations of Calvinists. Imagine if we decided to
base our laws on, of all things, a computer simulation of human
society. Various simulations will lead to dead-ends, so we
backtrack a little bit, remove a few offending errors, and
continue on... maybe even implant false memories into a large
number of individuals, just so we wouldn't have to resimulate
the past. How often we're willing to stop time just depends on
how much patience we have. Eventually, we may just give up on
the simulation altogether and let everyone burn.
---------
If we teach gorillas our history, would they fight wars over it?

From: "S. Arsheesh" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.philosophy.objectivism,sci.econ,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A Defense of Socialism Against the Writings of John Boston
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 15:50:53 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

James A. Donald wrote:
> No we will not:  A political class to administer our "common" property
> will receive what we now have.
> In any case your theory has been repeatedly disproven by experiment.
> Repeated experiments in a wide variety of times and places, by a wide
> variety of people, from a wide variety of cultures, under a wide
> variety of theories, and every such experiment has been accompanied by
> rivers of blood.
> Socialism only works when accompanied by terror, and often not even
> then.  When Kruschev eased up on the terror, pretty soon the lights
> started going out.  Literal lights, not metaphorical.  People found
> themselves sitting in darkness, which gets pretty depressing during
> Moscow winters.

There you go confusing corporate democracy with economic autocracy
again. Which is it under the Soviet system?  Which is it under our
system? Terror: fear of execution, fear of job termination, fear of
imprisonment, fear of demotion, fear of disagreement with superiors,
fear of unemployment. If you think the Soviets had real socialism
then you probably also think we have real democracy.
--------
If communication defines poverty, then poverty is the lack of control
over communication.

6.6.97 17:27 The mass of larger particles.
6.6.97 18:00 Rococo nomenclature and imperspicuous glossography.
9.6.97 No invisible man in the room.
13.6.97 Creating ourselves in our own image.

From: "G. Eliot" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,comp.ai.alife,comp.ai,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: The psychology of relativists
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 21:06:45 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Martin Tom Brown wrote:
> >    Fascinating. The Field is stationary, while the change in the Field
> > travels at the speed of light ?
> In GR the old Newtonian gravitation field is just a consequence of
> the effects of masses on the framework of space and time.
> Essentially yes- the prohibition is on not being able to transfer
> information at speeds exceeding the speed of light, in this case
> about the gravitational configuration of say a double star.

Remember when this planet was thought to be the center of the
Universe? We invented hugely complex equations to explain the
movement of various celestial bodies, and these equations did
actually have the ability to predict the movement of various
things in our sky. And then we "discovered" that the sun was
the "center" and these equations became much simpler. In the
true relativist spirit, equations from any point of view can
be written to make valid predictions. From some points of view,
these equations get simpler. But it's not just from WHERE you
look at it, it's also HOW you look at it. In this case, the
HOW is a photon. We may be able to see an entire universe
through a telescope, but we won't be able to see the telescope.
-----------
If spacetime is quantized and we are red bishops, we will never
encounter any black bishops.

From: "G. Eliot" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,comp.ai.alife,comp.ai,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: The psychology of relativists
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 14:48:32 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Erik Max Francis wrote:
> No.  In Newtonian gravitation, gravitation propagates instantaneously.
> Newtonian gravitation is, however, wrong -- it is only a special case (low
> speeds, weak fields) of general relativity.  General relativity is a
> causal theory, and thus nongravitational disturbances in the gravitational
> field must propagate no faster than c.

Say we give a supercomputer to Newton. He puts his "erroneous"
laws into that computer and attempts to model the Universe, starting
from the Big Bang. Will it work? Will his simulation eventually
produce an exact copy of Newton himself?

Say we give a supercomputer to Einstein. He puts his relativistic
laws into that computer and attempts to model the Universe as well.
Will Einstein's Big Bang simulation eventually result in another
Einstein?  If so, then in this simulation, the simulated Einstein
will also believe that nothing can travel faster than light. BUT.
But is the simulation's light speed as fast as OUR light speed?
Are we creating ourselves in our own image?
---------
If a Universe can be simulated on a computer, organisms in that
Universe would not be able to tell they are living in a simulation.

From: "S. Arsheesh" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,comp.ai.alife,comp.ai,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: The psychology of relativists
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 22:11:48 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

John August wrote:
> : >In other words: if light can't escape a black hole, how can
> : >gravity?
> : It doesn't. At the event horizon there is infinite time dilation and
> : therefore the gravitational field is "frozen" at it's value when the
> : event horizon formed.
> : What propagates through gravitons in not gravity but _changes_ in the
> : gravitational field.

Why is it that we assume there is no ether and that waves and
fields can propagate by magic?  If we do not have the tools to
observe air molecules, we could also assume wind propagates by
magic. As science advances, we have been able to observe ever
smaller particles. Like trying to prove there is no invisible
man in the room, we can't prove that there aren't particles
smaller than we can observe.  If photons can propagate through
truly empty space like a particle, and also exhibit wave
properties in space where light has already propagated before,
it could well be that photons leave behind their own ether like
a Conway puffer:
http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~callahan/patterns/slopuf2.html
Can gravity escape the Singularity (TM) to affect the rest of
the matter within the event horizon?
--------
If spacetime is quantized and we are red bishops, we will never
encounter any black bishops.

From: "S. Arsheesh" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,sci.physics.relativity,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left,sci.econ,alt.society.labor-unions
Subject: Re: The psychology of relativists
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 18:00:51 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Michael Weiss wrote:
> First of all, you obviously dislike the idea of warped spacetime.  In
> your mind, the mere fact that GR relies on this notion is a big strike
> against it.
> However, the mathematics of warped spacetime is well-understood; much
> of it was worked out by the mathematicians before Einstein ever
> realized it was just what he needed for his theory of gravity.
> How do you distinguish your objection from mere prejudice against
> an unfamiliar notion?

There is the tendency of teachers to simplify things and the
tendency of researchers to complicate things. Teachers want
to get their point across as fast as possible. Researchers
want to make their point as obscure as possible, because
they are competing for funding, for fame, for medals. They
feel no paper is good unless it meets a certain length
minimum.  Not only does it make them feel useful, but it
also prevents young upstarts from threatening their jobs.

In physics, it's warped spacetime. In music, it's the five
lined staff on which notes are written. (In both, it's
rococo nomenclature and imperspicuous glossography.) There
is NO relation between octaves and the five lines on the
traditional staff, but it makes music teachers feel superior
teaching their students how to use a primitive dinosaur.
--------
Pride is the irrelevant man's excuse for still feeling relevant.

From: "S. Arsheesh" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,comp.ai.alife,comp.ai,talk.politics.theory,comp.theory.cell-automata,alt.politics.radical-left
Subject: Re: The psychology of relativists
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 17:27:35 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Fred McGalliard wrote:
> stars. We place the neutron stars in orbit about the hole  just above
> the event horizon. After adding a few million stars we might expect to
> find that the orbit is now within the event horizon. Are the neutron
> stars no longer in orbit? Do they emit gravity waves and fall in? Once
> within, can they emit gravity waves and where do they (the gravity
> waves) go? Just how long does it take for an object to fall from the
> event horizon to the singularity?

In other words: if light can't escape a black hole, how can
gravity? If only gravity can escape a black hole, then gravity
must be a better form of communication than light. What is the
speed of gravity?  Is it faster than light?  We used to think
atoms were solid objects. Then we broke that down to neutrons,
electrons, etc.  And now we have quarks and friends.  If we
continue to try to break down a neutron, we will reach the
point at which force and sub-neutron particles become
indistinguishable. In fact, force, energy, AND matter could
all be different aspects of the same thing.  If all of these
can come in discrete quantized packets, then time and space
may be as quantized as they are in Conway's Game of Life.
Thus, maximum density WILL be reached when every packet of
space has been filled.  And therefore, no singularity.

Does light have mass?  We believe photons to be massless only
because we use photons to measure mass. We are able to measure
the mass of larger particles because we have a much smaller
particle to measure them with.  Thus all we need is a particle
"lighter than light".
--------
We think light is at the speed limit only because we've yet to
observe or create a faster particle. If Conway's lifeforms measure
the universe only with c/4 glider photons, they would have an
entirely different concept of maximum speed and orthogonality.

5.6.97 17:35 The exact spot on which you were born.
7.6.97 The first to go.
19.6.97 21:48 Plenty of time.

From: "G. Eliot" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,talk.politics.theory,alt.postmodern,alt.politics.socialism,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,sci.econ,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Brainwashing? Growth and Immigration.
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 21:56:40 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Jay Hanson wrote:
> I know that it is really going to be tough, but are populations are now
> over carrying capacity.  Populations MUST fall to, or below carrying
> capacity because that is how carrying capacity is defined.
> The only choice we have is wheither we do it our way or nature does it
> her way.

If most humans were as stupid as you, we would've never learned
to support as many people with so few farmers as we are doing
now. "Carry capacity" is only constant if the animals living in
it do not learn how to modify it... or haven't learned to savor
the delicacies of algae and kelp.
----------
If time is money, then bean counters waste their money keeping track
of their time.

From: "G. Eliot" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.postmodern,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,sci.econ,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Brainwashing? Growth and Immigration.
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 21:48:54 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Jay Hanson wrote:
> The two most prestegous scientific instutions in the world, the
>  National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society, stated:
>   "The future of our planet is in the balance. ... The next
>    30 years may be  crucial."  Archived http://dieoff.org/page7.htm
> If that means nothing to you, then you will have to wait till
> you see the bodies piling up on CNN.

Translation: "Give us more funding so we can argue about it
some more."  Fact is, we've got plenty of time to come up with
solutions. So much so that we spend hours everyday grooming the
perfect golf course, or putting up fences around preserves where
animals inside live and humans outside starve.
-----------
Producers who can't produce anything useful keep hiring advertisers
until they have redefined "useful".

From: "S. Arsheesh" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,talk.politics.theory,alt.postmodern,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,sci.econ,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Brainwashing? Growth and Immigration.
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 16:41:59 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Jay Hanson wrote:
> Here is a population graph of what we can human populations
>  can expect in the future:
>    http://dieoff.org/Crash2.GIF

And capitalist pawns like you will be the first to go.
Immigration (TM) is a boogeyman invented by slave masters to draw
attention away from their autocracy. Limited Resources (TM) is a
religion invented by financiers who think patent law is more
productive than marine farming.

From: "S. Arsheesh" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,talk.politics.theory,alt.postmodern,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,sci.econ,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Brainwashing? Growth and Immigration.
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 17:35:39 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Jay Hanson wrote:
> > I didn't think it was so great.  Immigration is not being stepped up fast
> > enough.  We need more people than that.  We've got a lot of problems to
> > solve, and the more minds we have working on them, the better.
> Gosh Steve, what problem do you have that needs immigrants to solve?
> Is it hard to find good factory workers for $1.30 per hour?

YOU are the problem.  Why don't YOU go back where you came from?
How do you define immigration?  Immigration is any movement away
from the exact spot on which you were born.  Christ, get a life.
What kind of paranoia are they teaching pawns these days?  Either
somebody thinks like you or she doesn't.  Either somebody is willing
to kill you for thinking differently, or she isn't.  Where they
are born makes no different. The only way immigration and population
growth can hurt any society is if it is based on competition.
---------
Life is a whim of several billion cells to be you for a while.

5.6.97 Where is the causality?

From: "S. Arsheesh" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness,talk.politics.theory,comp.ai,alt.politics.economics,comp.ai.philosophy,talk.politics.libertarian,sci.cognitive,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.psychology.misc,alt.politics.radical-left
Subject: Re: What is consciousness? A simple biological answer to some big questions
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 20:48:19 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

John Lee Davis wrote:
> Oh no!  Not blind guessing!  There's never been any of that done in science
> before! :)
> It is only our arrogance that makes us think that the established
> traditional mythologies of modern science are absolute or that we really
> understand anything better than a hunter/gatherer shaman.
> Lighten up and explore the world...remember that historically, more
> invention and discovery has occurred when people practiced balanced
> investigation, using both idealist and materialist philosophies. (This
> means use your intuition every now and then-It has served our species well
> for lo these many years)

And the vast majority of the world in fact DOES explore the world.
Who doesn't?  Control freaks. The more power they have, the more
important they actually think their role in the universe is.
Little do they know that they are as deterministic as any other
collection of moving particles. "Intuition" was a concept invented
out of laziness to explain their own thought process, and
perpetuated by idiots who try to inflate their own egos with
proclamations of superior intellience. Human thought is little
more than the sum of the communication that person has heard to
date, combined with a few complete strokes of "luck" called cosmic
rays and background radiation.  The more monkeys with typewriters
there are, the more likely there will be one would think he's
Shakespeare.
-----------
A human is a sex manual's way of producing more sex manuals.

From: "S. Arsheesh" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife,alt.consciousness,comp.theory.cell-automata,comp.ai,talk.politics.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,talk.politics.libertarian,sci.cognition,alt.politics.socialism,sci.philosophy.meta,alt.politics.radical-left,sci.psychology.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: What is consciousnes? A simple biological answer to some big questions
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 17:03:19 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Phil Roberts, Jr. wrote:
> >   One definition of consciousness is "the ability to react to self". The
> > biological advantages of this include understanding what your predator
> > sees, so that you can defend yourself.
> I can think of another.  It is one thing to distinquish one's physical
> self from the rest, but quite another to distinquish between events caused
> to one's self and those caused by one's self.

Life is a chemical reaction. How does one go about defining
what "self" is?  At what point does something you eat, drink, or
breathe "become" a part of you?  At what point do your body's
waste products "stop" being a part of you?  If you write your
thoughts down and then forget them, who do those thoughts on that
paper belong to?  That paper itself?  That tape recorder? That
student or audience member?  If you tell a lie that everybody
believes (for example, "the universe is as round as the earth"),
and they then manage to brainwash you into thinking that your
statement was in fact the truth, where is the causality?

Fans of Conway's Game of Life are constantly in search of the
ultimate self-replicating pattern - a real organism. But even
"life" like us have not achieved that, because every new
"organism" is quite a bit different from its parents... and
unlike the various perfect life-particles, we are not as
eternal as the atomic and subatomic particles we are made of.
--------
A human is a sex manual's way of producing more sex manuals.

5.6.97 15:59 Just because we can't determine it.
5.6.97 16:18 After billions and billions of years.
5.6.97 16:27 Many worlds interpretation of quantum theory.
6.6.97 Because we've yet to observe anything smaller.
7.6.97 The initial state at the start of each game.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.misc.forteana,alt.paranormal,alt.philosophy.debate,comp.ai,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.sci.time-travel,comp.theory.cell-automata,rec.games.chess.misc,sci.physics,comp.ai.alife,sci.physics.relativity
From: i17@netcom.com (Writer of Wrongs)
Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life - Mony Python et al.
Organization: Go Player.
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 05:07:32 GMT

S. Arsheesh (cyu@geocities.com) wrote:
: Shane Hitching wrote:

name morphs again, b c n u.    (Yes I wrote something at the end of this.)

: > > >I think it *is clear* that these calculations could not be done. To do
: > > >them you would need to take the position, velocity, heading and state (at
: > > >least) of all matter and energy in the universe and record these figures.
: > > >Looking at this its quite obvious that the universe could not hold this
: > > >amount of information.
: > > Actually, the universe holds precisely this amount of information - not one
: > > bit more, not one bit less!
: > Bollocks, the universe holds the CURRENT state of the universe or are you
: > saying that I'm in two places at once?
: Depending on the definition of "information".  It can be argued that
: the amount of information in our universe is no more than the 'sum'
: of its initial state and the laws that govern it.  'Much like how' the
: initial conditions and rules of Conway's Game of Life completely
: determine its future.  So why do we even play Conway's game? Because
: we don't actually KNOW the future.  So you might say the concept of
: "information" must also include time.
: ------
: If spacetime is quantized and we are red bishops, we will never
: encounter any black bishops.

Uh, no.  Black bishops eat queens and checkmate kings.  'ENcounters' need
not be DIRECT CONTACT, but can certainly be CLOSER than CLOSE.  

And also, APPEARANCES can be much different from IMPLEMENTATION.  My GAME
OF LIFE runs on a network of Crays, NTs, Newtons, SGIs, NeXTs and more.

17. 22:00 12jun97. 37lines.
-- 
*****************************************************************************
   6+ Trillion Dollars GNP in the USA alone, and NO DECENT SOFTWARE YET ?!
                Boss don't let me die until I debug this life,
     and don't let me rhincornate until I can't make a mess of next time.
        "A .sig is a tail-feather tacked on to a turd."  -- Tak Eeyawn
*****************************************************************************

From: "S. Arsheesh" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife,alt.misc.forteana,comp.theory.cell-automata,alt.paranormal,comp.ai,talk.politics.theory,alt.philosophy.debate,sci.econ,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.politics.socialism,alt.sci.time-travel,talk.politics.libertarian,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.politics.radical-left,sci.physics,alt.society.labor-unions,sci.physics.relativity,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life - Mony Python et al.
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 16:55:46 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

raven1 wrote:
> Non-chess material snipped
> This thread has nothing to do with chess. PLEASE
> trim your headers.

Here's some chess material for you:
1. The question of whether a deterministic machine can beat
   a human player is moot, because human behavior is also
   deterministic when placed in context with the environment.
   We only think human thoughts are non-deterministic because
   the initial state of the human mind at the start of each
   game is different.... and we cannot predict external
   stimulus, like conversation or cosmic rays.
2. Chess is basically a universe of quantized space. Each
   piece can only be on one square. The chess universe is
   limited, but only *appears* limited because one side
   does not wrap around to the other side. Chess is also
   a universe of quantized time - players take turns making
   moves.  The implications for OUR universe are this: if
   our spacetime is quantized, and we are all bishops on one
   type of square, we will never detect nor be able to
   interact with bishops on another type of square, unless
   some sort of intermediary can be found.
--------
Every intelligent society eventually runs simulations and
experiments to explain its own creation, creating new intelligent
societies in the process. God isn't dead. God is just away from
his keyboard.

From: "S. Arsheesh" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: comp.theory.cell-automata,comp.ai,comp.ai.alife,talk.politics.theory,sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life - Mony Python et al.
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 1997 15:20:59 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Bernard Badger wrote:
>  > We only THINK the universe started as a singularity because it seems
>  > all matter originates from the same general vicinity. It could be
>  > quite possible that all matter originated from an area the size of
>  > New Jersey, or my backyard, and we would not know the difference.
>  > Say we ran a simulation of Conway's Game of Life on a supercomputer.
>  > Initially, we could just populate it with a few particles within a
>  > 10x10 grid, but after incredible growth for billions and billions
>  > of years, organisms in that universe will notice that all matter
>  > originates from a Singularity (TM).
> Since Life doesn't have a reversable rule and doesn't have any concepts
> of momentum, you cannot, in general determine from the pattern a point
> where it originated.  For example, starting with a single glider, you can
> trace it backwards as far as you like, but there's no single point.
> If you had two gliders that came from an intersection, then, you could plot
> that point.  However, given Life's many-to-one irreversable mapping, you're
> not likely to be able to get any "source direction" out of a random region.

It's quite possible that we also live in a universe of irreversible
mappings on the small scale, but reversible (and mostly predictable)
on the large scale.  We believe photons, quarks, neutrinos, etc are
small scale only because we've yet to observe anything smaller. We
can also trace the movement of waves and particles as far back as
we like and find no starting point. The only reason we think the
universe originates from from a Singularity is because the gliders
shot out of distant moving glider guns tell us that most glider guns
are moving away from us. Something with both particle and wave
properties may just be similar to something like a breeder.
http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~callahan/patterns/breeder3.html
...and wave cancellation may just be the mutual annihilation of
colliding gliders.
--------
Newton's Law of General Stupidity:
 Human behavior can be completely predicted by knowledge of all the
 chemical and electrical interactions within the brain. Thus there's
 no such thing as "free will".
Heisenburg's Law of Special Stupidity:
 By trying to study the chemical and electrical interactions within
 a person's brain, we change those interactions. Thus it is not
 possible to determine "destiny".

From: "S. Arsheesh" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: comp.theory.cell-automata,alt.misc.forteana,comp.ai.alife,alt.paranormal,talk.politics.theory,alt.philosophy.debate,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.politics.socialism,alt.sci.time-travel,sci.econ,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.politics.radical-left,sci.physics,alt.politics.economics,sci.physics.relativity,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life - Mony Python et al.
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 16:27:18 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

P Vincent wrote:
> Or then there's the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum theory, in
> which the universe is constantly branching and rebranching into
> endless alternate universes. Every time you toss a coin at least
> another three versions of the universe are generated: one in which the
> coin lands Heads Up, one for Tails Up; and one where it lands on its
> edge (maybe even one where it doesn't land at all, but let's not get
> *too* fanciful ).

Looking at the psychology of a computer scientist watching Conway's
Game of Life unfold, we see only one decision: when she will stop
the simulation.  The simulation itself is completely deterministic.
The "many worlds" concept pops up when the observer notices a
pattern she particularly likes. She then saves it to disk, emails
her peers, until more and more versions of that pattern are being
run in computer simulations around the world.  If the observer
notices a pattern she DOESN'T like, she could easily stop the
simulation and delete it... or start a new version of the
simulation, with the offending mistake corrected.
----------
We think light is at the speed limit only because we've yet to
observe or create a faster particle. If Conway's lifeforms measure
the universe only with c/4 glider photons, they would have an
entirely different concept of maximum speed and orthogonality.

From: "S. Arsheesh" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife,alt.misc.forteana,comp.theory.cell-automata,alt.paranormal,talk.politics.theory,alt.philosophy.debate,sci.econ,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.politics.socialism,alt.sci.time-travel,talk.politics.libertarian,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.politics.radical-left,sci.physics,alt.society.labor-unions,sci.physics.relativity,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life - Mony Python et al.
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 16:18:15 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Shane Hitching wrote:
> > When you start talking about knowing exactly the initial
> > conditions of the universe, you are not talking about anything that is
> > possible in this universe, and so any conclusions your argument reaches
> > do not apply here.
> How can you say that the initial condition of the universe cannot exist in
> the universe?  That's a bit like saying that you can't fit a pint of water
> in a pint jug.
> I assume that you meant to say that the big bang singularity (or whatever
> the universe's state was before it was "The Universe") could not exist in
> the universe as it is now.  To use this argument to say that we cannot work
> out the initial state of the universe is quite simply wrong.

We only THINK the universe started as a singularity because it seems
all matter originates from the same general vicinity. It could be
quite possible that all matter originated from an area the size of
New Jersey, or my backyard, and we would not know the difference.
Say we ran a simulation of Conway's Game of Life on a supercomputer.
Initially, we could just populate it with a few particles within a
10x10 grid, but after incredible growth for billions and billions
of years, organisms in that universe will notice that all matter
originates from a Singularity (TM).
--------
Every intelligent society eventually runs simulations and
experiments to explain its own creation, creating new intelligent
societies in the process.

From: "S. Arsheesh" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,comp.theory.cell-automata,alt.misc.forteana,comp.ai.alife,alt.paranormal,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.philosophy.debate,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.politics.socialism,alt.sci.time-travel,alt.politics.radical-left,rec.games.chess.misc,sci.econ,sci.physics,alt.politics.economics,sci.physics.relativity,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life - Mony Python et al.
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 15:59:04 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Rolf Tore Randeberg wrote:
> >Assuming we have an ability to analyse each and every atomic,
> >electromagnetic and gravitational interaction from the "Big Bang" onward
> >then surely all events that occur can be exactly and precisely described,
> >whether in the "future" or the "past
> No.  Ever heard of quantum mechanics?  It is the physicists' most usefull
> and most incomprehensible theory.  One of it's outcomes is that you cannot
> know the position and velocity of something at the same time.  And that
> makes it impossible to know all events in the past, and certainly in the
> future!
> >Is the Universe, past, present and future entirely predictable as in the
> >ultimate best game of Chess, if not why not?
> >Does Random Chance actually exist? (Was it Einstein that said "God doesn't
> >play Dice?")
> This is a very interesting question.  According to my statement above, the
> answer should have been no, the universe is not predictable.  But the
> puzzle is:  Is the universe deterministic, but does not allow us to
> determine it's future?  Or is the universe indeterministic?  You see, most
> physicists dealing with quantum mechanics would say that the uncertainty in
> the position and velocity is a fundamental aspect of the universe. Others,
> like me, who is not an expert, would say that the uncertanty is sort of a
> "filter" that inhibit us from determinating the future, but that the
> universe really evolves in a deterministic way.

In other words: just because we can't determine it, doesn't mean it's
non-deterministic. In Conway's Game of Life, there is a "Law" that
says once symmetry has been achieved, it can never be lost. This
however, assumes that there are no hardware (nor software) glitches
in the computer on which the simulation is running. If Werner
Heisenberg sits down in front of that computer, he could easily emit
a photon that ultimately results in a computer glitch, changing
the world Through the Looking Glass.
-----------
We think light is at the speed limit only because we've yet to
observe or create a faster particle. If Conway's lifeforms measure
the universe only with c/4 glider photons, they would have an
entirely different concept of maximum speed and orthogonality.

From: "E. Schrodinger" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,talk.politics.theory,alt.postmodern,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,sci.econ,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Morality and Brainwashing
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 16:06:27 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Paul D. Lanier wrote:
> Excuse me, sir.  Or maybe ma'am for all I know.  But when was the last
> time people were killed for violating marriage, that is when was the last
> time people were executed by law because they committed adultery?  Not in
> this country, the U.S.  Maybe in Islamic nations.  And if I remember, the
> Israelite law that said adultery was wrong, also said it was punishable by
> death.  But the precedent now followed is this:  people get divorced
> because of adultery.  (They divorce for far sillier reasons than this.)
> Yes, people are murdered for adultery, but if caught the murderer is put
> in jail for a long time.  But the free love lifestyle is more likely to
> bring violence, by the personal accounts I've listened to, besides the
> news stories I've read.  American society is far likelier in this day
> and age to fall into the tribal flaws of killing for temporary mates than
> it is in instituting execution for violations of marital vows. (Though its
> possible that neither extreme comes about.) What the heck are you getting
> at?  Brainwashing is not morality.

What, then, is morality? Who defines it? Who has the RIGHT to define
it?  There is marriage and there is non-marriage. There is sex and
there is non-sex. There is aggression and there is apathy. Violence
over adultery happens when Marriage (TM) becomes so canonized that
aggressors begin to believe their own sense of self-worth is
completely tied to what their spouses do in their free time.
Marriage is little more than a past agreement over the future
monopolization of another person's time.  It has its good points
and it has its bad. Idiots can't tell the difference.
--------
Shift would always say, "Now, Puzzle, I understand what needs to be
done better than you. You know you're not clever Puzzle." And Puzzle
always said, "No, Shift. It's quite true. I'm not clever." Then he
would sigh and do whatever Shift had said.

From: "E. Schrodinger" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left,sci.econ,alt.politics.socialism,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.ronald-reagan,talk.politics.misc,misc.jobs.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: wages
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 15:42:46 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Randy Reingold wrote:
> >>Let's look at this like a cynic. Two companies make the same product. They
> >>use the same raw materials and pay the same taxes. The next large cost to
> >>both is, of course, labour. For either company to get a competitive edge,
> >>they must lower a cost, and if raw materials and taxes are constant, they
> >>must attack labour. That's why once one company in an industry moves a
> >>factory to Mexico, all the others must follow suit - or fold.
> >The irony is that as labor "fights" to keep wages up, it merely give
> >the employers greater motivation to move their operations across the
> >border. hehehe, the more they fight, the more they lose.
> >indispensable to him.  Not only do you have to prepare yourself for
> >the competitive job market, you have to make sure that you keep one
> >step ahead of it and your competition.  I've done this.....most of my
> >friends and peers have done this, my kids are doing it, almost
> >everybody is doing it.  If you get put out of a job, you haven't.
> Actually, the answer to keeping jobs in th U.S. is real simple:
> If you don't want to support shipment of our industry abroad,
> DON'T BUY ANYTHING MANUFACTURED IN A FORIEGN COUNTRY!

Pavlov's dogs, everywhere we look. Prosperity is NOT employment at
any cost, it's employment ONLY when needed OR desired. An import
is nothing but another bozo doing your work for you. A distributer
pays cash for a real product, to resell within the country for
more cash.  After the cost of shipping, marketing, and his own
livelihood, what the distributor has left is called profit. Where
does the money go?  Where currency goes MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. What
DOES matter is if free time is increasing while standard of living
is constant or if free time is constant while free time is
increasing.  Buying domestic products does nothing but keep slavery
inside the country, instead of outside. But hey, that's what
more jobs are all about isn't it? Universal slavery.
--------
Life is a tennis match - an audience of journalists, a capitalist
referee, philosopher players, and everyone else is the tennis ball.
Great tennis requires no audience, no referee, not even a tennis ball.

From: "E. Schrodinger" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.socialism,alt.current-events.usa,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.activism,alt.society.liberalism,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.economics,sci.econ
Subject: Re: John Parker's Starting Capital. (WAS:CEO wages up 24%. Worker wages go south.)
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 14:49:35 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

John Parker wrote:
> First of all, Buddy, making money isn't the goal, making the most
> money that can be made is the goal.....anything less than the max is a
> loss.

That's your goal eh?  If you were the only human on this planet,
would you be spending all your waking hours at the mint? Or are
you just trying to get on the high score board?  For bragging
rights?  Because you don't feel like A Man (TM) unless you can
eat the most hotdogs in a minute, throw the most balls into
a hoop, and display the biggest taxidermied carcass over your
fireplace?
--------
"Winning isn't everything... winning and gloating and rubbing
their noses in it, THAT'S everything."

3.6.97 15:52 It's called crypto-monarchy.
3.6.97 16:08 Censoring production with lawsuits.
3.6.97 16:27 Why does this happen?
17.6.97 To waste time effectively.

From: "W. Bagger" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,sci.econ,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.economics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Where will the GDP go?
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 18:05:13 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Ed Ellers wrote:
>> "Even if they didn't immigrate and we ship tons of currency to other
>> countries, all it does is cause deflation here and inflation over
>> there."
> You don't want to see deflation here.  Trust me.

"Trust me" is another way of saying, "I don't have a fucking clue
what I'm talking about. I just heard it from somebody else." A
lack of currency just means sellers will have to lower prices until
they again sell enough to cover their employees. Short-sighted
idiots only see themselves lowering prices. Loss of profits! Oh
no!  Did they notice that everyone else lowered prices too? Lower
earnings + lower prices... what do you get?  Not a bit of change
in purchasing power.

So what really happens if we ship currency overseas?  Other
countries become more able to buy up U.S. "assets". Is this bad?
Only if you think value exists in inanimate objects and not in
the people that actually do stuff with those objects - only under
capitalism.
----------
Folfanga. Fourth world of the Folfanga system. Estimated journey time,
three weeks. There to meet with a small slug. Of the genus A-Rth-Urp-
Hil-Ipdenu. I believe that you had decided to call it a brainless prat.

From: "G. Eliot" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.economics,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Where will the GDP go?
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 22:42:34 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Steve Conover, Sr. wrote:
> >"The grandchildren will also inherit the flip side of the debt, so they
> >will be paying themselves off."
> >You can't generalize that way.  Not everyone holds a share of that debt;
> >some of it is held by foreigners, for example.  So if and when the debt is
> >paid off it will be a transfer from those who don't to those who do.
> (a) What if we could convince those foreigners to immigrate?
> (b) What if we continue to roll the debt over, as any growing
> entity can do safely as long as it continues to grow?

Even if they didn't immigrate and we ship tons of currency to other
countries, all it does is cause deflation here and inflation over
there. The movement of numbers does nothing but keep bean counters
distracted and give everyone else ulcers.

Like trading a handful of gold for the emperor's new clothes, a bag
of Montana air for a bag of Texas air, it doesn't really matter who
gets what. All that matters is that both parties think they are
actually doing something useful, and have managed to waste their
time quite effectively.
--------
The light of his faith quite put out, and his affections made desolate,
he had clung with all the force of his nature to his work and his money;
and like all objects to which a man devotes himself, they had fashioned
him into correspondence with themselves... For joy is the best of wine,
and Silas's guineas were a golden wine of that sort.

From: "E. Schrodinger" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Where will the GDP go?
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 16:27:12 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Steve Conover, Sr. wrote:
> So it's an oversimplification, if not a cart-before-horse
> assertion, to imply that a "decent wage" is the solution to the
> growth problem.
> The solution is more complex: entrepreneurs who understand how
> markets grow: cut the price so more buyers can afford it,
> combined with the creation of more buyers who can afford the
> better price.  Entrepreneurs who understand this are the ones who
> win big; those who don't are the ones who lose, and deserve to.

Blah blah blah. Get a clue dimwit. No a decent wage isn't
going to solve anyone's problems except those getting the
better wage. And there are many ways to get increased sales.
Either brainwash consumers to buy your product with
marketing, or figure out what it is your consumers want
with consumer democracy. There are many ways to increase
worker productivity. The hope of higher wages is among
them. BUT. But consider how many volunteers are willing
to work for various political causes for free. WHY does
this happen?  Because they actually believe in what they
are doing and have the power to change things. Can we
say free speech and democracy in the workplace?
--------
There's only one zoo where we can see unreasonable humans: the media.

From: "E. Schrodinger" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Where will the GDP go?
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 16:08:28 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

William F. Hummel wrote:
> Invention is not production.  Sure, occasionally inventors come up with
> something that has real value and market potential.  But new products are
> only a drop in the bucket in the big picture.  Most of what is bought in
> the market is existing products, e.g. houses, autos, furniture, food, and
> clothing.

But the ACT if invention IS production. The production of
knowledge. Like the ACT of manufacturing is the production of
something tangible.  But does an assembly line worker get a
kick back everytime someone uses any of the cars he's ever
made in his lifetime?  No. He gets paid only for the amount
of time he spent building that car.  So why isn't the
production of inventions, art, writing, etc rewarded in the
same way as the production of more tanglible objects, instead
of censoring production with lawsuits?  The answer is that we
don't really believe in free speech.  Actually, the real
answer is that inventors and writers ARE compensated like
assembly line workers, and that patents and copyrights which
were once meant to protect the individual are now held by
corporate bureaucracies.
--------
If there's self-censorship in the press,
we'll never know there's self-censorship in the press.

From: "E. Schrodinger" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: Where will the GDP go?
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 15:52:26 -0700
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

jim blair wrote:
> Increasingly, the "owners of the means of production" ARE "the people". I
> read that now about 45% of all adults own stocks, mostly through mutual
> funds. And I think that does not even count those who "own" stock by
> their retirement programs.

Ironic isn't it? "Owning" the means of of production, yet unable
to control them. Who does control them?  Why, the handlers of
mutual funds of course. Who makes all the decisions?  Board
members who purposely obscure every decision behind legalese
in order to get proxy voting power. It's called crypto-monarchy.
--------
If communication defines poverty, then poverty is the lack of control
over communication.

CJohnYu.96@alum.mit.edu [email/index]

---